University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

21st century skills as equity pedagogy to teach academic content standards: a socioeconomically diverse district's implementation

(USC Thesis Other)

21st century skills as equity pedagogy to teach academic content standards: a socioeconomically diverse district's implementation

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
21ST CENTURY SKILLS AS EQUITY PEDAGOGY TO TEACH ACADEMIC
CONTENT STANDARDS: A SOCIOECONOMICALLY
DIVERSE DISTRICT’S IMPLEMENTATION

by

Robert Schwartz
_____________________________________________________________________

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 Robert Schwartz

ii
DEDICATION
Completing a doctoral program while raising newborn twins was not easy. If it
were not for my amazing and understanding wife, Amy, this would not have been
possible. She spent countless nights with them when I was in class and took them to her
parents’ house on weekends so that I could write this dissertation. This dissertation is
dedicated solely to her, for without her and her love and support, this would not have
been possible.
Now four, Lucas and Maya may not comprehend what this all means, but I hope
that one day it inspires them to pursue their dreams and use education as a pathway to
reaching their ultimate potential. I hope it challenges them to see their responsibility in
making a difference in society where education can serve as a great equalizer.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I want to start out by recognizing the constant and enduring support of Dr.
Priscilla Wohlstetter. Having helped me navigate through USC during my masters and
doctoral programs, she is always a trusted advisor for all things academic, professional,
and personal. I would not have gotten to the terminus of my formal education without
her.
Dr. Pedro Garcia, my dissertation chair, has made this process as painless as
possible, providing insight and guidance – and most importantly, helping connect me
with my study district. Thank you for bridging theory and practice. Your real-world
experience as an urban superintendent motivates me to see what is possible in the
reforming of public education.
Thank you also to Dr. Rudy Crew for answering an email from me when he first
arrived on campus and then agreeing to serve on my committee. His thoughtful questions
during my proposal defense greatly strengthened the overall study. I echo the sentiments
about Dr. Garcia in terms of motivating me to see what is possible.
Finally, I want to acknowledge my professors at the USC Rossier School of
Education. I want to especially recognize Dr. Sylvia Rousseau, who provided me with the
most transformative experience I have ever had as a student. Her passion and dedication
to the pursuit of equity in education infected the very fiber of my being and made me
reflect on my own beliefs and practice in relation to the importance of diversity in our
society.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii

Acknowledgments iii

List of Tables vii

List of Figures viii

Abstract ix

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 2
The Federal Response 2
The State Response 4
The District Response 5
The Global Achievement Gap 7
Statement of the Problem 9
Purpose of the Study 9
Research Questions 10
Significance of the Study 10
Limitations 11
Delimitations 12
Definitions of Related Terms 12

Chapter Two: Literature Review 15
Introduction 15
A Structural Framework to Guide the Study 16
21
st
Century Skills as Equity Pedagogy to Teach Academic Content 20
Knowledge
Effective District Strategy for Reform 29
Choices Concerning Curriculum and Instruction 32
Professional Development for Teachers and Principals 34
Fostering Relationships with Students and the Community 36
Around Student Achievement
Tying it All Together 39
Freedom School District 40

v
Metropolitan School District 41
Fullerton School District Laptop Program 43
Superintendent Leadership in Smaller Urban Districts 46
Gaps in the Literature 49
Assessment Systems for 21
st
Century Learning 49
Measuring Skills for the 21
st
Century 51
The Promise of 21
st
the Century Assessment System 55
Conclusion 55

Chapter Three: Methodology 59
Introduction 59
Sample Population 61
Data Collection Procedures 62
Data Analysis Procedures 65
Ethical Considerations 66

Chapter Four: Findings 67
Introduction 67
Initial Meeting with Study District 68
Research Questions 69
Criteria 70
Methodology 71
Participants 72
Responses to Research Question 1 73
A Board Mandate for Change 73
Schools Feel Pressure from Both Ends 76
External Influences Used as an Additional Lever 78
Resistance Serves as a Negative Influence 79
Responses to Research Question 2 83
The Strategic Planning Process Guides Implementation 83
District Alignment 87
Setting the Message to the School Staff—Compliance 88
versus Creativity
The Addition of Programs – CTE and ROP 90
Selection of a Delivery Framework – The Marzano Strategies 91
Professional Development and the Movement Towards 94
Professional Learning Communities
Responses to Research Question 3 96
Statewide Testing Data 96
Preparation for the 21
st
Century 99
Changing Teacher Practice 101
Discussion 106

vi

Chapter Five: Conclusions 109
Summary 109
Emergent Themes 110
Conclusions 110
Recommendations for Future Research Questions 113
Implications 114

References 117

Appendices 122
Appendix A: District Staff Interview Guide 122
Appendix B: Principal Focus Group Guide 123
Appendix C: Teacher Survey 124

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Examples of 21
st
Century Skills Frameworks 18
Table 2: Wagner’s Framework v. HHUSD Strategic Plan 86
Table 3: Marzano Strategies vs. Wagner’s Framework vs. 92
HHUSD Strategic Plan

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Framework for Literature Review and Case Study 20
Figure 2: Importance of Instructional Technology to Student Learning 77
Figure 3: Elementary School API Scores Over Time 97
Figure 4: Secondary School API Scores Over Time 98
Figure 5: AP Exam Participation and Passage Rates 100
Figure 6: SAT Participation and Average Scores 100
Figure 7: Impact of Professional Development for Differentiated 103
Instruction on Teaching Practice

Figure 8: Impact of Professional Development for 21
st
Century 104
Skills on Teaching Practice

Figure 9: Impact of Professional Development for New Methods of 105
Instruction on Teaching Practice

Figure 10: Impact of Professional Development for New Curriculum and 105
Instructional Materials on Teaching Practice

ix
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to systematically understand how Harbor Heights
Unified School District, a socioeconomically diverse district, decided upon,
implemented, and evaluated a plan to foster 21
st
Century skills in their students and
continued to improve its API scores. The hypothesis of this dissertation, based on an
extensive review of the literature, was that the 21
st
Century skills are a highly effective
pedagogy for teaching academic content knowledge, particularly for students of color.
Anecdotal and statistical data bore out that HHUSD has made great strides in enacting
this type of program.
Four major findings emerged that can serve as a blueprint for other districts
wishing to embark on this ambitious undertaking: (a) the district was clearly aligned
around this endeavor from the board president to the superintendent and his staff to the
school site principals, (b) the district involved all stakeholders in meaningful ways to
create the strategic plan, (c) data drives decision-making at all levels in the organization,
and (d) as a Professional Learning Community, the district fixes the outputs required for
their schools and provides support for individual schools in mapping their own courses to
get there. These themes serve as a basis for action at HHUSD and can be effectively
applied to any type of district reform.

1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the
demands of a new age.
– President Barack Obama from his Inaugural Address
Introduction
Fifty years ago, the United States of America was almost unanimously regarded
as having the best schools in the world, producing the most highly educated labor force.
What was once the envy of all nations, developing and developed alike, has now been
exposed as deficient, especially when compared to other countries. But American student
achievement is not so much slipping; rather, other countries are gaining and surpassing as
the United States stands still (Schleicher, 2006). The real tragedy is not this loss of status,
but our country’s response to it.
For American children and youth, student achievement as defined by academic
subject-based exams is weak in terms of international assessments such as the Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Gonzales, 2008) and the
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) (OECD, 2007). This type of
student achievement is referred to as standards-based academic subject matter
knowledge. Students also need to acquire knowledge, skills, and perspectives relevant to
their success as citizens, life-long learners, and participants in the economy of the 21
st

Century. This focus typically includes complex problem-solving, new forms of literacy,
working collaboratively, and new ways of acquiring and communicating knowledge.

2
Such skills have been packaged together and defined as “21
st
Century Skills.” This
movement has led business organizations, partnerships, and educational alliances to
create their own definitions and sets of 21
st
Century learning objectives (Wagner, 2008).
These disparate groups are in agreement about the need for new skills and even what
these should skills should be in order to meet the demands of today’s economy; now they
need to reach a consensus about how states and districts should communicate them,
implement them, and assess them. The issue often becomes an either/or proposal--we
either teach standards-based curriculum or we teach 21
st
Century skills—with standards-
based academic content usually coming out on top, particularly in districts serving a
majority of students of color (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Kantor & Lowe, 2006; Karp,
2004).

Background of the Problem
The Federal Response
The current national education policy embodied in No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
was a response to poor student achievement nationally and internationally (Causey-Bush,
2005; Goertz & Duffy, 2003). The United States has a long-standing “concern” about
student achievement, with reactive policies and wide-sweeping initiatives dating back to
1965. NCLB is the eighth reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA). Each major federal educational policy initiative immediately
postdates a national awakening from an international stimulus. The original ESEA,

3
enacted by President Lyndon B. Johnson, came on the heels of the Russian launches of
Sputnik in 1957 and then the manned Vostok 1 in 1961. This authorization was in
response to not only these external incidents, but also the national war on poverty and the
growing civil rights movement. In this way, the federal government set initial
precedence for its expanded role in educational policy (Kantor & Lowe, 2006).
From A Nation at Risk to Goals 2000 to NCLB, the federal government has
marched towards the creation of school and district-based accountability systems. Goals
2000 tied funding to the implementation of provisions in the act by mandating that states
design a comprehensive improvement plan whereby statewide testing programs assessed
clear academic standards (Goals 2000, 1996).
If the conception of academic standards and statewide testing has become the
legacy of Goals 2000, then sanctions for poor performance on the testing against those
standards is the hallmark of No Child Left Behind. NCLB was also the first time that the
federal government had held schools responsible for ensuring that all racial, ethnic, and
socioeconomic subgroups were improving in relation to the academic standards. A
school or district that missed the target as a whole or in an individual subgroup was now
labeled a “Program Improvement” school or district. According to Kantor and Lowe,
Indeed, while NCLB continues the trajectory set in motion during the Great
Society that places education at the center of the federal government’s
responsibility for social provision, the government’s chief role under the act has
become a regulatory or disciplinary one rather than a distributive or compensatory
one. (2006, pp. 480-481)

4
The formation of standards and statewide testing programs went from being strongly
encouraged to federally mandated with assessment scores made public for all to see
(Hursh, 2005).
The State Response
The first principle is accountability… – President Bush, January 2002
States have adopted standards-based comprehensive school reform to improve
student achievement. This reform has typically included a number of key elements: state
standards-based assessments, an accountability system linked to school-specific progress
in improving performance on the state assessments, and curricular alignment to state
assessments (Datnow & Kemper, 2003). Even before the enactment of NCLB in 2001,
48 states had already created academic standards and implemented some sort of statewide
testing program. Now, all 50 states have academic standards and statewide testing
programs (Goertz & Duffy, 2003).
The alignment of statewide testing with established state standards caused
districts and schools to rethink the way courses were structured, students were tested, and
teachers were trained. Teacher professional development was refocused on how to use
district-prescribed pacing guides and data to inform instruction. Chapter and end-of-unit
tests were no longer developed by individual teachers, but rather mandated by districts
that aligned the tests to the district objectives, which were themselves aligned to state
testing targets. Teachers were expected to use the results of those tests to go back and
reteach where students were not on target for district and state goals. Many districts

5
replaced performance assessments with textbook publishing company tests as a further
way to measure student progress (Goertz & Duffy, 2003). Under NCLB, the validity and
reliability of standardized and commercially produced assessments trump the subjectivity
of teacher created tests, particularly innovative, authentic performance assessments
designed to test student application, analysis, and synthesis of knowledge (Hursh, 2005;
Sloane & Kelly, 2003).
The District Response
The [education] achievement gap is the civil rights issues of our time.
--Rod Paige, former Secretary of Education (Hursh, 2005, p. 610)

Statewide testing programs under NCLB have become high stakes for teachers,
schools, districts, and states, but not necessarily for students. That the critical public eye
is trained on testing is exacerbated by the very public release of statewide test score data
coupled with the labeling of schools as successful, improving, or in need of improvement.
This visibility places unprecedented stress on the school system. Publicity is the most
common form of accountability (Goertz & Duffy, 2003) and has extremely negative
ramifications for schools identified as failing. Diverse urban schools with high
populations living in poverty have a greater chance of being tagged with program
improvement status because they traditionally perform lower on standardized tests than
more affluent White, suburban districts (Meier, 2004). Compounding the problem is that
urban schools have a greater variety of subgroups with larger populations, thus making it
more difficult to meet AYP. If even one subgroup does not meet its growth target, then

6
the entire school is considered to be in program improvement (Kantor & Lowe, 2006;
Kim, 2003).
When evaluating based on state-adopted standards-based assessments, NCLB and
state accountability systems have labeled many school districts, particularly urban and
rural districts, as “Program Improvement.” This status pressures those districts to refocus
curriculum solely on what is tested under the accountability system, forgoing higher
order thinking and problem-solving activities (Manna, 2006). There are many demands
on school districts to narrow curriculum, instruction, professional development, and
assessment to standards-based academic subject matter knowledge (Meier & Wood,
2004).
One survey found that over 70% of school districts responded to NCLB and
statewide testing by reducing the amount of time spent on history, music, and art in order
to create additional time for reading and math; such changes were most common in high-
poverty districts (Kantor & Lowe, 2006). According to Hursh,
Because of the pressure to raise test scores, particularly in the urban school
districts, teachers are compelled to teach the skills and knowledge that will be
tested, neglecting other usually more complex aspects of the subject and some
subjects altogether. (2005, p. 613)

Without being able to assess students in a quantifiable manner, sustaintaining any
program targeting such abstract skills becomes close to impossible, no matter how
valuable schools and educators believe they are (Broadfoot, 2000).
Schools and districts feel compelled to provide students with “test prep” in order
to better prepare them for the statewide testing program. Eschewing essays and more

7
complex types of tests and test questions, teachers dedicate an inordinate amount of time
and curricular budget to test prep materials, as opposed to enrichment opportunities, for
students (Hursh, 2005). Student creativity and interest inevitably suffer as teachers
supplant instructional time previously spent on culturally relevant, extended learning
opportunities that promote student thinking with testing strategies sessions (Causey-Bush,
2005).
The national implementation of NCLB with academic content standards and
statewide testing programs has not begun to close the global achievement gap, as
evidenced by the most recent findings from PISA in 2006 or TIMSS in 2007. Most
glaring is the United States’ poor performance on PISA, which assesses the application of
knowledge in new situations and other higher-order critical thinking skills necessary for
student success in high-paying jobs (Schleicher, 2006). Continuing the work of Goals
2000, NCLB has forced states to identify clear academic content standards and to design
standardized ways to assess student knowledge attainment of those standards. With the
focus on the racial achievement gap, a new global achievement gap has emerged as the
United States falls further and further behind other nations in preparing students for the
new global society (DeLorenzo, Battino, Schreiber, & Carrio, 2009; Wagner, 2008).
The Global Achievement Gap
[NCLB needs to] help the transformation from a rickety early 20th century school
system into a 21st – Rick Hess, Education Gadfly Podcast, January 22, 2009

One of the leading promoters of 21
st
Century skills is The Partnership for 21
st

Century Skills. Together with The Conference Board, Corporate Voices for Working

8
Families, and the Society of Human Resource Management, The Partnership (2006)
released a study entitled, “Are They Really Ready to Work?”. A survey of over 400
leading businesses found that, among other things, over 80% of employers identified
critical thinking/problem-solving as the most important skill for new hires; 70% of those
employers felt high school graduates were ill-prepared in this area. Employers also
sought skills around professionalism/work ethic, oral and written communication, and
teamwork/collaboration.
The fact remains that the current educational system is not designed for the new,
ever-changing economy. As America tries to catch up with other countries, it must keep
in mind that schools should not prepare students for today, but for a world that does not
yet even exist (DeLorenzo et al., 2009). Assessments and the curriculum that the
educational system has created do not begin to tackle such issues (Silva, 2008).
Indeed, the movement for such new skills is not new at all; it has been around
since the early 1990s. The US Department of Labor (1991) and the National Center on
Education and the Economy (1990) released similar reports elucidating the need for new
workforce skills to be taught within the K-16 educational system. Such skills included
critical thinking and problem-solving, distributed and creative leadership, and applying
academic knowledge to real-world situations (DeLorenzo et al., 2009). Although the title
21
st
Century Skills has been around for almost 20 years, the ideas behind promoting such
skills have been around since the dawn of formalized education itself. The new challenge
is in ensuring that this movement becomes neither a fad nor a substitute for actually

9
teaching academic content; rather this movement must change the very way that content
is delivered (Rotherham, 2008).
In fact, students benefit most when 21
st
Century skills are applied to teaching
academic content. Even though neuroscientists and learning theorists have espoused this
idea for generations, major disconnect at the federal, state, district, school, and individual
classroom levels still exists (Broadfoot, 2000). Not only is it possible to teach 21st
Century skills and academic content in concert, but also students will better master the
academic standards-based material and become prepared to participate in the new global
workforce. Instead of viewing these educational imperatives as competing forces,
educators must recognize that they are most effective when implemented in support of
each other (Silva, 2008).

Statement of the Problem
The problem in this study is to identify and examine a diverse urban school
district successfully preparing its students for both the statewide testing programs
mandated under NCLB and the college and the work world in the new global economy
with the tools defined as 21
st
Century skills.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine how a framework for teaching 21
st

Century skills as the pedagogy to deliver standards-based academic content knowledge

10
affects student achievement in a diverse urban school district. By viewing the
standards as the content and the skills as the vehicle to teach the content, a district
ensures that students receive a balanced approach, thereby exhibiting success on both
statewide testing and college and work preparedness.

Research Questions
The study focuses on the connection school districts make between 21
st
Century
skills and standards-based academic content. The research questions that guide the study
are:
• What influences are driving the demand for 21
st
Century skills as equity pedagogy
at the district?
• What is the district’s design for utilizing 21
st
Century skills as a pedagogy for
teaching standards-based academic content knowledge?
• To what extent has the district’s design been implemented successfully and how
does the district measure success?

Significance of the Study
Usually the most impoverished students of color are short-changed in our
educational system (Cole, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 2004). While much attention is
being paid to the national achievement gap between such students and their White
counterparts, educators are losing site of the ever-expanding global achievement gap.

11
With the emphasis NCLB has placed on standardized testing, diverse urban school
districts, in particular, feel mounting pressure to “teach to the test,” often narrowing the
curriculum and the pedagogy used to teach it. Meanwhile, districts successfully
navigating the standardized testing maze and avoiding the “Program Improvement” tag,
are freed to turn their attention to 21
st
Century skills. As such, a new achievement gap
replaces the old one, where students in higher performing districts are exposed to
rigorous curriculum, relevant instruction, and mentoring relationships that set them up for
success in the global economy.
For this reason, studies of urban districts successfully teaching students 21
st

Century skills and supporting their achievement in statewide testing programs must be
added to the literature. This case study could serve as a blueprint for similar school
districts, acting as a bridge between the theoretical and the practical. Superintendents,
assistant superintendents, school board members, and community organizers are the
district-level stakeholders who can utilize the conclusions from this study. Individual
school instructional leaders could also apply the findings on a smaller scale.

Limitations
There are about 15,000 school districts in the United States. This case study
focuses on one of those districts. This project produces a limited sample size and presents
but a snapshot in the history of the district’s implementation of a program focused on 21
st

Century skills. Additionally, many definitions exist of 21
st
Century skills and each and

12
every district may choose to use a different definition. Therefore, the findings of this
case study can only be generalized to the specific population in that district.

Delimitations
There are many different definitions and lists of 21
st
Century skills; as such,
researchers must settle on one, create one by synthesizing them all, form a new one, or
apply the definition used by the district of study. This study used Wagner’s Seven
Survival Skills as the framework for 21
st
Century skills. The entire dissertation group
chose this framework and methodology and cocreated the survey instruments. Keeping in
context issues surrounding equity and the achievement gap, a diverse urban school
district was selected.

Definitions of Related Terms
• 21
st
Century Skills – The skills needed by students in order to compete in a global
economy and go beyond standards-based academic content knowledge.
• API – The CDE website defines API in the following way:
The Academic Performance Index is the cornerstone of California’s Public
Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA). The purpose of the API is to
measure the academic performance and growth of schools. It is a numeric index
(or scale) that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000. A school’s score on the
API is an indicator of a school’s performance level. The statewide API
performance target for all schools is 800. A school’s growth is measured by how
well it is moving toward or past that goal. A school’s API Base is subtracted from
its API Growth to determine how much the school improved in a year.

13

• AYP – The CDE website defines AYP thusly:
The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 requires that California
determine whether or not each public school and local educational agency (LEA)
is making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). (A LEA is a school district or county
office of education). AYP criteria encompass four areas: participation rate,
percent proficient (also referred to as Annual Measurable Objectives or AMOs),
API as an additional indicator for AYP, and graduation rate. Each of these four
areas has specific requirements. Participation rate and percent proficient criteria
must be met in both English-language arts (ELA) and in mathematics.

• ESEA – The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, first authorized by
Congress in 1965, is the federal education policy that governs how federal funds
are spent for the purpose of education. It has been reauthorized eight times, most
recently as No Child Left Behind (Kantor & Lowe, 2006).
• Global Achievement Gap – The gap between the educational quality provided by
even the best American schools and what all students will need to know and be
able to do today and in the future (Wagner, 2008).
• NCLB – No Child Left Behind is the latest reauthorization of ESEA and requires
states to set goals for all students to be at least proficient on statewide
standardized assessments based on statewide academic content standards by the
2013-2014 school year (Department of Education website).
• OECD – The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is a
cohort of 30 countries committed to democracy and a free market economy. Most
important to this study is that the OECD administers PISA (OECD website).

14
• PISA – The Programme for International Student Assessment is administered to
15 year-olds in 43 countries and purports to assess critical thinking and problem-
solving skills by seeing how well students can apply knowledge to real world
situations (PISA website).
• Program Improvement – According to the CDE website:
The NCLB Act requires all states to implement statewide accountability systems
based on challenging state standards in reading and mathematics, annual testing
for all students in grades 3-8, and annual statewide progress objectives ensuring
that all groups of students reach proficiency within 12 years. Assessment results
are disaggregated by socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited
English proficiency to ensure that no group is left behind. Local educational
agencies (LEAs) and schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP)
toward statewide proficiency goals are subject to improvement and corrective
action measures. In California, Program Improvement (PI) is the formal
designation for Title I-funded schools and LEAs that fail to make AYP for two
consecutive years

• Standards-based academic subject matter – The academic knowledge specifically
identified by each state’s Department of Education that must be taught in specific
subjects at specific grade levels. Every state has different standards-based
academic subject matter. Textbook companies and testing agencies attempt to
tailor their programs and products to these standards.
• TIMSS – The Trends in Mathematics and Science Study is administered by the
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). It
strives to create comparative analysis of educational achievement, curriculum,
and instructional delivery in mathematics and science by testing students in the
fourth and eighth grades (Mullis & Martin, 2006).

15
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
Public education faces ever-increasing pressure in the form of high-stakes testing
and accountability based on academic content standards. Whereas many states, districts,
and schools often use these demands as a reason to narrow the curriculum and the
pedagogy used to teach it, several others recognize how powerful teaching 21
st
Century
skills can be for fostering student success in state-level high stakes assessments as well as
in the new global economy. Many in education pitch the battle between academic
content standards and 21
st
Century skills as an either/or proposition, when in reality the
most effective instructional programs integrate the two (Dede, 2007). According to
Silva, “Integrating 21
st
century skills into teaching and assessment, then, is not only an
economic imperative, driven by changes in the workforce, but a vital aspect of improving
student learning” (2008, p. 6).
Notably, the vast majority of districts that has integrated the two is located in an
affluent area and implements such programs only after it has achieved a high level of
success on statewide accountability measures. Once again, students of color are left out,
only exacerbating the achievement gap between students of color and their White peers
(Friedlander & Darling-Hammond, 2007; Zohar & Dori, 2003). The purpose of this
dissertation is to identify a diverse urban school district that has successfully

16
implemented 21
st
Century skills as a pedagogy to teach academic content knowledge,
thereby successfully raising test scores on traditional state accountability measures and
fostering college and work-ready students.
This chapter begins by laying out a multifaceted framework to guide the
exploration of the literature and its relation to the study. Within that framework, the
review will investigate effective pedagogical practices that are incorporating 21
st
Century
skills to teach academic content knowledge. Then, the literature review will center on
what the research says about how districts and superintendents effectively guide an
agenda for curricular and pedagogical reform. A discussion of how districts, schools, and
other organizations, governmental and nongovernmental, measure success in relation to
21
st
Century skills will follow.
The main objective of this chapter is to present a coherent framework based on
the current literature to guide the rest of the study. This framework and review of
literature will recognize current research in best practices and highlight the gaps in the
literature.

A Structural Framework to Guide the Study
The backbone for this case study will be provided by three types of curricula first
introduced in the Second International Math (SIMS): intended curriculum, implemented
curriculum, and attained curriculum. Mullis and Martin (2006) maintain the following
functional definitions for the three curricula:

17
• “the intended curriculum is comprised of the curricular goals and
intentions…for [the] students
• the implemented curriculum comprises what is actually taught to the students
• the attained curriculum refers to [what] the student has learned and the
attitudes the student has acquired as a result of being taught the curriculum in
school” (p. 5).

Marzano (2003) and Dufour (2006) have further espoused the differences in these types
of curricula and highlighted the importance of ensuring their alignment in order to
maximize student learning.
The research questions for this dissertation were intentionally designed and
aligned with these three curricula and will guide the remainder of the literature review:
• What influences are driving the demand for 21
st
Century skills as equity pedagogy
at the district? (Intended Curriculum)
• What is the district’s design for utilizing 21
st
Century skills as a pedagogy for
teaching standards-based academic content knowledge? (Implemented
Curriculum)
• To what extent has the district’s design been implemented successfully and how
does the district measure success? (Attained Curriculum)
The critical review of the three types of curricula will apply the district point of
view to consider the intended, implemented, and attained curricula in relation to 21
st

Century, skills as outline by Wagner (2008). Many states, districts, organizations,
collaboratives, and partnerships have developed a framework for 21
st
Century skills.
Table 1, below, highlights several of their similarities in relation to the Wagner
Framework.

18
Table 1:
Examples of 21
st
Century Skills Frameworks
Wagner’s Seven
Survival Skills
Partnership for 21
st

Century Skills
North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory
American
Association of
School Librarians
Critical Thinking and
Problem-Solving
Critical Thinking and
Problem-Solving
Higher-order
thinking/sound reasoning
Inquire and Think
Critically
Collaboration across
Networks and Leading
by Influence
Collaboration; Social
and Cross-Cultural
Skills
Global awareness/cultural
competence
Participate
productively as
members of a
society
Agility and Adaptability Flexibility and
Adaptability

Initiative and
Entrepreneurialism
Initiative and Self-
direction
Self-direction Pursue personal and
aesthetic growth
Effective Oral and
Written Communication
Communication Technological literacy Share knowledge
and participate
ethically
Accessing and
Analyzing Information
Information and Media
Literacy
Information literacy;
visual literacy
Draw conclusions,
make informed
decisions, apply and
create knowledge
Curiosity and
Imagination
Creativity and
Innovation
Pursue personal and
aesthetic growth

19
Successful implementation and attainment of 21
st
Century skills curriculum is
largely contingent upon the relationships teachers and other adults in school have with
their students (Crew, 2007; DeLorenzo et al., 2009; Friedlander & Darling-Hammond,
2007). The framework maintains the integrity of NCLB by setting academic standards-
based content knowledge as the intended curriculum; the intended curriculum is
implemented through the use of 21
st
Century skills as the pedagogy; the attained
curriculum is reached through rigorous instruction, relevant pedagogy, and mentoring
relationships; the by-products are success on high-stakes standardized tests as well as in
student preparation for a global society. Dede (2007) lays out the challenges of this
framework succinctly: “Society’s educational systems must transform their objectives,
curricula, pedagogies, and assessments to help all students attain the sophisticated
outcomes requisite for a prosperous, attractive lifestyle based on effective contributions
in work and citizenship” (p. 3).

20
Figure 1: Framework for Literature Review and Case Study

21
st
Century Skills as Equity Pedagogy to Teach Academic Content Knowledge
The overall view of learning as a hierarchical process in which a student must
attain lower-level skills before progressing up the chain of Bloom’s taxonomy is dated
and has been proven ineffective (Zohar & Dori, 2003). But, despite all of the research to
the contrary, this method serves as the dominant view of how best to educate lower
income students (Crew, 2007; Dede, 2007; Delandshere & Petrovsky, 2002; Wilson &
Peterson, 2006). Because the curricular emphasis of our schools is on academic content
Intended Curriculum
Implemented Curriculum
Attained Curriculum
21st Century
Skills
Academic
Standards
Rigor
Relevance
Relationships
Statewide
Assessments
Globally Competent
Citizens

21
standards, teaching often stops there. However, “decades of research reveals there is, in
fact, no reason to separate the acquisition of learning core content and basic skills like
reading and computation from more advanced analytical and thinking skills, even in the
early grades” (Silva, 2008, p. 1).
Astleitner (2005) has presented principles of quality instruction that align to the
belief that the direct instruction and rote memorization overtaking pedagogy in the era of
high stakes testing are detrimental to students and that schools should not select either
standards— or, what he refers to as “soft skills.” Principles that support this hypothesis
also posit that educators should:
- employ several and varied instructional strategies;
- facilitate students’ acquisition of knowledge and skills in different arenas;
- provide opportunities for students to gain academic content knowledge while
stimulating creativity, analysis, and problem-solving
- challenge students to defend and evaluate through argumentation
- imbue students with project management capabilities, study skills,
communication skills, and collaborative learning opportunities to learn the
academic content.
Though Astleitner was not speaking specifically about 21
st
Century skills, his
principles of quality instruction align with the notion that skills and content not only can,
but should, be taught in concert. In addition, much of what he considers “soft skills” is
understood by Wagner and others as 21
st
Century skills. As with much of the other

22
research in this area, Astleitner approaches this research with an educational
psychology foundation. His research was wholly theoretical and does not provide many
of the concrete applications examined later in this review.
Kress et al. (2004) presented a similar educational psychology perspective. They
classified the 21
st
Century skills of problem-solving, interpersonal communications, self-
regulation, and effective decision-making as social and emotional learning (SEL). In
their words, “Social and emotional learning are both/and rather than an either/or aspect
of education…[and] must be framed in the idiom of the classroom and the often-found
focus on standards” (p. 72). SEL is both a pre- and a corequisite to learning standards, in
which the most effective instruction interrelates all types and purposes of learning.
The article’s most important conclusion is that there must be a paradigm shift, in
which SEL is seen not as replacing or taking time away from teaching the standards, but
rather as accelerating the learning of standards and thus serving as an integral factor in a
student’s academic success. The importance of the learner as an individual and a social
being in cognitive theories further support these conclusions (Broadfoot, 2000; Wilson &
Peterson, 2006). SEL (née 21
st
Century skills) is the most effective pedagogy for teaching
academic content standards.
Dede (2007) has addressed the challenges to bridging the gap between the
theoretical suppositions of educational psychologists and the implementation of curricula
by real-world practitioners, particularly in the era of high-stakes testing. For instance,
many professional educational organizations, such as the National Council for Teachers

23
of Mathematics (NCTM), have written their own standards. Their standards integrate
21
st
Century skills into the basic content knowledge of traditional state standards;
however, because of the prevalence of high-stakes testing, the NCTM standards--though
grounded squarely in cognitive science and practical application in the classroom—are
rarely implemented in the classroom.
Few would argue against the reality that 21
st
Century students need to master
complex problem-solving strategies and higher-order thinking skills; however, mastery of
such skills is irrelevant if students (in mathematics, for example) do not know basic
arithmetic operations (rote cognitive tasks). In most current school systems, memorizing
the basics is an end in itself as opposed to “a substrate for mastering complex mental
performances valued in the future workplace” (Dede, 2007, p. 9).
In laying out a compelling argument from an educational psychology perspective
that 21
st
Century skills are a pedagogy to support the attainment of academic content
knowledge, Dede’s research falls flat in one key area – strong linkages to real-world
applications. He highlights only two programs utilizing technology as an immersion
strategy to teach students 21
st
Century skills (Dede, 2007). Beyond increased student
engagement no evidence is provided that students are actually learning more. His
persuasive argument would be greatly strengthened by data showing student results on
traditional measures of learning in acquisition of both 21
st
Century skills and knowledge
as the substrate.

24
With particular relevance to students traditionally underserved by this type of
rigorous instruction, Zohar and Dori (2003) have presented a strong case that low-
achieving students benefit greatly from being taught higher-order thinking skills. The
source of such segregated teaching strategies becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which
teachers have lower expectations of such students and, thereby, the students have lower
expectations of themselves. This cycle brings to light the importance of the relationship
piece in the implementation of the 21
st
Century skills as a pedagogical framework.
Many of the weaknesses inherent in the aforementioned studies are, in fact, the
strengths of this one. What makes Zohar and Dori’s (2003) study so powerful is that it
draws upon four mixed-methods case studies as evidence for its claims. Consistently,
each study proved that by introducing some type of higher-order thinking skill (question-
posing, argumentation, biotechnology analysis, and reasoning) into the curriculum, all
students improved not only on an assessment of the skills being taught, but also on the
attainment of the knowledge covered in the unit. Gains were most significant for
students in the lowest achieving subgroup based on either past classroom performance or
a pretest. For instance, in the module to assist students with posing relevant and
appropriate thought questions, a positive correlation emerged in terms of the ability of all
students to pose better questions— and that ability to pose better questions correlated to
increased student achievement on traditional multiple choice exams. This phenomenon
was especially true for lower achieving students.

25
Another case in Zohar and Dori’s (2003) study compared a traditional genetics
unit with a genetics unit taught through the lens of argumentation around bioethical
issues. On both written and multiple-choice tests, the latter unit was found to be
significantly more effective for teaching genetics. Whereas this case had a fairly weak
method for dividing students into low and high-achieving groups (utilizing current grade
in biology), all three subgroups did show growth. This design was weaker because a
grade in a class does not always connote ability and potential. Nevertheless, when taken
as one of four studies, the overall research design was solid. This study provided some of
the best support that “‘learning facts’ as one educational goal and ‘learning to think’ as
another need not conflict, but rather support each other” (Zohar & Dori, 2003, p. 172),
especially for traditionally lower achieving students.
Zohar and Dori (2003) also uncovered the idea that teachers of higher-achieving
students often teach higher-order thinking skills at the expense of content knowledge.
Instances existed in which low-achieving students scored higher on knowledge tests than
high-achieving students. Whereas these studies were all conducted overseas, this finding
is usually not the case in the United States, where all teachers, regardless of class
composition, need to teach the academic content standards that are assessed on state tests.
Notably, however, ardent supporters of the standards movement often argue that 21
st

Century skills cannot stand alone as the curriculum.
A slightly different issue also presents itself in the literature: that high-achieving
students of color often do not have as much opportunity for a truly balanced curriculum

26
as White and Asian students. Wyner, Bridgeland, and Diiulio (2007) have referred to
this discrepancy as the “Achievement Trap,” by which fewer and fewer low-income
students of color stay in the high-achieving category during their educational life, as
compared to their higher socioeconomic peers. Additionally, fewer low-income students
are reclassified later on in their education from low or midrange achievers to high
achievers. This underperformance culminates with a severe shortage of low-income
students in college and graduate school—access that is key to advancement in the 21
st

Century, in which the difference in salary between a college graduate and a noncollege
graduate is the greatest it has been in close to 100 years.
The achievement trap has become an unintended effect of high-stakes testing.
Schools serving lower income students have become so determined to avoid program
improvement status that they work tirelessly to move lower achieving students toward
proficiency. Few resources are targeted at students who have already achieved
proficiency on academic content standards; no time is spent advancing those students or
providing them with the skills needed to be literate and successful in the new globalized
society (Wyner, Bridgeland, & Diiulio, 2007). As already explored in this section, both
the higher and lower-achieving students benefit from a more rigorous and relevant
curriculum.
In their study, “High Schools for Equity,” Friedlander and Darling-Hammond
(2007) examined the impact of schools that utilize racially just pedagogy. Some common
terms that emerged from their study of racially just pedagogy and instruction included:

27
authentic, collaborative, experiential, intellectually stimulating, empowering,
connected to the community, written and oral defenses, research inquiry, and several
others easily classified as 21
st
Century skills. One of their strongest statements— and a
testament to the work of this dissertation— was that “while test score improvements
sometimes take place in conjunction with racially just education, test score improvements
may also come about through practices which actually further impoverish the learning
experiences for students of color” (2007, p. ii). With Friedlander and Darling-
Hammond’s conception of racially just pedagogy, schools can improve test scores and
prepare students of color for the new global economy.
Employing a rigorous selection process, Friedlander and Darling-Hammond chose
five schools based on their diversity, graduation rates, and achievement on standardized
tests. This case study was particularly strong because the researchers used a mixed-
methods approach examining quantitative test score data and spending months at the five
different school sites completing document analysis, observations, and interviews. The
researchers were not looking for a specific design feature, but spent considerable time
examining the five schools for commonalities and exceptionalities.
All five schools in the study were found to share key features consistent with the
framework of this dissertation. Rigor, relevance, and relationships were all key to the
design and implementation of their curricula—intended, implemented, and attained.
Rigor was evident through the University of California A-G requirements for high school
graduation and partnerships with higher education. Rigor also manifested in classroom

28
expectations and directions, in which multiple forms of instruction were routinely
utilized and teachers required students to be active constructors of knowledge. All five
schools promoted relevance through project-based learning, interdisciplinary courses,
performance-based assessments, internships/service learning, and career and technical
education. Teachers explicitly taught content and academic skills, such as researching,
critical reading and writing, and communication, thus creating a “system of curriculum,
assessment, and instruction that encourages the development of 21
st
century skills and
enables a curriculum that is intellectually rigorous as well as socially and practically
relevant” (Friedlander & Darling-Hammond, 2007, p. 72).
What truly set these five schools apart was their emphasis on the relationship
piece. On a continuum from informal mentorships to formal advisories, teachers were
invested in their students and students often “learn as much for a teacher as from one”
(Friedlander & Darling-Hammond, 2007, p. 38). The relationship a teacher forms with a
student serves as a lever for rigorous instruction and high expectations—it also reinforces
the behavior students need when accessing higher education. Thereby, the adults on
campus act as institutional agents for the students, providing a vehicle for them to gain
success in college and the global society beyond (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
According to Wilson and Peterson, “Research on learning has often been
conducted independently of research on teaching, leading to a gap in understanding
between the two communities of researchers who understand and work on learning and
those who understand and work on teaching” (2006, p. 9). One of the great ironies of this

29
whole era of high-stakes testing is the heightened awareness it has brought to the
importance of the individual teacher, though most states and districts are actively
removing the creativity and ingenuity of the teacher to do what they believe is best for the
student (Delandshere & Petrovksy, 2002). Effective districts are noticing such gaps and
establishing systems to empower teachers, support the connection of the two
communities, and integrate 21
st
Century skills as the pedagogy for curricular reform.

Effective District Strategy for Reform
The federal No Child Left Behind policy…challenges district leaders to
set clear, compelling targets for improvement that meet state and federal
expectations while motivating and enforcing system-wide reform efforts
to reach these targets…it implies not only individual learning on new
skills, but also a collective learning challenge: the organization itself
needs to “learn” new ways of working, coping with uncertainties, and
managing the tensions that ambitious reform entails
--Knapp, 2008, pp. 523-524
From the inception of the school district in the early 1800s up to the present time,
the notion of district involvement with the schools it serves has evolved in scope and
forms of support. Many reformers are challenging the purpose of the school district–and
whether it even needs to exist at all (Anderson, 2003). The most recent iteration of
thought about district involvement in schools has come in the form of School Based
Management (Anderson, 2003; MacIver & Farley, 2003; Talley & Keedy, 2006),
strategic planning (Schmoker, 2004), and supporting the implementation of
Comprehensive School Reform Models such as Success for All, America’s Choice, and
The Accelerated Schools Model (Datnow, 2000; Datnow et al., 2003). Knapp (2008) has

30
articulated why these efforts have largely failed: namely, districts do not have the
capacity to reach ambitious goals; too many competing agendas are addressed with a
single-reform strategy; staff is asked to work differently within the same old structures
and routines; lack of careful planning behind grand plans; and no understanding of
limitations.
Now, the mandates of NCLB have caused districts to rethink how they need to
support schools. These efforts have placed undue pressure on districts and schools to
create new programs. Districts have become embroiled in developing new and unique
programs, instead of providing principals and teachers with the skills and resources they
need to truly impact student learning. The pressure of high-stakes testing and of meeting
AYP often causes districts to impose policy that opposes the spirit if not the letter of true
instructional improvement (MacIver & Farley, 2003). According to Hatch, “Rather than
restricting or reducing the role of districts, expanded policy making at the state [and
federal] level has contributed to increases in policy-making and instructional guidance at
the local level” (Hatch, 2001, p. 407). Thus the real challenge for districts is to ensure
that all students have access to rigorous and relevant instruction that enables them to
reach high standards without micromanaging their schools with increased top-down
policy mandates (Hess, 2002). This ideal will take radical reorganization of and
relearning in the way districts function in service to their schools (Knapp, 2008).
Districts can make a difference in terms of student achievement (Anderson, 2003;

31
MacIver & Farley, 2003; Sipple, Killeen, & Monk, 2004;). But how they go about
making a difference is often contested.
The remainder of this section of the literature review will serve to analyze what
research posits as the most effective strategies to ensure that districts can make a positive
difference in student achievement. This section will also present case studies of school
districts that have successfully implemented programs in which 21
st
Century skills are
utilized as the pedagogy to teach academic content standards. Equally important in this
review is determining the district office’s correct level of involvement to order to ensure
that all stakeholders at the district-level and the school sites are on the same page
philosophically and in practice (Hatch, 2001).
MacIver and Farley (2003) have provided a useful framework to guide this
section of the literature review. They trace the relationship of the central district office to
its schools through a review of a variety of research types including theoretical research,
positive outlier studies, single-district cases, and comparative-district studies. The
positive aspects of their study lie in the metaanalysis of such a variety of literature and in
the authors’ ability to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study presented. In
doingso, they filled in most of the gaps in one type of study with one or two other types.
Synthesizing their findings and drawing on the frameworks of others, they lay out three
essential roles for the district office in improving student achievement:
1. choices concerning curriculum and instruction;

32
2. professional development for teachers and principals to ensure faithful
implementation of the curriculum and instructional strategies;
3. using data to evaluate the results and providing a feedback mechanism to
positively impact instruction and learning
Professional development and using data as a feedback mechanism have become
intertwined in the literature (Knapp, 2008; Schmoker, 2003) and will therefore be looked
at together. A final dimension addressed in this section will be the role the district office
plays in the helping schools build relationships with their students and the community—
an essential part of the framework that guides this dissertation.
Choices Concerning Curriculum and Instruction
Considerable tension exists around how top-down a district should be in choices
regarding curriculum and instruction. The 1990s saw significant movement towards
decentralized decision-making, pushing such choices down to the school site. This
change led to fragmented programs, preventing the district from truly articulating its
support for the school sites and provoking uneven expectations from one school to the
next. McIver and Farley (2003) highlighted several studies attesting that schools actually
need the central office to provide guidance in the selection of curriculum, articulation of
that curriculum with state standards and frameworks, and support of teachers in
instructional strategies to teach the curriculum most effectively. Philosophical and
political issues (particularly those inherent in NCLB) provide barriers for school-level

33
support of the curriculum and instructional strategies needed to maximize student
learning, which the district needs to work to avoid.
Successful districts view curriculum selection and alignment as a necessity for
both coherence and promoting the types of sharing opportunities across individual
classrooms and schools to strengthen the overall program (much more will be said later
concerning the importance of this type of culture). Once curricular coherence exists, the
district can focus its resources on the instructional strategies that are most effective for
student achievement within that type of curriculum (Anderson, 2003). When schools are
allowed to select their own curriculum in isolation, the district is unable to provide
support around instructional practices and curriculum alignment with state standards,
frameworks, and assessments (MacIver & Farley, 2003).
Anderson (2003) has asserted that instructional coherence begins at the district
level, citing examples from several large urban districts. The superintendent and district
staff first set a culture of high expectations for all students and place a strong emphasis on
student achievement and teaching and learning. This culture is reflected in a well-
articulated long term plan focused on teaching strategies that will reach ambitious targets
with support and professional development in implementation of those strategies for
teachers and principals. Anderson challenges the tension around decentralization versus
top-down mandates by emphasizing the school as the unit of reform held accountable and
supported by the central office. Articulation is key where strategies are coordinated and
multivariate to support student learning across the entire system. This type of articulation

34
is the basis for the professional development provided by the district for its teachers
and principals.
Professional Development for Teachers and Principals
No amount of professional development and support from the district to the
schools will be effective unless the district supports instructional leaders at the local and
district levels to support the selected curriculum and instructional models (Anderson,
2003). Time and again, the research has pointed to the importance of creating a
community of practice at a school site around teaching and learning (Bransford & Vye,
2008; Hatch, 2001; McIver & Farley, 2003). Schmoker (2004) has noted the rise and fall
of strategic planning as a district reform tool, noting that instruction and achievement
showed no positive correlations to the strategic planning process. Strategic planning from
the district level had no assurances around the effectiveness of the entire plan, the
linkages of the professional development and support in the plan to student achievement,
nor the ability to monitor such a multifaceted plan. A much more effective process for
districts is the movement towards learning communities, which requires that schools
reexamine the school culture and alter how all of the stakeholders communicate and
interact. Fullan (1993, 2000, as cited in Gallmore & Goldberg, 2001) terms this approach
reculturation, and sees it is a tangible strategy in which a district can provide
differentiated support to the school sites. According to Shmoker, “Districts have made
substantive, enduring gains in achievement, largely on the strength of well-structured,
goal-oriented learning teams and communities” (2004, p. 431).

35
The common pedagogical term for this alliance is the Professional Learning
Community (PLC). A PLC is a collaborative structure where school staff works in teams
all focused on answering three critical questions: (a) What should students learn? (b)
How will we know that they have learned it? and (c) What will we do when a student has
not learned it? Synthesized into one critical question, what does a school do when, even
when we have tried our hardest, a student still does not learn? The teams all work toward
answering these questions on a continual basis, seeking greater and greater results
through action-oriented planning and experimentation. Fostering a professional learning
community in a school provides a vehicle for stakeholders to have difficult, research-
based dialogues around student success (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek, 2004).
The only true way districts can promote a professional learning community is by
providing their school sites with timely student achievement data and the tools to analyze
and plan from that data (MacIver & Farley, 2003). Therefore, districts need to advance
their data systems along their thinking about what kinds of data schools need. In so
doing, districts can promote professional learning communities focused not only on the
academic content traditionally assessed on benchmark assessments and state-wide
standardized tests, but also on promoting 21
st
Century skills (Sofo, 2008).
Facilitated properly, the teams form an interconnected web, where everyone’s
strengths are utilized to ensure that all students learn. Everyone’s strengths apply to
teachers, staff, students, parents, and community members. A professional learning
community “will not wait until someone is hurt by the traditional value and power

36
structure of our schools to examine the underlying assumptions on which our practices
are founded” (Shields, 2000, p. 291). Fullan (2006) has expanded on this idea, noting
that by functioning on professional learning communities, districts choose the most
effective way of impacting student learning— and the only way to galvanize the
resources the school and community have through a process called “lateral capacity
building” focused on student achievement. Crew (2007) has termed this dynamic
“connectedness” and will be explored in the next section.
Fostering Relationships with Students and the Community Around Student
Achievement
Leadership in the future will be about the creation and maintenance of
relationships: the relationships of children to learning, children to children,
children to adults, adults to adults, and school to community…It means
schools must team up with other care-giving agencies, such as the health
department, the parks and recreation folks, or the church down the street to
see to it that a network of mutual care is created around the children and
their families.
--Houston, 2001, p. 431

The two previous sections highlighted the general research around how districts
can best ensure rigor and relevance for all students. This section delves into the third R –
relationships. Namely, how can districts foster relationships among students and adults
on campus, across school sites, and with the community at large? The involvement of the
community and the resources the community can bring to bear on public education bring
greater programmatic change than when the district attempts to make the changes in
isolation (Sipple, Killeen, & Monk, 2004).
Crew (2007) has averred:

37
too many superintendents come into a school system without knowing enough
about the community and its resources and the grass roots that already exist and
instead set their own agenda, which sours opportunities for mutual thinking. But a
compact, a web of partnerships, initiates a dialogue. (p. 99)

By following this model, districts extend the concept of relationships beyond the walls of
the school and the classroom and into the community. This network is one of the central
premises of Crew’s (2007) book Only Connect, which will be discussed in relation to this
literature review and this dissertation – namely, that districts and schools cannot maintain
the institutionalized practices of the past 100 years and expect to support students
becoming productive knowledge workers in a global society as 21
st
Century citizens.
The particular strength of Only Connect exists in its concrete examples of formal
compacts and partnerships designed to positively impact student achievement, established
as the Superintendent of Miami-Dade County Public Schools (M-DCPS). Crew was able
to engage the business community, local, federal, and state governmental agencies,
colleges and universities, and other nongovernmental organizations as not just supporters
of, but also providers for the students of M-DCPS. Two examples provide two different
types of evidence of their accomplishments. Firstly, the district galvanized over 3,500
businesses to provide students with the internships, mentoring, and real-world
opportunities that are key to students gaining 21
st
Century skills. Secondly, by engaging
the community and schools in discussing societal equity issues around Advance
Placement courses, M-DCPS had seven schools recognized by the College Board for
having the largest number of Latino and African American students earning a passing

38
score on Advanced Placement Exams. This second example provides quantitative
results on standardized tests directly linked to student success in college (Crew, 2007).
Crew (2007) takes this study one step further, establishing the value of schools in
the local community and to the larger economy. This perspective resonates particularly
with the business community and serves as a key lever to engendering its support and
buy-in to the schools. In addition, learning about and listening to the needs of the
community and the businesses within it models the type of reciprocal relationship
necessary between teacher and student and teacher and parent discussed earlier
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). According to Sipple, Killeen, and Monk, “Interactions
among issues of fiscal resources, union contracts, and community expectations, act to
enable and constrain local capacity to meet state goals” (2004, p. 162).
A final area for relationship building often ignored by urban school districts is the
relationship with the parents. Crew (2007) refers to the type of parent necessary to help
produce breakthrough results as “demand parents” and built the Parent Academy to help
support parents in their interactions with the schools their children attend in being
proactive on behalf of their students. Here, the relationship piece was many layered. First
of all, the Parent Academy was paid for by the support of private sector funds. Secondly,
it was developed with much input from parents. Thirdly, it was conceptualized jointly at
the district level.
Whereas several of the recommendations of this book are outside of the scope of
this study, it does seem valuable to outline some of the limitations inherent in this work.

39
The largest of these limitations seems to be the reliance on state and federal
governments to change course in policy and mandate to fully support the concept of
“Connected Schools.” A second limiting factor is the minimized scope of the role
presented for school boards. Though this role may be what districts need (Fuller et. al.,
2003; Ziebarth, 2002), it seems highly unlikely that boards would serve only in an
advisory capacity and only meet on a quarterly basis. A final limitation is the mercurial
nature of the urban superintendent’s tenure, in which the average tenure for an urban
superintendent is fewer than three years (Byrd, Drews, & Johnson, 2006). The shorter the
stay of an urban superintendent, the more difficult it will be for a district to establish and
then maintain these relationships. The final two limitations may be linked because the
less involved a board is, the more likely a superintendent will remain in the position.
Tying it All Together
Several case studies exist about districts that have aligned curriculum and
instruction to 21
st
Century skills, created a professional development system based on the
use of data in cycles of inquiry to foster professional learning communities, and have
reached into the community to forge relationships with parents and community
organizations to help support student success. These districts have turned “the current
process inside out to structure learning so that students will use complex skills in
practical situations that challenge their thinking while connecting them to reality”
(Houston, 2001, p. 433). The ensuing section will elucidate the strengths and weaknesses
of some such case studies in relation to the literature, methodological design of the study,

40
and the purpose of this dissertation. The final case study will relate how small, urban
school districts support their schools through superintendent leadership. This issue is
particularly germane to this dissertation because the study site for this dissertation is a
small, socioeconomically diverse district.
Freedom School District
Sofo (2008) has provided a personal account of his district’s journey. By
embracing the concept of the “4 R’s” – rigor, relevance, relationships, and reflection –
Freedom Area School District was able to develop a professional learning community
from the ground up. Classroom-level teachers led the charge to innovate classroom
practices in support of 21
st
Century skills for all students, especially for those who were
not graduating or graduating unprepared for college and the workplace. The main vehicle
for professional development was formal and informal opportunities for teachers to
collaborate, share, observe, reflect on, and most importantly, plan how best to help
students succeed in their new, ambitious endeavor.
Starting small, Freedom piloted its program with the largest area of identified
need-- middle school math. The district helped select the curriculum and instructional
methods; provided meaningful opportunities for collaboration and sharing with teaching
practices focused on how to help all students; provided timely and useful data to support
the collaboration; and encouraged relationships in which teachers listened to students and
their needs to help inform instruction. The district also placed a premium on the
individual relationships district staff maintained with each other and the individuals

41
implementing the program at the school sites. As such, Freedom is “headed toward
creating a new, responsible, effort-based, success-driven system of education that goes
beyond the mandates of NCLB and touches the hearts and minds of our students and staff
– a system based on rigor, relevance, relationships, and reflection” (Sofo, 2008, p. 407).
Though an encouraging tale of district success in implementing this type of
curriculum for all students, the study has several factors limiting its generalizability to the
target district of this study. For one, the superintendent himself is accounting for the
success of the program. Though he does have hard, quantitative data attesting to their
successes and also recognized the districts’ growth areas, his perspective is no doubt
limited and not completely objective. In addition, Freedom is an extremely small district
of only 1,700 ethnically homogenous students. Student transiency is less than 10%.
Neither issues of scale nor societal ills plague Freedom. Another factor is that Freedom
enjoys an incredible amount of stability. The school board’s average tenure is 16 years.
The superintendent has been in the district for 15 years, the last six in his current position
(Sofo, 2008).
Metropolitan School District
The Metropolitan School District (MSD), a large urban and suburban district of
Indianapolis serving over 16,000 socioeconomically diverse students, launched the
Digital Age Literacy Initiative (DALI) with a $5.9 million grant from the Lilly
Endowment in 2000. The purpose was “to develop innovative, systematic, and
transforming approaches to preparing students to thrive in an increasingly competitive,

42
high-tech, global society” (Kapuano & Knoderer, 2006, p. 113). The MSD mission had
embraced the concepts of preparing students for the 21
st
Century for years and allowed
the district to implement a comprehensive program to do so. The district created three
paradigm-shifting goals that align well to the research framework presented in this
section. First of all, the district selected the curriculum and instruction to ensure schools
include 21
st
Century skills as part of student literacy. Secondly, it strove for a
comprehensive professional development system. Finally, it worked to reculture the
district as a professional learning community.
The 21
st
Century skills identified by MSD were those presented by NCREL, as
highlighted in Figure 1, including visual literacy, information literacy, self-direction,
complex problem-solving, technological literacy, and global awareness. According to
Capuano and Knoderer (2006) the major model for integrating the concepts and goals of
the grant at the school sites was the use of coaches trained in the model. The
instructional coaches’ roles were to introduce a myriad of different professional
development opportunities for teachers, such as workshops, study groups, action
research, book studies, model teaching, coteaching, and individual coaching and
consulting. The coaches and the support they provided were designed to create the
relationships necessary for the individual school sites to trust the direction of the district,
while engendering the school as a professional learning community. Though strong on
laying out the foundation of the grant, the study was relatively weak on presenting
evidence of progress.

43
Preliminary evidence existed based on externally created assessments that are
not linked directly to student achievement results in academic content standards. For
instance, the Metiri Group designed a tool to measures students’ goal-orientation, self-
monitoring, self-efficacy, and theory of intelligence. Though significant gains were
shown posttreatment versus pretreatment, this data relied exclusively on students self-
reporting. Similarly, the district gave the Mankato Survey in both 2001 (before the grant)
and 2004. The results showed that systemically significant gains were made in the use of
spreadsheets, research, and information-searching at all grade levels. Middle and high
schools showed gains in almost every category (Capuano & Knoderer, 2006). Both of
these surveys measure classroom practice but did not correlate those practices to student
achievement. This study would have been much stronger if there had been a connection
between classroom practices involving the DALI teachings and academic content
knowledge instead of the less compelling data that was collected and reported.
Fullerton School District Laptop Program
This next study measured both the practice of using 21
st
Century skills as a
pedagogy and how those teachings correlated to student achievement on standardized
testing measurements. Fullerton School District (FSD) in Southern California, created a
one-to-one laptop program at three schools in 2004-2005. Though in and of itself, a one-
on-one laptop program does not necessarily promote 21
st
Century skills, the district also
made promoting those types of skills a major goal of the program. The most commonly
identified uses of the laptops for students were writing and revising, accessing and using

44
online information, analyzing data, using multimedia, and interacting with educational
software. FSD classified 21
st
Century skills into three general areas, as defined by the
Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills highlighted in Figure 1 of this chapter: information
and communication skills, thinking and problem-solving skills, and interpersonal and
self-directional skills (Warschauer & Grimes, 2005).
This study was particularly strong in two areas. Firstly, Warschauer and Grimes
(2005) evaluated the inputs of the program as well as the outputs. The outputs measured
how much students gained in their use of 21
st
Century skills, as well as results on the
statewide standardized testing. Secondly, there were matched-control groups so that true
progress could be measured. The limitations of the study were the small sample size of
three schools as well as the fact that this evaluation was only on the first year of
implementation. A final limitation in relation to this dissertation and the literature review
was that there was no explicit explanation of professional development in the
implementation of the laptop program.
The first set of data analyzed was the use of 21
st
Century skills in the district
laptop program. The researchers found that classrooms participating in the program had a
much greater use of authentic student projects as an assessment tool for students. The
projects required a much greater amount of writing and revising, accessing and analyzing
information via the Internet, and creating of multimedia projects. Students were able to
dig much deeper into topics, examining them in a multitude of ways. “These types of
projects develop a much broader range of self-directional, interpersonal, thinking,

45
problem solving, information and communication skills than does the all-too-typical
school assignment of reading a passage and being quizzed on” (Warschauer & Grimes,
2005, p. 22). This type of rigorous and relevant learning is substantiated by the literature
presented in the previous section as highly effective forms of pedagogy for all students in
attainment of state standards.
The second set of data centered on achievement on statewide, standardized
assessments and did not present the same clear positive results as those related to the use
of 21
st
Century skills. The results on standardized tests after the first year were mixed. At
one school, the students substantially outperformed all of the other schools in the district
on math and English language arts scores; however, this school was brand new, so it is
impossible to say that the laptop program caused such phenomenal results. At another
school that involved participation by gifted and talented students, students outperformed
the district average for similar students, even though 15% of the students in the laptop
program was not identified as gifted and talented. On average, those students improved
in English language arts, but not as much as others in FSD. The same students’ math
scores fell. At the third school, scores for students participating in the laptop program
fell in English language arts, which rose for similar students in the district. Math scores
for those students remained constant from the previous year, whereas scores for similar
students fell (Warschauer & Grimes, 2005). A lack of a clear implementation strategy
and teacher development and support severely limits the ability to draw strong
conclusions from this type of data. Clearly students are attaining goals based on 21
st

46
Century skills, but there is still work to be done on translating that to success on
statewide assessments.
Superintendent Leadership in Smaller Urban Districts
Substantial literature exists on how large, urban districts implement practices
based on policy. However, the majority of urban districts, particularly in California, are
much smaller in scope. Hentschke, Nayfack, and Wohlstetter (2009) studied the
differences in the role superintendents of smaller districts played in the functioning of the
central office and how the district supports its schools. The role of the superintendent in
these smaller urban districts is distinctly different from the role of the larger urban
districts and is important to understand for the purpose of this dissertation’s examination
of a smaller urban district.
Whereas the authors paint a compelling historical account of what the research
says about how large urban districts and their superintendents function, the complete
emphasis here will be placed in their findings around how smaller districts function and
what makes them different and potentially most successful in increasing student
achievement. Hentschke et al. (2009) identified eight interconnected strands through their
research on four individual small urban districts, which map well to the framework
presented for this section of the literature review. The districts
1) were influenced significantly by NCLB
2) created strategic plans and blueprints
3) leveraged the community through public engagement

47
4) generated systemic coherence
5) brought attention to and resources for low-performing students and schools
6) valued data-driven decision-making
7) used the data to drive professional development
8) created instructional programs of choice as valued by the community
The first piece of this literature review’s framework on how districts support schools in
improving student achievement concerns the selection of curriculum and instructional
methods. Smaller districts allow for superintendents to be more “involved in the
development and implementation of these new curricula by way of daily updates, campus
visits, and interactions with staff” (Hentschke, Nayfack, & Wohlstetter, 2009, p. 331)
with campus visits as a key to monitoring. Large urban districts do not afford
superintendents this luxury, as there are multiple layers of people between the
superintendent and the school sites, which often hinder instructional coherence. This
structure also relates to Strand 4 of generating system coherence as that is the main
purpose of curricular and instructional alignment (Anderson, 2003; MacIver & Farler,
2003).
The second part of the framework concerns professional development for teachers
and principals and the fostering of schools and districts as professional learning
communities where data is used to drive cycles of inquiry around student learning.
Strands 2, 4, 6, and 7 all attest to the value these districts placed on this component.
Superintendents in these districts owned their data and used that data to drive

48
instructional improvement through professional development at the individual school
sites. Because the needs of each school site were different and the superintendents
understood the data behind what made them different, the districts would support the
schools in the ways that were most impactful to student achievement on those campuses
(Hentschke, Nayfack, & Wohlstetter, 2009). In this way, the districts were helping to
reculture the schools as professional learning communities.
The final part of the framework concerned how districts facilitate relationship-
building with the community at large. Strands 3 and 8 are explicitly spotlighted in terms
of this type of relationship building. These districts were able to construct the types of
Connected Schools (Crew, 2007), in which superintendents reached out to the local
community for a myriad of support efforts. Namely, districts engaged the community in
strategic planning sessions, looked to businesses and foundations for financial support,
tapped in to current county department of education professional development programs,
and sought out organizations to provide social and after school services for students and
families (Hentschke et al., 2009).
Though this research study on the role of small urban superintendents maps well
to the framework of how districts should support their schools, several unique learnings
also impact this study. Most salient point is that superintendents of smaller districts can
maintain a personal touch to promote instructional coherence and nimbleness in
connecting the community to the schools. Though neither of these qualities is necessarily

49
impossible in larger districts, they are more realistic in smaller ones (Hentschke et al.,
2009).

Gaps in the Literature
A vast array of theoretical literature has already been discussed in this section on
how school districts can best support the use of 21
st
Century skills as a pedagogy for
statewide academic standards; however, few case studies examine how districts,
particularly diverse urban ones, have succeeded in this practice within the complete
framework of this study. This dissertation will bridge that gap.

Assessment Systems for 21
st
Century Learning
The importance of districts using multiple forms of data in a myriad of ways to
determine how students, teachers, schools, and the entire district are progressing towards
goals cannot be overstated. Such robust data systems can serve to inform instruction and
hold all stakeholders accountable to state and district goals (Anderson, 2003). Districts
currently only receive information on how students perform on knowledge-based
assessments and have little to no data on how students measure up to 21
st
Century skills.
If districts could gather information on how well students are thinking critically, solving
real-world problems, researching, analyzing, and synthesizing, then they would know
how to align professional development practices to impact instruction of students in those
critical areas (Conley, 2007).

50
The problem is that little research exists on assessment systems for 21
st
Century
skills. NCLB has caused a hyper-focus on standards-based accountability assessments;
therefore, money has not been dedicated to the development of what is normally a more
costly authentic assessment system (Silva, 2008). The unintended consequence, as stated
numerous times in this dissertation, is that “we are not testing, and therefore not teaching,
the applied skills employers most need and want” (DiMartino & Castaneda, 2007, p.1).
However, several promising assessments on the horizon will attempt to evaluate students’
cognitive abilities (aka 21
st
Century skills) on a large-scale basis within the framework of
state academic standards. The remainder of this section will examine the research, albeit
limited, on current and advancing developments in 21
st
Century learning assessment
systems.
Ruiz-Primo (2009) has presented topics to consider for those designing 21
st

Century assessments systems. The first step is defining the context for 21
st
Century skills.
Essentially, one must choose among the many lists of 21
st
Century skills or create a new
one altogether. Then, the skills selected must be prioritized. No assessment system will
be able to examine student performance of every skill. After prioritization, one
determines the primary purpose of the system—is it for accountability, evaluation, or
informing instruction? Though it can serve more than one of these purposes, the main
objective of the tool must be determined. Once purpose is established, issues of validity,
reliability, and fairness can be addressed. A final recommendation is that the 21
st

Century skills assessment be on-line, so as to maximize scalability and use as a large-

51
scale assessment. This final comment also helps mitigate reliability and validity
because sample size can be greatly expanded.
Measuring Skills for the 21
st
Century
Silva (2008) has examined the current landscape of assessments that “demonstrate
the potential to measure these complex thinking skills at the same time that we measure
student’s mastery of core content or basic skills and knowledge” (p. 1). The barriers to
implementing tests, such as cost, time, and challenges in scoring, are coming down as the
architects of these assessment systems are mindful of the naysayers. Most importantly,
the tests are serving multiple purposes: measuring skills and academic knowledge,
holding teachers and schools accountable and impacting instruction, or serving as a grade
for a child and used to monitor growth and achievement. The most effective tests are
accomplishing three, four, or even five of these factors. What follows are brief
descriptions of up-and-coming assessment
College Work and Readiness Assessment (CWRA). The CWRA was created
by the Council for Aid to Education along with the RAND Corporation and asks students
to examine factors related to a real-world problem by accessing an on-line database of
documents. Students have 90 minutes to respond to a prompt based on those documents
and propose a solution, carefully examining the positive and negative implications from a
variety of different stakeholders. This exam, given to high school students, is designed to
be formative in nature and provide schools and districts with individual student and
classroom-level data to help inform instruction of 21
st
Century skills (www.cae.org).

52
Currently piloted by only a handful of schools, the CWRA is still in its infancy and has
not been done on a large scale. One limiting factor is its price of $40 per student, whereas
the typical all multiple-choice exam carries a price of 60 cents per test (Silva, 2008).
River City. River City is an example of how new technologies are starting to
bridge the divide, making it simpler to assess student application of 21
st
Century skills.
River City is a virtual world whereby middle school science students are challenged to
solve real-world problems like a scientist would. As such, students must hypothesize,
experiment, research, make recommendations, and report their recommendations.
Teachers can monitor the progress of the entire class or of individual students through a
detailed, point-by-point electronic tracking system. This system is also limited by its
small implementation and the fact that it is not directly linked to state standards (Silva,
2008).
PowerSource. The Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student
Testing (CRESST) at the University of California, Los Angeles is now piloting
PowerSource with 70 middle school prealgebra classes. This assessment system utilizes a
series of interim assessments in the form of graphic novels. These interim assessments
measure student content knowledge and higher order thinking skills by keying in on larg
concepts and themes as opposed to discrete facts, requiring students not only solve to
problems using algebraic concepts, but also to explain their reasoning and logic. Still in
the experimental phase, PowerSource shows much promise (Silva, 2008).

53
Key Stages 3. Developed in the United Kingdom as part of its national
assessment system, the Key Stages 3 measures student technological literacy and the
ability to solve problems using those technical skills. Whereas the previous examples
suffered due to their small-scale and pilot implementations, Key Stages 3 enjoys a
national stage and produces student, classroom, and school-level results normed against
all other schools in the nation for middle school age students (Silva, 2008).
2009 NAEP Science Assessment. For the first time ever, the 2009 NAEP Science
Assessment will measure the application of scientific knowledge as opposed to just recall
of that knowledge. Time will tell as to the impact of this shift.
International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma Programme. For the last 40 years,
over 2,000 public and private schools in 130 countries have been teaching and assessing
using the IB curriculum. This program serves as a testament to the fact that with
standards and high-stakes accountability, schools are able to assess both core content and
thinking skills on a large scale. Students are assessed by a variety of performance tasks
ranging from traditional multiple-choice to open-ended problem solving, data analysis,
and case studies. Even though accomplished on a large scale, the International
Baccalaureate Organization spends an incredible amount of time and money on
professional development for teachers and school administrators as well as on outside
scorers to ensure validity and reliability (Silva, 2008).
College Readiness Performance Assessment System (C-PAS). Developed by
the Educational Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) with psychometric principals and

54
practices in mind, the purpose of the C-PAS is to appraise how well students are
prepared for rigorous, college-level work through a series of end-of-semester
performance tasks. These tasks challenge students in five key cognitive areas predictive
of college success: problem-solving, research, interpretation, reasoning, and
precision/accuracy. Each task tests students on at least three of the five cognitive
strategies. These cognitive strategies are linked to state standards content knowledge.
This system spans grades 6-12 and provides comprehensive student, classroom, and
school-level data on the individual skills and therefore allows districts to monitor growth
patterns over time (Conley, 2007).
Tasks were developed under a framework by high school and college instructors.
The idea is that teachers are empowered to select and grade tasks from an online
assessment bank. Teachers receive extensive professional development and support for
grading and portions of the assessments are graded externally to ensure score reliability
and validity. A unique aspect of the C-PAS is that students earn a grade for the teacher-
graded portion of the assessment. This feature serves as a motivator for the students;
however, because the assessment is formative in nature and not designed to be used in
college admissions decisions, it tows the line between being high stakes but not too high
stakes. At the same time, it is not low stakes for students in the same way as traditional
state assessments, which are only high stakes for the principal and district (Conley,
2007).

55
Still in its infancy, C-PAS may be the most promising of all of the assessment
systems. Some of the barriers of other systems, such as cost, time, and resources will be
mitigated once teachers are trained and become acculturated to the assessments. C-PAS
could become similar to the IB Programme with only the assessments and not the
prescriptive curriculum.
The Promise of 21
st
the Century Assessment System
The consensus in the literature seems to be that in order to measure 21
st
Century
skills on a large scale, an assessment system must be affordable, use an on-line platform,
correlate to state standards, and focus on big ideas as opposed to an exhaustive list.
Though several promising systems are in the early stages of development, no one has
been able to overcome all of the challenges of scalability (Ruiz-Primo, 2009; Silva,
2008). It behooves states, districts, and individual schools to adopt a system that fits their
needs and then have researchers study the results in order to inform future enhancements
and develop ideas to bring such assessments to scale. According to DiMartino and
Castaneda, “If we want our high schools to prepare students with the applied skills that
they need for success in any post-secondary venture, we need a system for measuring and
recording student learning that values, rather than ignores these skills” (2007, p. 42).

Conclusion
As presented in this literature review, research abounds to support the framework
developed to guide this dissertation. In the age of NCLB, the intended curriculum must

56
be the state standards. The pedagogy used to teach those standards, however, is not
mandated by NCLB or by the standards. One of the most effective ways to teach the
intended curriculum is through the lens of 21
st
Century skills— the higher order thinking
skills, collaborative opportunities, oral and written communication tools, and ability to
think creatively and analytically to solve real-world problems that students not only need
to compete in the global society, but that also will serve as vehicles for students to gain
knowledge in the academic content standards. This focus then becomes the implemented
curriculum. In order for students to attain this curriculum at a level they need in order to
be successful in college and the work world, high performing districts promote rigorous
curriculum, relevant instruction, and mentoring relationships. Such high-performing
districts also focus on relationships with local community stakeholders.
Successful implementation of this framework produces student achievement as
measured by both statewide, high-stakes assessments as well as by new forms of
assessments, whether performance tasks, student portfolios, public exhibitions, or
research reports. The next generation of assessment systems points toward augmenting
current statewide assessments by measuring student performance in terms of 21
st
Century
skills. Once issues related to scalability are conquered, it is hoped that newer assessment
systems will be incorporated as a large portion of the data used to inform instruction,
thereby pushing more schools and districts to use 21
st
Century skills as the pedagogy for
teaching academic content standards.

57
Higher performing districts embrace the concept of professional learning
communities as the best way to engage school faculty and staff in discussions of student
achievement. When schools improve only within their current structure, test scores
usually plateau. Professional learning communities using cycles of inquiry are one way
that schools and districts have been able to continue improvement even after seemingly
peaking. Fullan, Bertani, and Quinn (2004) echoed the sentiments about creating
professional learning communities at and across schools in a district. They continued by
stating that districts need to reconceptualize their structures as well as their cultural
norms in order to support the demands of 21
st
Century schools. In their words, “These
structures reflect underlying principles of an effective education organization: a common
direction and collective purpose, a laserlike focus on teaching and learning for both adults
and students, and an alignment of structure and roles” (2004, p. 44).
The biggest challenge will be accomplishing this goal in an urban school district.
Though NCLB has done much to center public attention on the achievement gap in terms
of academic content knowledge, a new gap has emerged in which urban schools, in
particular, do not have the same expectations for its high school graduates as the rest of
the developed world and higher socioeconomic suburban school districts. Closing the
gap would require policy outside of the scope of this dissertation, where states and even
the federal government align standards with college and workplace expectations. A Time
Warner Foundation survey (as cited in Sacconaghi, 2006) from 2003 found that the
American public believes that 45% of African American and 35% of Hispanic students

58
are far behind other students in the industrialized world in terms of 21
st
Century skills.
On the same survey, respondents reported less than 20% of African American students
and 25% of Hispanic students are ahead of students from other industrialized countries.
Only five states reported having aligned standards with college readiness, with
only three states having data systems to track students from preschool through college
graduation (Achieve Inc, 2006; Conley, 2007). Furthermore, only 20 states and the
District of Columbia purport to have graduation requirements for all students aligned
with college and career readiness. It is still too early to tell if these policies are actually
better preparing students for the global society (Cohn & Haycock, 2008). Three aims
must be met in order to close this gap. Firstly, federal NCLB policies need to be
strengthened, ensuring access for all students to rigorous world-class standards.
Secondly, states must beef up graduation requirements so that all graduates are prepared
for the college and the work world. Finally, all teachers and schools must be trained to
employ the relevant instructional methods most effective for students of color and low-
income students instead of just relying on rote memorization and lecture. This effort will
move current accountability beyond content knowledge attainment to the preparation of
all students for the 21
st
Century (Murnane, 2007).

59
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

Introduction
The previous chapters presented the case that as a reaction to a series of federal
programs and mandates culminating in the No Child Left Behind legislation, schools and
districts are now held accountable for the teaching academic content standards. The
sanctions and public nature of this accountability system place a microscope on schools
and districts not meeting growth targets, often leading to a narrowing of the curriculum in
which drill and practice and rote memorization becomes the dominant instructional
strategies. What gets left behind are the 21
st
Century skills students need to be successful
in college and the new global society. Students in urban schools have been most affected
by this narrowing curriculum, creating an even larger achievement gap. Significant
research points to the fact that those 21
st
Century skills are actually some of the most
effective instructional strategies for teaching the academic content standards. Some
schools and districts are effectively serving socioeconomically diverse student bodies,
demonstrating that this approach to teaching and learning can show success in preparing
students for college and beyond--and still meet the requirements of NCLB.
This case study’s purpose is to understand how a diverse school district decided
upon and then successfully implemented and assessed a curriculum in which 21
st
Century
skills served as the pedagogy for teaching students the academic content standards. By

60
not engaging in an either/or battle of academic content standards versus 21
st
Century
skills, this district saw the cumulative effects upon student achievement. This study aims
to uncover how the district achieved this dual aim; to this end, the researcher poses three
research questions:
• What influences are driving the demand for 21
st
Century skills as equity pedagogy
at the district?
• What is the district’s design for utilizing 21
st
Century skills as pedagogy for
teaching standards-based academic content knowledge?
• To what extent has the district’s design been implemented successfully and how
does the district measure success?
These questions will shed light on how a district can support the varied needs of
diverse school sites when implementing an instructional reform effort with 21
st
Century
skills as a driving force. Namely, how does the superintendent and district office
administration, under the guidance of the school board, enable successful execution
across multiple school sites? The focus of the study is on district-level strategies. It is
implicit that the role of the superintendent, school board, and other district office staff is
studied extensively; however, principals will serve as a key calibration point as to
whether the intended curriculum of the district is in line with the implemented and
attained curricula at the school sites.

61
Sample and Population
Selection of a district for this study was based on three primary criteria: (a)
success on the measures of API and AYP above and beyond similar districts, (b) a
socioeconomically diverse student body with significant populations of traditionally
underserved students in urban areas, (c) a stated mission and strategic plan with a strong
emphasis on 21
st
Century skills. Purposeful sampling was used to identify several
districts that fit the criteria, with final district selection guided by convenience and
openness of the district to be studied. Patton (2002) has described purposeful sampling as
the nonrandom selection of an information-rich site for in-depth study.
The Harbor Heights Unified School District (HHUSD) is comprised of 22
elementary schools (both K-5 and K-8), 2 intermediate schools, 6 comprehensive high
schools, and a continuation high school. The schools vary in API from the high 600s to
the low 900s and serve students of different racial and socioeconomic levels in deeply
stratified communities. This profile means that some schools have less than a 5% Title I
population that is over 90% Caucasian, whereas other schools have over an 85% Title I
population that is less than 5% Caucasian. The overall district API was a 796 for the
2007-2008 school year with its schools generally outperforming similar schools with an
average Similar Schools Rank of 7. Their lowest performing school had an API of 694,
but still earned a Similar Schools Rank of 8. The district met AYP in five out of six
categories (DataQuest, www.cde.ca.gov).

62
Enrollment for the 2007-2008 school year in HHUSD is 21,507 students with
50.2% Caucasian, 41.9% Hispanic or Latino, 4.4% Asian, and 1.4% African American.
Twenty-six percent of the students is English Language Learners, of whom 92.7% notes
Spanish as a home language. Approximately 44.5% of students qualifies for free or
reduced lunch (DataQuest, www.cde.ca.gov).
This study included five interviews with district staff as well as four interviews
with principals. The individuals interviewed included the Superintendent, Assistant
Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, Director of Teacher Development, Board
President, and Data Manager. The Assistant Superintendent recommended the principal
participants.

Data Collection Procedures
This research inquiry is a qualitative, descriptive-interpretive case study and
includes the use of interviews, observations, and document analysis. The purpose of the
case study is to understand a phenomenon (Gall et al., 2003). In this case, the
phenomenon is how the district has linked 21
st
Century skills to academic content
standards to drive student achievement gains. A descriptive approach was used to depict
“an account of the phenomenon under study,” with interpretive analysis as a complement
to “develop conceptual categories, or to illustrate, support, or challenge theoretical
assumptions held prior to the data gathering” (Merriam, 1998, p. 38). Such a qualitative
case study is appropriate due to the complexity of the educational setting as well as the

63
inherent variability within and across the multiple school sites of the study district
(Merriam, 1998).
The primary tool used in collecting data for this study was the interview.
According to Patton, “The purpose of qualitative interviewing is to capture how those
being interviewed view the world, to learn their terminology and judgments, and to
capture the complexities of their individual perceptions and experiences” (2002, p. 348).
A set of interview protocols was assembled to guide this process with a semistructured
approach utilized during the interviews. An interview guide was prepared with
appropriate questions for the various stakeholders interviewed, based on the research
questions previously listed. The interview method combined Patton’s (2002) “Interview
Guide Approach” with the “Standardized Open-Ended Interview” to promote consistency
from interview to interview in terms of questions asked, while permitting some leeway in
the direction of the interviews to allow for the addition of probing questions. The
interview questions were broken up into three sections, corresponding to the three
research questions in this study. Protocols for interviews at each of these levels have
been included in the appendices.
The interviews included both open-ended and close-ended questions. The purpose
of open-ended inquiries is to obtain as much information as possible. At the same time,
interviews should end with very direct and specific closed questions (Sandoval, 2003).
Respondents were specifically asked whether 21
st
Century skills are utilized as an

64
instructional strategy to teach the academic content knowledge and how the district is
assessing and supporting the schools in this venture.
In order to ensure validity, interviews were conducted at all levels at the district,
including the school-level, with principals. This approach led to a “‘holistic
understanding’ of the situation…to construct ‘plausible explanations about the
phenomena being studied’” (Merriam, 1998, p. 204). Several stakeholders at the district
level as well as site-level principals participated in individual interviews lasting
approximately 45 minutes that were conducted in empty offices at the district offices and
school sites. Notes were taken during each interview with reflective notes added after the
conclusion. Each interview was recorded with results of the interviews transcribed for
analysis.
In addition to interviews, document analysis, school learning walks, and
classrooms observations were utilized as part of the data collection procedure.
“Documents prove valuable not only because of what can be learned directly from them,
but also as stimulus for paths of inquiry that can be pursued only through direct
observation and interviewing” (Patton, 2002, p. 294). Documents from all levels of the
organization that deal with the use of 21
st
Century skills as a pedagogy were requested,
including strategic plans, assessments, memos, and curriculum guides. Learning walks
and classroom observations served to create an overall picture of the school setting as
well as to provide supporting data for the interviews and document analysis.

65
Data Analysis Procedures
The goal of this study was to understand how a district utilizes 21
st
Century skills
as the instructional strategy to teach academic content standards. This study examined
how one socioeconomically diverse district initiated, created instructional coherence, and
assessed success within its instructional framework to promote success for all students at
all schools. The interview questions were generated with the express purpose of
identifying this process and understanding these practices in relation to the research
literature and in answering the research questions in this study.
Following the interviews, document analysis, and surveys, time was spent coding
and analyzing the data. Interviews were taped and then transcribed verbatim in order to
capture each and every aspect of the conversations. The raw data from transcribed
interviews were coded as were field notes, document content, and school and classroom
observation information. This information was analyzed and categorized to identify
commonalities within the data based on the developed research questions. Prior
categorization of interview protocol corresponding to the three research questions
allowed for more efficient use of time in the categorization process. Subcategory codes
within each of these question-based areas led to a further coding of the data. After
manually coding the data, the researcher utilized coding software.
HyperResearch, a qualitative coding software, was used to continue the coding
process. This software aided in inventorying the transcribed interviews into codes. The
program increased the reliability and meaningfulness of the data. With the data fully

66
coded, both manually and with coding software, formal analysis began. The use of the
three sections based on the three research questions remained during the analysis phase.
Summarized analyses as well as direct quotations portray the findings. Chapter Four
contains a narrative report of these findings.

Ethical Considerations
This proposal was submitted to and approved by the Institutional Review Board
(IRB) at the University of Southern California. Additionally, written consent from the
Harbor Heights Unified School District Superintendent and other interviewees was
obtained. These consent forms ensured that all parties involved are participating on a
voluntary basis and that the necessary permission is granted from HHUSD. All
interviewees were also reminded before the interview that they had signed the consent
form as well as that all interviews will be held in the strictest of confidence. All names
are actually aliases, if included in the Chapters Four or Five. The recording device was
left in plain view and any request to comment “off the record” was granted.

67

CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS

Introduction
The use of 21
st
Century skills as the pedagogy to teach the academic content
standards presents a balanced approach as opposed to the usual either/or seen in
education. Some believe in implementing academic programs based solely on the high-
stakes tests schools are held accountable for under No Child Left Behind. Far too often
this curriculum, and its accompanying instructional strategies, limit students’ ability to be
successful in college and the global work world. This approach is most often seen in
high-poverty urban districts with large majorities of students of color. Those on the other
side of the divide have are creating academic programs rich in real-world applications,
but short on academic content. This tactic short-changes students on the basic skills
needed to be successful on the high-stakes assessments and in the foundational
knowledge necessary for applying higher order thinking skills in an intelligent manner.
The most successful urban districts, however, have embraced the concept of 21
st
Century
skills as the pedagogy for academic content standards; these districts have achieved
success on the state mandated assessments while preparing students for higher education
and the new global economy. How such districts set the strategic direction for and then
support their schools in the implementation of such an approach is of great interest.
The first three chapters of this dissertation provided an introduction to how our

68
nation’s urban schools got to this point, a thorough literature review highlighting
effective practices around pedagogy and 21
st
Century skills, and the methodology used to
examine the policies, practices, and strategies of Harbor Heights Unified School District.
This chapter offers a detailed description of the qualitative case study of the district
through four unique lenses: district interviews, school site administrator focus group,
teacher survey, and document analysis. This chapter also presents the findings in relation
to the research questions as well as conclusions of the case study.

Initial Meeting with Study District
The first visit to the offices of Harbor Heights Unified School District took place
on April 29, 2009. The purpose of this visit was to discuss the focus of the study with the
superintendent and several members of his instructional cabinet and get a sense of what
types of access would be granted for the study. The district office itself would best be
described as inauspicious and unassuming. The people inside were welcoming with a
clear customer-service orientation.
The superintendent’s office was toward the other side of the building. The
boardroom sat directly off the main lobby and the offices ran a rectangular perimeter with
a central courtyard in the middle. Student work punctuated displays in the lobby along
with pictures of the board members and district staff, notices and memoranda, and
educational and community-based magazines. The lobby clearly communicated the

69
purpose of the building, and interactions with the staff made the environment seem
supportive as opposed to bureaucratic.
As a former USC Ed.D. student, the superintendent was open and ensured the
researcher that his staff would be accessible for interviews and would provide the data
and documents needed. Introductions were made to the assistant superintendent in
charge of secondary schools and the executive assistant to the superintendent, who served
as a future point of contact for all scheduling and data requests. As with the receptionist
in the lobby, everyone on the superintendent’s staff, in both formal and informal settings,
demonstrated a clear service orientation. Each and every district staff member was
sincerely interested in the findings of the study and pledged to provide whatever
assistance necessary.

Research Questions
The research questions provided the foundation for the data gathering at the district,
seeking a road map on how to implement a curriculum in which 21
st
Century skills serve
as the pedagogy for academic content standards. The questions were:
• What influences are driving the demand for 21
st
Century skills as equity pedagogy
at the district?
• What is the district’s design for utilizing 21
st
Century skills as pedagogy for
teaching standards-based academic content knowledge?

70
• To what extent has the district’s design been implemented successfully and
how does the district measure success?
The research questions focused on the policies, practices, and strategies utilized by the
district in implementing a program of 21
st
Century skills at the local school sites. These
questions were aligned to the overall purpose of the study to understand the process of
how a diverse school district decided upon and then successfully implemented and
assessed a curriculum in which 21
st
Century skills serve as the pedagogy for teaching
students the academic content standards.

Criteria
The researcher’s selection of Harbor Heights Unified School District was
predicated on three factors linked to the purpose of the study: (a) success on the measures
of API and AYP above and beyond similar districts, (b) a socioeconomically diverse
student body with significant populations of traditionally underserved students in urban
areas, and (c) a stated mission and strategic plan with a strong emphasis on 21
st
Century
skills.
In terms of success on the measures of API and AYP, Harbor Heights Unified
School District’s schools vary in API from the high 600’s to the low 900’s. The overall
district API was 796 for the 2007-2008 school year and 813 for the 2008-2009 school
year with schools generally outperforming similar schools with an average Similar

71
Schools Rank of 7. Their lowest performing school had an API of 694, but still earned
a Similar Schools Rank of 8. The district met AYP in 35 of 38 categories (DataQuest,
www.cde.ca.gov).
HHUSD meets the second criterion as it serves students of vastly differing racial
and socioeconomic levels in deeply stratified communities. This profile results in some
schools with less than a 5% Title I population over 90% Caucasian and other schools
over an 85% Title I population less than 5% Caucasian. Enrollment for the 2007-2008
school year in HHUSD was 21,507 students with 50.2% Caucasian, 41.9% Hispanic or
Latino, 4.4% Asian, and 1.4% African American. 26% of the students was English
Language Learners, of whom 92.7% notes Spanish as its home language. Approximately
44.5% of students qualifies for free or reduced lunch (DataQuest, www.cde.ca.gov).
The district meets the final aspect as it emphasizes 21
st
Century skills in its vision
and strategic plan. With a vision to, “provide a world-class education for every child,
every day,” HHUSD has identified five themes as part of its strategic plan. The two
themes that pertain to this case study are 21
st
Century Skills and Communication and
Collaboration.

Methodology
Data analysis from this qualitative, descriptive-interpretive case-study led to the
discovery of several key themes and findings concerning how the district successfully
implemented a curriculum in which 21
st
Century skills served as pedagogy for academic

72
content standards. Interviews were taped and then transcribed verbatim in order to
capture each and every aspect of the conversations. The raw data from the transcribed
interviews, documents, and teacher surveys were collected, coded, and analyzed
following Creswell’s (2003) framework for data analysis and interpretation so that the
data could be triangulated to look for consistency and emerging themes. This process
lends reliability and validity to the findings.
The data collected included the district’s strategic plan, School Accountability
Report Cards (SARCs), teacher survey data provided by the district, the California
Department of Education (CDE) website, the district website, the district Career-Tech
Education website, the EdSource website, and California Standards Test (CST) scores.
The other data collected for purposes of triangulation came from the interviews and focus
group, and teacher survey data from this study’s questionnaire. All data were collected,
coded, and chunked in order to determine how the district was showing student success
on standardized accountability measures and still preparing students for the new global
economy.

Participants
After the initial meeting with the superintendent and assistant superintendents, the
researcher spent two days in the district office. During those visits, formal interviews
were conducted with the superintendent, two assistant superintendents, and the school
board president. Several email correspondences were sent to the district data analysis

73
team in order to prepare the teacher survey. These correspondences were in lieu of a
face-to-face meeting. During the two days of visits, several key documents were
collected, including the district strategic plan and district-provided teacher surveys.
An additional day was spent at one of the school sites for the purpose of the
administrator focus group. The administrator focus group included the principals of a
high socioeconomic high school and middle school along with two assistant principals
from those same schools. Three of the administrators who participated in the focus group
had recently been assigned as administrators to lower socioeconomic schools in the same
district and could therefore provide perspective relative to this case’s goal of studying
programs in a diverse urban district.

Responses to Research Question 1
The first research question used to guide this study was: What influences are
driving the demand for 21
st
century skills as equity pedagogy at the district?
You know, it’s not 21st century skills or core academics. It’s both,
and that’s the key thing. They’re integrated. They’re the same thing
in a sense, but people don’t fully understand that sometimes. I think
communicating that and helping people to understand, that’s been
probably our biggest challenge.
- HHUSD Superintendent Johnson

A Board Mandate for Change
It was clear that the Harbor Heights Unified School District was ready to embark
on a campaign to infuse 21
st
Century skills into the curriculum. This drive served as a
contributing factor in both the preparation of the district’s students for the new global

74
workforce as well as in the growth of API scores across its schools. Board President
White and Superintendent Johnson explained that the catalyst for the 21
st
Century skills
movement was the board itself. In Johnson’s words:
When I [the Superintendent] got here, the board had all read “The
World is Flat,” so that helped me quite a bit, because they
understood the global nature of the 21st century economy, and that
our kids needed to have certain kinds of skills that were not
necessarily represented in the standard academic curriculum. So
one of the things they asked me to do, for example, was … to look
at career tech education, specifically as it related to 21st century
skills…So we have, from the board’s perspective, a mandate really
to deal with 21st century skills with our kids.

The board president echoed those sentiments and stressed that the majority of the board
was business people who bring the global perspective to the table. She had attended a 21
st

Century Skills Conference put on by Cisco back in 2001 and had a clear perspective on
the issue of 21
st
Century skills as an equity pedagogy, which had actually led her to seek
office on the board of education. She explained:
I was successful in school because high social skills and whatnot,
but school just wasn’t a pleasant successful place for me, other than
the social part. I did okay grade-wise and stuff but I was pretty
much bored out of my ever-loving mind. So I was really
determined that my kids would have a different experience.

Prior to the new superintendent coming on board, the district went through major
restructuring. With a small group of committed parents and community stakeholders, the
current board president uncovered the embezzlement of millions of dollars along with a
host of legacy practices and nepotism that had stifled change and taken money away from
new programs. The superintendent previous to Dr. Johnson had spent the majority of his

75
tenure fixing the broken systems and cleaning out staff clearly not committed to the
students of HHUSD. The importance of this legacy could not be underscored enough, as
Dr. Johnson had inherited a functioning district office ready to make change. During his
interview, the board asked him about 21
st
Century skills in their schools. The board felt
that it did not need to focus on No Child Left Behind compliance as most of its schools
were doing well on measures of standardized testing and the ones not doing well were at
least improving.
With the board already pushing for 21
st
Century skills, the superintendent had one
major hurdle cleared. The previous superintendent’s efforts to clean up the district
office’s structures, policies, and people, had eliminated another barrier for the
superintendent. Another key factor to district readiness was the robust and highly
functioning IT team inherited by the new leadership. Its major focus was 21
st
Century
skills and the role that technology plays in instruction and pedagogy. The technology
department worked actively with teachers and staff primarily to help them gain a certain
comfort level in their use of technology. Increasing their own ability to use technology,
teachers will in turn use these skills to impact their instruction. Dr. Myers, the assistant
superintendent, sees this as a key for implementation of 21
st
century skills:
The best strategy is time. You want to promote young people who
really have an affinity for technology, who understand technology,
make sure they’re in the right courses. You want to promote them into
the right divisions; so your educational technology division, your IT
department. You want to make sure that you have people who are
cutting edge in there, and it would be their job as adult to adult to
begin this transition of information to the more veteran teacher. Peer
pressure is huge, to be candid.

76
The deemphasis on NCLB compliance and the promotion of 21
st
Century skills
from the board trickled down to the superintendent, his staff, and then to site
administrators and teachers. The importance of this support from the board could not be
understated in its contribution to the forward movement of the district. As one assistant
principal put it, “So they’re taking really the focus off of test scores and putting the focus
on learning, knowing that if we’re doing a good job of having the kids learn whatever it is
that we feel is important, that the scores will take care of themselves.”
Schools Feel Pressure from Both Ends
The board and the central office were the driving influence behind the push for
21
st
Century skills. Teachers and administrators were also sensing the demand to
promote student use of 21
st
Century skills as a medium. School sites were hearing from
the district office that teaching the content standards was not enough; students were
coming to the schools with an advanced knowledge of technology and social networking
that the schools felt they needed to capitalize on in order to better educate the students.
As part of an annual district survey (Speak Up Survey, 2008), 60% of parents and
42% of high school students felt strongly that 21
st
Century skills are best learned as part
of their regular classes. At the same time, 93% of those students believed that it was
coming to school as an average or above average user of technology and 76% of its
parents believed instructional technology in the classroom was a key to student learning.
Further, 77% of teachers and administrators voiced its support of instructional technology
to support student learning, as well; however, 55% of parents rated it extremely

77
important, whereas only 33% of administrators and teachers saw it as extremely
important.
Figure 2:
Importance of Instructional Techonology to Student Learning (Speak Up Survey, 2008)

Parents, students, and staff all identified the top five purposes of instructional
technology in the classroom as (a) researching, (b) organizing information, (c) preparing
written and verbal reports, (d) identifying and locating information sources, and (e)
evaluating relevancy and authenticity of sources. All five of these can be classified as 21
st

Century skills.
One assistant superintendent summarized student readiness and how the schools
should take advantage of the skills a student brings to school:

78
I consider myself pretty technological. I have a doctorate. I’ve been on
computers for years now. I can’t hold a candle to my kids. Now did they
learn that in school? No. They learned it by doing, by trial and error. It’s
just their world now. They’re on computers, they’re texting, their social
networking. So they’re getting it. Again, my contention is it’s not as
important that we, the education institution, provide it for them; it’s that
we take advantage of what’s there to educate them, because they’re going
to get it anyway… through my experience and what I’ve seen, and again,
through my own kids, it’s not the school that’s going to teach kids the 21st
Century, it’s the schools that have got to realize that kids are learning
through 21st Century Skills and we must adopt the skills to help them,
versus us showing them the 21st Century Skills.

External Influences Used as an Additional Lever
Though not the driving factor for the 21
st
Century skills push, community
business people and local institutions of higher education certainly have applied added
pressure to HHUSD. The superintendent and his cabinet as well as the board president
highlighted their partnerships with the local chamber of commerce and business
community as well as their excellent working relationship with two large research
universities in the community. These entities were involved in the strategic planning
process, teacher and staff training, and in career days, projects, and internships as well as
donated equipment for schools. One of the assistant superintendents pointed out the
limitations to learning from the business community:

But unless there’s an entity within the school district that reaches out to
the business community, or vice versa, what happens is, the business
community sits out there and says, those schools are not producing 21st
century employees, and what a lousy job they’re doing. It’s easy to point
the finger.

79
In order to guard against this dynamic, the superintendent established a
business roundtable to seek further guidance and support, and sought to build a two-way
relationship where commerce learned about what was going on in the schools and then
had an opportunity to influence the direction of the district. Everyone at the district level
believed that the momentum is goinh in the right direction, and that districts and
businesses are understanding and starting to meet each other’s needs.
One of the most instrumental ways the community had partnered in this work was
by passing two major school facility bonds since 2000. This feat was identified by every
stakeholder as key to promoting 21
st
Century skills in the schools; as the board president
stated, “when we went out to bid for bonds for our schools…our main focus was that we
didn’t have the infrastructure to support 21st century skills.” In recognizing how strongly
the community believed in the way the district was moving, the district capitalized on 21
st

Century skills to help pass the two bond measures.
Resistance Serves as a Negative Influence
Several barriers to this movement have also existed. Three major identified
impediments to be discussed in this section include a veteran staff unwilling to change,
the teachers union, and misunderstandings of NCLB and what it takes to improve API
scores.
As highlighted earlier in Table 1, teachers and administrators do not feel that
instructional technology is as important as the parents do in terms of student learning.
The assistant superintendent believes this difference is generational, explaining:

80
All of our younger teachers are the ones pushing for the social networking,
that every kid should have a cell phone turned on in class sitting in
front of them so they can have access to the Internet, but you still have
the old school, which is no phones, they don’t even have pagers
anymore, but no calculators, that whole kind of mindset. That’s
what’s keeping 21st century from coming forward, I think, more than
just an acceptance of it.

The school site administrators also viewed individual teacher resistance to change
as a barrier. Some teachers on their site are instructing the same way they have for over
20 or 30 years and are not interested in changing the way they teach to meet the needs of
their students. At the same time, less experienced teachers also present challenges, but
more to implementation than to support. These teachers do not always possess the skills
necessary to deliver the intended curriculum. Despite challenges on both ends of the
spectrum, the administrators believe that the district is firmly on the right path where “our
teachers are talking about how they continue to develop critical thinking skills at the
same time that they’re focusing on what they may see as lower level thinking skills,
which is just academic content.”
All teachers are feeling impacted by the importance of 21
st
Century skills. As
evidence, 54% of teachers surveyed averred that preparation of students for the 21
st

Century had a strong, positive influence, whereas 40% said it had a somewhat positive
influence on their teaching. This finding supports that the district focus is indeed having
an impact, regardless of any resistance to change. The cognizance of the district and
school administrators is an important component to overcoming these issues and

81
strategies to do so will be discussed later in this chapter in findings on question 2
concerning implementation.
Whereas teachers as individuals have served as a challenge for the movement, the
teachers union has been a much larger obstacle. Highlighted by both the board president
and superintendent as at the table for the entire strategic planning process, the union,
nonetheless, fought district leadership at every turn. One of the assistant superintendents
expressed the feelings of everyone in the district office:
Our teachers union has been a barrier. I can say that very honestly, that
they have given us difficulty about the amount of teacher collaboration
time that we can expect. They’ve fought us on the number of instructional
minutes. Our goal has been to maximize instructional minutes for kids.
We’ve moved to a full day kindergarten program. We’ve tried to lengthen
our instructional day, knowing that we can’t get everything in the limited
amount of time that we have, and they’ve fought us on every turn.

So the union may have been philosophically on board with the push for 21
st
Century
skills as pedagogy, but when philosophy met practice, union leadership balked at
changing the status quo. The site administrators felt similar frustration and mentioned
time as the key factor on which the union would not budge. As one principal put it:
Time is the key. In terms of specifically what are we doing, I think
especially what we’re doing is trying to promote additional time and
create additional time for staff to talk about higher thinking skills to make
the important decisions about what are we going to teach and what are we
not going to teach, and how are we going to assess, and how will we know
when the students have learned all those things. They just need more time
to be able to do that.

A final barrier to the effort has been the No Child Left Behind legislation. This
obstacle has manifested in two different but complementary ways. Though the board and

82
superintendent tried to deemphasize the importance of API and to stress preparing
students for the new global economy, pressure still exists, mostly from parents and
community members, to improve test scores. This pressure is felt most keenly by the site
principals and is irrespective of how high-performing the school already is. Schools with
API scores over 900 get questioned by parents for insignificant drops or gains less than
do neighboring schools in different districts. The demand to maintain and increase API
scores trickle down to the teachers who want to improve their students test scores but are
often unsure how to do so and fall back to rote teaching methods and lower levels of
thinking. For example, 30% of teachers surveyed said state-mandated tests had a strong
positive influence on their teaching, with 37% said it bore a somewhat positive influence.
Further, 48% of HHUSD school administrators surveyed believed that
standardized test scores were one of the biggest obstacles to implementing 21
st
Century
skills. An assistant principal, formerly at one of the lower socioeconomic schools in the
districts, spoke to this tension:
I think sometimes NCLB has certainly hindered the ability to get beyond
just teaching the test, because again, you’re looking at program
improvement, you don’t have a choice. You have to improve your test
scores, so you have to develop your benchmarks and your testing and your
teaching to address those things you’re going to see on the CSTs in order
to make those improvements. Sometimes I think that does come at the
expense of being able to venture out beyond that and prepare the kids in
other ways, because CSTs are pretty base level thinking.

The other assistant principal in the focus group echoed this sentiment:
That’s a pretty low level of thinking required to do the CSTs, and so
sometimes the teachers are – they’d like to spend more time up here, but at
the same time they’d then have to go back and get the kids adjusted to just

83
a lower level of recall for some of the testing and stuff like that. So it’s how
you find a balance of the both.

This discussion of the barriers as they relate to question one provides a natural
segue into question two, which concerns implementation strategies. The superintendent
and his staff were very intentional in their design and took into account the challenges
previously highlighted. For this reason, the barriers may be discussed again in the next
section. Clearly, though, the HHUSD board, district-level staff, school staff, community,
and parents were primed and ready for the measured implementation of 21
st
Century
skills as pedagogy for teaching standards-based academic content knowledge.

Responses to Research Question 2
The second research question guiding this study was: What is the district’s design
for utilizing 21
st
Century skills as a pedagogy for teaching standards-based academic
content knowledge?
I don’t think you can delineate the difference between California state
testing and the 21st Century [Skills], because what you’re seeing is the
California state standards that you require in children to learn are going to
be valid and current in the 21st century. I think more specific is the tools
in which we learn those standards is what really will determine how we
prepare kids for the 21st century.
- HHUSD Assistant Superintendent

The Strategic Planning Process Guides Implementation
HHUSD began this move towards 21
st
Century skills by creating a five-year
strategic plan back in 2004. This plan (which is currently being revised, as the original
five-year timeframe is expiring) involved input from all stakeholders in the district at

84
various levels. Union, district, board, and community leadership were all consistently
at the table doing the actual writing of the goals and the plan. Principals, teachers, and
other staff members participated in focus groups and provided key feedback. Parents and
students were surveyed and had other public forums to give input. As the HHUSD board
president explained, “In our strategic plan which we took a year pulling all community
members, all walks of life, including students; mostly high school, we put a strategic plan
together and our focus was introducing 21st century skills.”
This meaningful involvement was intentional and ensured that everyone had a
voice and had a sense of ownership about the plan. The strategic plan consisted of a set
of beliefs and goals around those beliefs; it was not a top-down mandate from the district
office, but a genuine, collaborative effort that produced a document to guide the future
progress of the district. Two important qualities of the process cannot be underscored
enough– (a) a true collaborative effort to build ownership and buy-in and (b) the
production of a living document consistently referred back to and used to guide future
decisions.
Even though 21
st
Century skills were a major focus of the strategic planning
process, no framework was intentionally utilized as a guide, which does not make the
plan any less viable, as evidenced by the overarching mission:
Accomplishing this vision ensures that our students become responsible,
ethical citizens who will make meaningful contributions to a multiethnic,
global community. Our graduates will exhibit the academic, interpersonal,
and technological skills required for success in higher education and in
their chosen careers.

85
Further proof is provided by how well the strategic plan is aligned with Wagner’s
(2008) Seven Survival Skills for 21
st
Century Students, as indicated in Table 2, below.

86
Table 2:

Wagner’s Framework vs. HHUSD Strategic Plan

Wagner’s Seven Survival
Skills

HHUSD Strategic Plan 2005-2010
Strategic Issues, Goals, and Actions
Critical Thinking and Problem
Solving
Devise opportunities for students to think critically, research and
solve problems;
Implement hands-on inquiry based science
Collaboration across Networks
and Leading by Influence
Prepare students to thrive in a diverse society;
Establish a Task Force to develop a service learning program;
We expect academic achievement, personal responsibility, honesty,
cultural sensitivity, and respect for people, property, and the
environment.
Agility and Adaptability Provide an exciting, challenging curriculum responsive to needs,
learning styles, and individual interests;
Continue to design our high schools to meet the changing needs of
our students in the areas of curriculum, scheduling, environment,
instruction, and community involvement
Initiative and
Entrepreneurialism
Providing a challenging, nurturing, and active learning environment
for all our children that ensures educational success, a life-long
desire to learn, and personal and civic responsibility;
Expand career preparation training
Effective Oral and Written
Communication
Using current technologies, prepare students and staff to access,
manage, integrate, evaluate, and create information.

87

Table 2, Continued
Accessing and Analyzing
Information
Using current technologies, prepare students and staff to access,
manage, integrate, evaluate, and create information.
Curiosity and Imagination Provide an exciting, challenging curriculum responsive to needs,
learning styles, and individual interests;
Make the visual and performing arts an integral part of school life

Notably whereas 21
st
Century skills served as a major focus of the strategic plan,
HHUSD did not ignore the importance of the academic content standards and, in fact,
included the goal: “ensure mastery of the grade level California adopted standards.” This
move avoided the all too common either/or argument of knowledge versus skills.
The strategic plan also outlined guiding principles for how HHUSD would
function into the future. This accommodation helped alignment around a mission and
fostered consistency of message and culture from the superintendent down to the school
site staff. The plan also illuminated attitudes about professional development and growth
of school staff and community stakeholders in order to achieve the goals of the strategic
plan. The thoughtfulness of including these diverse aspects in the plan is a key driver to
the successful implementation of 21
st
Century skills as pedagogy and will be further
discussed in the next two sections.
District Alignment
I think there’s been a paradigm shift with the new superintendent over the
last three years, so the district office staff has become much more service-
oriented. We’ve kind of turned the paradigm, where our job here has

88
always been to support schools, but it’s now in a very authentic way; that the
principals and the teachers know that the very first thing they can do is call
us and we’ll be there to help.
- HHUSD Assistant Superintendent

Superintendent Johnson took several concrete steps to establish momentum for
the strategic plan, beginning with involving and empowering his cabinet to help
determine the best ways to translate the strategic plan into action at the school level. He
was also very thoughtful about his new hires at the district level to make certain his staff
was aligned with the same philosophy with regard to 21
st
Century skills. As he explained,
As a superintendent you can’t be as hands on as you might want to be. So
you have to make sure that your cabinet first of all is involved and
understands. And of course my cabinet is wonderfully on top of things.
They’re fired up about 21st century skills. They bring to me ideas around
it, so I’ve been blessed in that regard. And I’ve looked to hire people who
have those kinds of progressive more contemporary thinking associated
with our schools, and I’ve been blessed to be able to hire a lot of folks like
that. So there’s that, and then because they have then a number of
directors under them; all of whom will follow their lead, which is
connected hopefully to my lead, and ensures, I think, a high level of
interest and enthusiasm in 21st century skills here in the district office,
which then of course gets translated at the sites, hopefully, in an effective
way.

Setting the Message to the School Staff—Compliance versus Creativity
Next, the superintendent created a simple yet powerful catch-phrase that
embodies the ideas in the strategic plan and stresses the importance of balance, that is
“Compliance versus creativity.” The superintendent defines compliance as that which
must be done in terms of NCLB requirements and state-mandated standards and
accountability systems. Creativity is, then, the means of reaching compliance and the
opportunity to go above and beyond the kind of thinking required for mere compliance.

89
This message resonated with every district staff person and school-site administrator
interviewed, as they all spoke passionately about its impact on instruction. An assistant
superintendent explained:
Informally and formally, the superintendent has raised expectations and
talked a lot about the difference between creativity and compliance. You
know, school districts get mired in compliance and think that that’s just as
far as they have to go…Compliance is the baseline where we all should
be, and you use your creativity to take you, your staff, to the next level.
So that’s been a mantra around here for the last three years, which I think
has made a difference.

Compliance versus creativity also recognizes the inherent differences in where schools
are in terms of implementation and emphasis and allows them to make instructional
decisions based on the professional learning community model (which will be talked
about more in the next section). All of the administrators cited specific examples of their
school sites creatively meeting compliance objectives, such as through responses to the
intervention model or closing the achievement gap for English Learners and English Only
students. This creativity at the administrator-level facilitated the sharing of best
practices, as there is no “one-size-fits-all” mentality. The middle school principal shared
his experiences with compliance versus creativity and also brought up an important
structure to foster district alignment: sharing across campuses. He explained,
I know for the middle schools – the four middle school principals, we talk
every couple of weeks. We have a meeting and we really kind of look at
the middle school level what’s working at different levels and share
different ideas. So we’re able to really have some good communication
and put things together and just use what’s working over there and take it
over here, but adapt it, again, for our site.

90
Compliance versus creativity has generated a district PLC. As Fullan has explained,
“For system change to occur on a larger scale, we need schools learning from each other
and districts learning from each other. We call this ‘lateral capacity building’ and see it as
absolutely crucial for systemic reform” (2006, p. 10).
The Addition of Programs – CTE and ROP

Another vehicle for translating 21
st
Century skills as pedagogy was the expansion
of the Regional Occupation Programs (ROP) or Career-Technical Education (CTE)
Pathways at the high school level. According to The District Five Year Plan for CTE
(2006), a direct mission and vision aligns the programs with preparing students for the
21
st
century.
Vision: Career Technical Education will engage every student in high-
quality, rigorous and relevant educational pathways and programs
developed in partnership with business and industry promoting creativity,
innovation, leadership, community service and lifelong learning and
allowing students to turn their "passions into paychecks" -- their dreams
into careers.
Mission: The mission of CTE is to provide industry-linked programs and
services that enable all individuals to reach their career goals in order to
achieve economic self-sufficiency, compete in the global marketplace and
contribute to California's economy prosperity.

Formed as a partnership with the local chambers of commerce, ROP Center, and
community college, the CTE Pathways offers a vast array of courses at each high school
in the district. Programs include animation, visual communications, theater tech light and
sound, business and finance, digital media, music tech, construction technology, digital
media arts, hotel, hospitality and tourism, culinary arts, film and video production, and
visual imagery. Each course is aligned with the California CTE Standards and the district

91
is working to get many courses approved by the University of California as college-
ready coursework.
The CTE Pathways program is how one group of students accesses rigorous
curriculum through the use of 21
st
Century skills as pedagogy. This program impacts a
small number of students, however. The district does have a design to impact all students,
which is discussed in the next section.
Selection of a Delivery Framework – The Marzano Strategies
The selection of a common set of strategies served as a driver for reform in the
classrooms. HHUSD chose the highly regarded research-based Marzano strategies.
Identified by Marzano et al. (2001) as high-leverage strategies for teaching any content
standards, they are in line with the concept of 21
st
Century skills as pedagogical tools.
Table 3, below, builds off of Table 2, showing the alignment of Wagner’s Seven
Strategies with the HHUSD Strategic Plan by adding in the Marzano Strategies.

92
Table 3

Marzano’s (2001) Strategies vs. Wagner’s Framework vs. HHUSD Strategic Plan
Wagner’s Seven Survival
Skills
HHUSD Strategic Plan 2005-2010
Strategic Issues, Goals, and Actions
Marzano Strategies
Critical Thinking and
Problem-Solving
Devise opportunities for students to think critically,
research and solve problems;
Implement hands-on inquiry based science
Identifying Similarities and
Differences;
Nonlinguistic
Representations;
Generating and Testing
Hypotheses
Collaboration across
Networks and Leading by
Influence
Prepare students to thrive in a diverse society;
Establish a Task Force to develop a service learning
program;
We expect academic achievement, personal
responsibility, honesty, cultural sensitivity, and
respect for people, property, and the environment.
Cooperative Learning
Agility and Adaptability Provide an exciting, challenging curriculum
responsive to needs, learning styles and individual
interests;
Continue to design our high schools to meet the
changing needs of our students in the areas of
curriculum, scheduling, environment, instruction and
community involvement
Cues, Questions, and
Advance Organizers
Initiative and
Entrepreneurialism
Providing a challenging, nurturing, and active
learning environment for all our children that
ensures educational success, a life-long desire to
learn, and personal and civic responsibility;
Expand career preparation training
Reinforcing Effort and
Providing Recognition;
Homework and Practice;
Setting Objectives and
Providing Feedback

93

Table 3, continued
Effective Oral and Written
Communication
Using current technologies, prepare students and
staff to access, manage, integrate, evaluate and
create information.
Summarizing and
Notetaking
Accessing and Analyzing
Information
Using current technologies, prepare students and
staff to access, manage, integrate, evaluate and
create information.
Identifying Similarities and
Differences;
Summarizing and
Notetaking;
Cues, Questions, and
Advance Organizers
Curiosity and Imagination Provide an exciting, challenging curriculum
responsive to needs, learning styles and individual
interests;
Make the visual and performing arts an integral part
of school life
Reinforcing Effort and
Providing Recognition;
Setting Objectives and
Providing Feedback;
Generating and Testing
Hypotheses;
Cues, Questions, and
Advance Organizers

94
One assistant superintendent saw tremendous growth with the use of these
strategies, explaining: “We spend a great deal of time working with the Marzano
Strategies…because it gave everybody some common language and a tool that we could
all use.” The impact of the training of teachers and principals in these strategies is
evidenced by district staff and the principals on a regular basis. Not only did the
strategies give teachers a common language and tool, but they also conveyed a clear
expectation of what was to be seen in the classroom for both teachers and
administrators.
As mentioned in the literature review, effective implementation is predicated on
the dual lenses: selection of appropriate curriculum and instructional strategies and a
data-driven, aligned professional development delivery system. The Marzano Strategies
were the major piece of curricular selection. The next section examines professional
development.
Professional Development and the Movement Towards Professional Learning
Communities
Emblematic of HHUSD leadership is the implementation of practices associated
with Professional Learning Communities (PLC). This push gave principals the vehicle to
advance the school towards the goals outlined in the strategic plan with differentiation
based on the needs of the individual school community. Though a top-down mandate,
schools were allowed to self-select the entry point at which they would begin their reform
efforts. The outputs were fixed by the district, but how to get there was by and large

95
controlled by the individual school site. District staff would assist those schools
progressing at a slower pace and lagging in terms of student achievement—yet another
example of compliance versus creativity, as the middle school principal explained:
The underlying thing is, yes, the district would like us all to be involved
with the PLC process. And so that’s the compliant part- we’re certainly
onboard to see the benefits to the PLC, but we have that creativity to go
about it at kind of our own pace and in our own way to make sure we get
the buy-in from our staff.

Along with supporting the notion of compliance versus creativity, professional learning
communities are one of the major contributors to district alignment. Every single person
interviewed spoke to the power of the PLC movement and how it transformed the way
the individual schools, and the district as a whole, functioned. Superintendent Johnson
explained:
We also have a professional learning communities focus in the district,
which is directly connected to this notion of 21
st
century skills. Because,
in my view, we insist on having a community of inquiry. My vision really
is to have schools based around inquiry and educational research as being
something that’s real exciting and motivating to them….a lot of current
research, as you know, supports this notion of the 21
st
century skills being
so crucial.

A major tenet of professional learning communities is their focus on the learning
outcomes of the students. These outcomes are the emphasis of Question 3.

96
Responses to Research Question 3
The third research question used to guide this study was: To what extent has the
district’s design been implemented successfully and how does the district measure
success?
This section will examine district success in its implementation of a 21
st
Century
skills curriculum, both in terms of how well it performed on traditional measures of
student achievement mandated under NCLB, as well as on teacher practice and
perception and student and parent survey data. Most of the data is already collected by
the district or state, but additional survey data is utilized for purposes of verification and
filling in gaps where data may be missing. Along with quantitative data, anecdotal data
will support this work.
Statewide Testing Data
Chapter Two established a framework for the successful implementation of 21
st

Century skills as an equity pedagogy. The two determinants of achievement were (a)
preparation for the global society and (b) growth on standardized test scores mandated by
NCLB. This section will center on the latter. Every stakeholder interviewed was very
proud of the district’s accomplishments in relation to state testing the last three years and
was quick to point to the strategic plan and 21
st
Century skills as contributing factors. The
improvement of instructional strategies was one factor, but the superintendent presented a
second reason:
You know, when kids are interested in school, they’re more deeply
engaged. And if the kids are more deeply engaged, then they’re going to

97
perform at higher levels on standardized tests...So 21
st
century skills, because
of its contemporary focus, is something that I think keeps kids in schools,
keeps them more focused, and helps with our test scores in that regard.

The district has indeed seen a steady rise in test scores over the last five years, since the
inception of the strategic plan, at all levels and all schools. The district API is now an 817
and 19 schools are over 800. Figures 3 and 4, below, show the growth from 2004 to 2009.
Figure 3:
Elementary School API Scores Over Time
Elementary School API 2004-2009
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
API

98
Figure 4:
Secondary School API Scores Over Time
Secondary School API
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
API

That the achievement gap between schools is not diminishing is mostly due to the
equivalent improvement of the higher socioeconomic schools as opposed to the
maintenance of the status quo. Twenty-first Century skills have been most impactful at
schools with high free and reduced lunch populations, where according to one assistant
superintendent:
Teachers are teaching their hearts out…you’ve got kids that are active,
they’re working with knowledge, they’re working with materials, they’re
working with other kids, they’re collaborating. The teacher is more of a
facilitator maybe than an instructor, and they’re learning and discovering.

Along with a rise in overall API scores, the district has met its AYP benchmarks
for each subgroup, including its growing English Language Learner (ELL) population. It

99
is clear that HHUSD has increased student learning as measured by the California
Standards Test. Though the implementation of 21
st
Century skills cannot be credited as
the sole reason for the increase, it has been identified as a factor. Additionally, the
strategic plan, guided by 21
st
Century skills, provided the impetus for establishing
professional learning communities and using data to inform instruction, which are also
viewed by district staff as factors contributing to increases in student learning and test
scores.
Preparation for the 21
st
Century
HHUSD saw a steady increase in the student participation on Advanced
Placement and SAT Exams, maintaining consistent performance levels on each. Most
promising is that the increase has largely been caused by a substantial uptick in
participation from the two high schools with lower socioeconomic and more diverse
populations. For this reason, the static nature of district-wide achievement on these
measures of college-readiness is not a concern. Figure 5, below, shows AP performance
and participation while Figure 6, below, shows SAT performance and participation.

100
Figure 5:
AP Exam Participation and Passage Rates
AP Exam Participation and Passage Rates
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2005 2006 2007 2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Number of exam takers
Number of exams taken
Passage Rate

Figure 6:
SAT Participation and Average Scores
SAT Participation and Average Scores
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
2005 2006 2007
Math and Verbal Composite
40
44
48
52
56
60
% seniors tested
Verbal/Math Average
Percent Tested

101
When asked about the importance of SAT and AP scores at their schools, the
high school principal shared:
Our parents are acutely aware of those things. They know exactly what
the SAT and AP norms are, our averages are, at all the surrounding
schools, because it is a common topic of conversation in their workplace.
Because they’ll live down here and work down here, they have friends that
go to all those other schools as well.

The combination of the predictive power of college success and the community pressure
to excel makes the culling of this data important to support implementation of the
strategic plan.
Less promising are survey responses from students and parents. While 68% of
administrators and 59% of teacher respondents believed the district was doing a good job
at preparing students for the 21
st
Century, only 39% of parents and 51% of students
believed the same thing. The superintendent was acutely aware of this discrepancy and
self-reflective on the part of the district, explaining:
I think we’re doing okay. In general I would say we’re farther ahead than
the majority of districts, in my view. I’m not close to being satisfied…It’s
really a struggle in an era of really scarce resources to do that. But we
have to continue to be vigilant about making sure that happens for our
kids...I think that’s how we need to expand it is continuing to emphasize
kids making choices and being involved in their own education.

Changing Teacher Practice
HHUSD provided professional development in order to support the
implementation of the strategic plan. This professional development was an integral part
of making the gains as described above. This section describes the impact of professional
development on teaching practice, particularly in relation to 21
st
Century skills as the

102
pedagogy to teach the academic content standards. Data were derived from the Porter
and Smithson (1994, 2001, & 2007) survey instruments to measure implemented
curriculum.
First of all, the data backs up the district belief that teachers need to have a strong
foundation in the use of technology so that they may in turn assist students in their use of
technology as a tool to access the academic content standards. As such, 39% of teachers
is trying to use learnings from instructional technology workshops whereas 43% says it
has changed their teaching practice. Only 15% did not participate in or think that the
training had little to no impact.
The district office also stressed the importance of differentiation to support
multiple student levels and learning styles. An assistant superintendent talked about the
role of differentiated instruction in relation to 21
st
Century skills:
What we’ve been talking about and what we’re seeing is differentiated
instruction. What we believe is that all children don’t learn at the same
pace or the same way. So what we hope to see is differentiated
instruction; where kids will learn – that’s where 21
st
Century comes in, is
that a lot of these kids won’t learn from direct instruction.

The large majority of teachers participated in training for and implemented differentiated
instructional practices in their classrooms. (See Figure 7, below)

103
Figure 7:
Impact of Professional Development for Differentiated Instruction on Teaching Practice
Differentiated Instructional Strategies
Did not Participate
Little to no impact
Trying to Use
Changed Teaching
Practice

Similar impact was felt by teachers for district-sponsored training on 21
st
Century
skills; although not as many teachers participated, those who did implemented the
strategies in their classroom at a high level. (See Figure 8, below).

104
Figure 8:
Impact of Professional Development for 21
st
Century Skills on Teaching Practice
21st Century Skills
Did not Participate
Little to no impact
Trying to Use
Changed Teaching
Practice

HHUSD also introduced new curriculum and instructional strategies (Marzano) aligned
to the goals of the strategic plan. Professional development and support offered by the
district for both the curriculum and the new methods of teaching has high attendance and
implementation rates. An assistant superintendent identified the Marzano strategies as
key to reaching the goals in the strategic plan. It is evident that teachers believe these
strategies are changing their teaching practice. (See Figures 9 and 10, below).

105
Figure 9:

Impact of Professional Development for New Methods of Instruction on Teaching
Practice
New Methods of Instruction
Did not Participate
Little to no impact
Trying to Use
Changed Teaching
Practice

Figure 10:

Impact of Professional Development for New Curriculum and Instructional Materials on
Teaching Practice

New Curriculum and Instructional Materials
Did not Participate
Little to no impact
Trying to Use
Changed Teaching
Practice

106

Discussion
Harbor Heights Unified School District created a clear and coherent strategic
plan, involving all stakeholders in order to implement 21
st
Century skills as an
instructional pedagogy for the academic content standards. Though formidable barriers
existed, district leadership was empowered by the board of education to take bold steps
so that students would be better prepared for the new global economy. In the end,
pressure from community stakeholders, the business community, staff, and parents
trumped the teachers union and individual teachers set in their ways. As the
superintendent stated, “the reason that it was so successful is because we had
administrators and teachers and parents, all three groups, who were really fired up about
it and made it happen.” Taking the long view, the district was content to bring the union
to the table and wait out any resistance as early adopters led the way.
Conditions for success included a reorganized district office free of generations
of nepotism and corruption; satisfactory and improving to impressive API scores; and a
board that not only did not care excessively about those scores, but that also saw the
connection between a strategy involving 21
st
Century skills and academic content
standards. The new superintendent came into optimal conditions, made several key hires,
and set the tone for the entire district. Most importantly, he was clear and consistent with
his message and established structures to foster district alignment around the initiative.

107
Everyone interviewed knew about “compliance versus creativity,” and they all
explained the maxim in the same exact way.
Furthering district alignment took place because the strategic plan itself did not sit
on a shelf, but rather represented the direction forward for the district in all aspects, from
student learning to operations and facilities. Professional development and decisions
concerning teaching and learning were guided by the new plan and influenced hiring and
resource allocation. Consistent norming against the district vision, mission, and strategic
plan during meetings at the district office and school sites led to stakeholder awareness
and support for implementation.
Once aligned, the district was able to implement and select three main modes for
implementation. First, the district office staff was reoriented to a more service approach,
by which the assistant superintendents and staff became more responsive to the needs of
each principal at the individual school site. Secondly, significant resources were spent on
professional development and training for identified gaps in teacher knowledge and skills
in order to reach the goals of the strategic plan. Finally, school sites were supported in
reorganizing their campuses as professional learning communities guided by data to
improve instruction. As a middle school administrator put it, “It’s kind of evolved now to
where the expectation is, we will be a PLC. I can’t think of a site that probably isn’t at
some level a PLC.”
This professional learning community culture permeates the district office as well.
One of the biggest keys to successful implementation is the critical and self-reflecting

108
nature of the superintendent and his staff. The cabinet consistently examines data,
provided often by an on-site data team, and utilizes that data to identify strengths and
growth areas. Well-informed, the district team works collaboratively to determine how
best to support struggling schools and how to advance replication of promising programs.
The growth of the district in meeting the goals of the strategic plan is strong. The
intended curriculum has strengthened—school sites have a greater understanding of the
academic content standards and the district has provided leadership by identifying power
standards to emphasize in the classroom. The implemented curriculum has evolved –
teacher practice is changing as they incorporate techniques for differentiation, the use of
instructional technology, and the Marzano strategies. The attained curriculum has become
clearer—student outcomes and school success are not only judged on standardized test
scores, but also on preparation of students for the 21
st
Century. The skills students need
for the new global economy have been identified as at least part of the reason for the rise
in API scores for all schools in HHUSD during the past five years. The superintendent
sums it all up:
So we have, from the board’s perspective, a mandate really to deal with
21
st
century skills with our kids…In the end, it’s giving kids these skills
that they can take out of our schools and then apply in a real world setting
in a world of rapid change. That really is kind of the benchmark for the
district in terms of whether we’re being successful or not.

109
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS

Summary
The introduction of No Child Left Behind in 2001 pressured many school
districts, particularly urban districts serving large populations of students of color, to
narrow their curriculum and teach only the lower-level thinking skills that show up in
state-mandated testing. These tests were so high-stakes for schools and districts that
districts would implement policies and practices antithetical to research-based curricular
and instructional strategies. A few urban districts saw beyond the tension between
standards-based instructional knowledge and 21
st
Century skills and boldly embraced
both instead of choosing one. When implementing with a clear and coherent plan, such
districts have seen great gains in both standardized test scores and student readiness for
college, career, and the new global economy. The Harbor Heights Unified School
District is one such bold district. It is far down its path of preparing students for the 21
st

Century. The self-reflective culture created by the superintendent will help to guarantee
that this journey continues.

110
Emergent Themes
Four themes emerged from the triangulated data:
• The district was clearly aligned around this endeavor from the board
president to the superintendent and his staff to the school-site principals.
• The district involved all stakeholders in meaningful ways to create the
strategic plan.
• Data drives decision-making at all levels in the organization.
• As a Professional Learning Community, the district fixes the outputs
required for their schools and provides support for individual schools in
mapping their own courses to get there.
These four themes could serve as a backbone for other districts desiring to
implement a similar program. In reality, these four themes could serve as the roadmap
for a district seeking to implement any reform effort or new program— as HHUSD has
taken research-based best practices for education change management and applied them
efficiently and effectively.

Conclusions
A series of interviews, an administrator focus group, surveys, and document
analysis makes evident that Harbor Heights Unified School District is well on its way to
achieving the 21
st
Century goals set forth in its five-year strategic plan. Equally
impressive are the steady test score gains at all of their schools, particularly at those with

111
high free and reduced lunch and English Language Learner populations. Most
importantly, HHUSD has not made these gains by teaching down to the traditionally
underserved students; instead, the district expects more from these students by providing
them with a truly rigorous curriculum and relevant instructional strategies to meet the
dual goals of learning the academic content standards while being prepared for the 21
st

Century. The district strategy in this area is in line with the research presented in Chapter
Two and embodies the district’s relentless use of research and best practices to inform
decision-making.
Harbor Heights Unified School District served as an interesting case because it is
one of the more diverse districts in the nation. Its schools are a microcosm of the country,
comprised as they are of higher and lower socioeconomic populations on both ends of the
scale and everything in between. The PLC approach for reform allowed all schools to
move forward at a pace and in a manner appropriate to their school culture. The
traditionally higher performing schools moved forward more quickly (or more slowly in
some cases). The lower performing schools had a more structured pace for
implementation and were guided more by district office staff. What was always tight
were the outcomes expected of the students the schools served.
Initially, district and school site staff only referred to 21
st
Century skills as the use
of technology by teachers and students; however, after gaining an understanding of the
Wagner (2008) Student Survival Skills, staff consistently commented on district goals
and strategies for each of the seven skills. This progress was corroborated through

112
document analysis and teacher surveys. The only difference was in the definition of
21
st
Century skills— the definition presented in this case was broader than that of
HHUSD. In the end, HHUSD was working toward a broader definition of 21
st
Century
skills, but did not explicitly label them as such, which, in the end, may be more effective
as sometimes labeling can lead something to be marginalized or misinterpreted.
As they proceed, it will be important for HHUSD to take a few concrete steps.
First, the district needs to embrace 21
st
Century skills as an equity pedagogy to close the
achievement gap in their district. The external pressure from NCLB will provide a
positive lever in this instance with the explicit examination of sub groups. Using the
research presented in Chapter 2 can also serve as an external lever as the district has
already shown a proclivity towards using such research. In addition, the Professional
Learning Community model promotes such actions. A second related step is to forge the
explicit link for all stakeholders that 21
st
Century skills are imperative tools for providing
opportunities for traditionally under-represented students to be more successful in college
and the work-world in the new global economy. This equity issue cannot be understated
and should undergird decisions from staffing to budget. A final step was mentioned in the
prior paragraph - to take a more holistic and inclusive look at 21
st
Century skills.
Currently, many in HHUSD only view the use of technology as 21
st
Century skills. While
the district does focus on many other aspects of Wagner’s Seven Survival Skills, they are
not highlighted as 21
st
Century skills and therefore their importance is minimized.

113
Recommendations for Future Research Questions
This case provides a thorough review of how one socioeconomically diverse
school district implemented 21
st
Century skills as the pedagogy to teach academic content
knowledge. The district was able to balance the research-based approach with the
contextualization necessary for translating the research into practice in its distinctive
situation. To more completely understand this approach, additional research is
warranted, as represented by the following questions:
• How important is the stability of the board and district leadership to programmatic
success?
• Would a more bottoms-up, school site-directed approach produce more or less
dramatic gains?
• Does explicitly labeling 21
st
Century skills impact how well the skills are
understood and used by administrators and teachers?
• Do programs that impact only a subset of students (i.e., Career-Tech Education,
gifted, etc.) promote or serve as a barrier for implementation?
• Would this strategy work at a district with higher proportions of English Language
Learners and lower socioeconomic families?
• How could this study serve as a blueprint for a much larger urban school district?
• How would this model be implemented in a state where 21
st
Century skills are
already emphasized in their standards?
• What are better ways to assess student success on 21
st
Century skills?

114

Implications
This case study provided a comprehensive and innovative view of the relationship
between academic content standards and 21
st
Century skills. The two are neither mutually
exclusive nor should they compete for attention. The conspicuous absence of 21
st
Century
skills in educational programs for students of color, has led to a new, more serious
achievement gap. Traditionally underserved students now know facts (albeit for a brief
time due to rote teaching methods), but have little ability to apply, analyze, synthesize, or
create with this newly acquired knowledge. This reality has daunting implications for
policymakers, institutions of higher education, schools and school districts.
Policymakers need to carefully examine the true, holistic impact of No Child Left
Behind on students of color. Politicians are quick to trumpet the short-term success of
standardized test score gains produced at the expense of the long-term preparedness of
students for the new global economy. Hopefully, the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act along with the potential adoption of the National
Governors Association’s Common Core Standards will spur reformers to take a broader
look at student achievement and be less punitive to the students caught in school systems
that continually fail them. States need to put the “education is a state’s rite” stance aside
and do what is best for children in America by adopting the Common Core Standards,
which by all accounts are fewer, higher, and internationally benchmarked to 21
st
Century
skills. As documented in Chapter One, standards drive assessment and assessment drives

115
curriculum and instruction. Therefore, better standards should lead to better student
achievement at the international level.
Institutions of higher education, particularly those credentialing teachers and
administrators, should play a large part of the solution. The challenge begins at
recruitment, continues through selection, lands squarely on teacher education, and needs
to be ongoing in professional development. According to Futrell:
Concurrently, the quality of teaching that occurs in schools depends on the
simultaneous reforming and restructuring of teacher preparation and professional
development programs in every state. It also depends upon how successfully
SCDE’s [schools, colleges, and departments of education] can recruit and prepare
teachers for the pressing educational needs of our society, which are great. (1999,
p. 332)

Teachers and principals unprepared for teaching diverse urban populations reinforce the
negative learning environments promulgated by poor national and state testing policies.
The content of the preparation programs often go against the research of the professors at
such institutions.
Finally, schools and school districts can use this case as a blueprint for their own
reform. In the end, what state or national policy dictate does not matter, as 21
st
Century
skills are a highly effective pedagogy to teach academic content standards. If teachers
are appropriately trained and supported, principals foster a professional learning
community, and districts align everyone with a strategic plan and vision for success,
students will be successful on any assessment given whether evaluating knowledge and
understanding or undertaking synthesis and analysis. Roadblocks exist, but they are not

116
insurmountable in the pursuit of an excellent education for all students in the 21
st

Century.

117
REFERENCES
Anderson, S.E. (2003). The school district role in educational change: A review of the
literature. International Center for Educational Change. Working Paper #2, August
2003.

Astleitner, H. (2005). Principles of effective instruction – General standards for teachers
and instructional designers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(1), 3-8.

Bransford, J.D., & Vye., N. (2008). District reform and the learning sciences: Issues and
opportunities. American Journal of Education, 114(August 2008), 665-672.

Broadfoot, P. (2000). Comparative education for the 21
st
century: Retrospect and
prospect. Comparative Education, 36(3), 357-371.

Capuano, M. & Knoderer, T. (2006). Twenty-first century learning in school systems:
The case of the metropolitan school district of Lawrence Township, Indianapolis,
Indiana. New Directions for Youth Development, 110(Summer 2006), 113-125.

Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’
perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st
century U.S. workforce. New York: The Conference Board.

Causey-Bush, T. (2005). Keep your eye on Texas and California: A look at testing,
school reform, no child left behind, and implications for students of color. The
Journal of Negro Education, 74(4), 332-343.

Conley, D.T. (2007). College-readiness performance assessment system. Education
Policy Improvement Center. Eugene, OR, November 2007.

Conley, D.T. (2007). Toward a more comprehensive conception of college readiness.
Educational Policy Improvement Center. Retrieved July 2, 2008, from
http://www.s4s.org/upload/Gates-College%20Readiness.pdf

Crew, R. & Dyja, T. (2007). Only connect: The way to save our schools. New York, NY:
Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers
College Record, 106(6), 1047-1085.

Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of school reform models.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 357-274.

118

Datnow, A. & Kemper, E. (2003). Connections between federal, state, and local levels in
the implementation of comprehensive school reform. Prepared for American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL: The Civil Rights Project.
Dede, C. (2007). Transforming Education for the 21st Century: New Pedagogies that
Help All Students Attain Sophisticated Learning Outcomes. Raleigh, NC: Friday
Institute, North Carolina State University.

Delandshere, G. & Petrosky, A. (2004). Political rationales and ideological stances of the
standards-based reform of teacher education in the US. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 20(2004), 1-15.

DeLorenzo, R.A., Battino, W.J., Schreiber, R.M., & Carrio, B.G. (2009). Delivering on
the promise: The education revolution. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Diamond, J. B. (2007). Where the rubber meets the road: Rethinking the connection
between high-stakes testing policy and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education,
80(October), 285-313.

DiMartino, J. & Castaneda, A. Assessing applied skills. Educational Leadership, 64(7),
38-42.

Friedlander, D. & Darling-Hammond, L. et al (2007). High Schools for Equity Policy
Supports for Student Learning in Communities of Color. Retrieved November 28,
2007 from the School Redesign Network at Stanford University Sponsored by Justice
Matters at http://www.justicematters.org/jmi_live/jmi_sec/jmi_dwnlds/
hsfe_policy_brief.pdf

Fullan, M., Bertani, A., & Quinn, J. (2004). New lessons in districtwide reform.
Educational Leadership, 61(7), 42-46.

Futrell, M. (1999). The challenge of the 21
st
century: developing a highly qualified cadre
of teachers to teach our nation’s diverse student population. Journal of Negro
Education, Vol. 68(3), 318-334.

Goertz, M. & Duffy, M. (2003). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing and
accountability programs. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 4-11.

Gonzalez, P. Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of US
fourth and eighth grade students in an international context. International Center for
Educational Statistics, Washington, DC.

119
Hatch, T. (2001) Incoherence in the system: Three perspectives on the
implementation of multiple initiatives in one district. American Journal of Education,
109(August 2001), 407-436.

Hentschke, G.C., Nayfack, M.B., & Wohlstetter, P. (2009). Exploring superintendent
leadership in smaller urban districts: Does district size influence superintendent
behavior? Education and Urban Society, 41(3), 317-337.

Hess, F.M. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21
st
century: Conditions and
challenges of district governance. National School Boards Association.

Hess, F.M. (2009, January 29). The inauguration episode. The Education Gadfly. Podcast
retrieved from www.edexcellence.net.

Hursh, D. (2005). The growth of high-stakes testing in the USA: Accountability, markets,
and the decline of equality. British Educational Research Journal, 31(5), 605-622.

Kantor, H. & Lowe, R. (2006). From new deal to no deal: No child left behind and the
devolution of responsibility for equal opportunity. Harvard Educational Review,
76(4), 474-502.

Karp, S. (2004). ZNet: The No Child Left Behind hoax: Inequality and information gaps.
Retrieved from http://ruby.zcommunications.org/the-no-child-left-behind-hoax-by-
stan-karp.pdf

Kim, J. (2003). The initial response to the accountability requirements in the no child left
behind act: A case study of Virginia and Georgia. Prepared for American Educational
Research Association, Chicago, IL: The Civil Rights Project.

Knapp, M.S. (2008). How can organizational and sociocultural learning theories shed
light on district instructional reform. American Journal of Education, 114(August
2008), 521-538.

Kress, J.S., Norris, J.A., Schoenholz, D.A., Elias, M.J., Seigle, P. (2004). Bringing
together educational standards and social and emotional learning: Making the case for
educators. American Journal of Education, 11(November 2004), 68-89.

Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in
relation to students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72(2),
229-278.

120
MacIver, M.A., & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the
central office in improving instruction and student achievement. CRESPAR Report
#65. Washington, DC, April 2003.

Manna, P. (2006). Control, persuasion, and educational accountability: Implementing the
no child left behind act. Educational Policy, 20(3), 471-494.

Meier, D. (2005). No politician left behind. The Nation, 278(23), 8.

Meier, D., & Wood, G. (2004). Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind
Act is damaging our children and our schools Boston: Beacon Press.

Mullis, I.V.S., & Martin, M.O. (2006). TIMMS in perspective: Lessons learned from
IEA’s four decades of international mathematics assessments. Boston, MA: TIMSS &
PIRLS International Study Center.

Murnane, R.J. (2007). Improving the education of children living in poverty. The Future
of Children, 17(2), 161-181.

National Education Association. (2006). Theories of learning and teaching: What do they
mean for educators?. Washington, DC: Wilson, S.M., Peterson, P.L.

Obama, B. (2009, January 22). “Presidential Inauguration Speech.” Presidential
Inauguration. Washington, DC.

Porter, A.C. & Smithson, J.L. (2001). Defining, developing, and using curriculum
indicators. CPRE Research Report Series, RR-048(December 2001).

Rotherham, A.J. (2008, December, 15). 21
st
century skills are not a new education trend
but could be a fad. US News and World Report. Retrieved from
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinions/2008/12/15/21st-century-skills.

Ruiz-Primo, M.A. (2009). Towards a framework for assessing 21
st
century science skills.
The National Academies. University of Colorado, February 2009.

Sacconaghi, M. (2006). Why the American public supports twenty-first century learning.
New Directions for Youth Development, 110(Summer 2006), 39-45.

Schleicher, A. (2006). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. OECD
Briefing. Retrieved from www.pisa.oecd.org.

121
Schmoker, M. (2004). From feckless reform to substantive instructional
improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 424-432.

Sipple, J.W., Killeen, K., & Monk, D.H. (2004). Adoption and adaptation: School district
response to state imposed learning and graduation requirements. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(2), 143.168.

Silva, E. (2008). Measuring skills for the 21
st
century. Washington, DC: Education
Board.

Sloane, F. & Kelly, A. (2003). Issues in high stakes testing programs. Theory Into
Practice, 42(1), 12-17.

Sofo, R. (2008). Beyond NCLB and AYP: One superintendent’s experience in school
district reform. Harvard Educational Review, 78(2), 391-430.

Talley, W.L., & Keedy, J.L. (2006). Assessing school council contributions to the
enabling conditions for instructional capacity building. Education and Urban Society,
38(4), 419-454.

United States Department of Education. (1996). Goals 2000 progress report.
Washington, DC.

Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t teach
the new survival skills our children need – and what we can do about it. New York,
NY: Basic Books.

Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2005). First-year evaluation report: Fullerton School
District laptop program. Retrieved from http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/fsd-
laptopyear1-eval.pdf.

Wyner, J.S., Bridgeland, J.M., & Diiulio, J.J. (2007). The achievement trap. Washington,
DC: The Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.

Zohar, A., & Dori, Y.J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students:
Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145-181.

122
APPENDIX A
District Staff Interview Guide

Research Questions Interview Questions
1. What influences are driving
the demand for 21
st
century
skills as equity pedagogy at the
district?

- Can you describe your view of the districts’ role of preparing
students for a new global economy in relation to meeting academic
content standards?

- How did internal and external interests affect the move towards 21
st

century skills? Positively and negatively?

- Did the local business community, parent organizations, chamber of
commerce, etc. impact the decisions made by the district?

- Was this a top down reform pursued by either the superintendent
and/or the board?

- How does the district utilize educational research in the area of
teaching and learning and did this influence implementation?
2. What is the district’s design
for utilizing 21
st
century skills
as a pedagogy for teaching
standards-based academic
content knowledge?
- What types of professional development and support are given to
school sites in relation to 21
st
century skills?

- What Policies and Practices have been officially adopted and how in
order to make the teaching of 21
st
century skills successfully?

- What have you done to ensure student and school success on 21
st

century skills?

- Is the focus on 21
st
century skills reflected in district and schoolwide
improvement plans, mission statements, core values and beliefs,
ESLRS?
3. To what extent has the
district’s design been
implemented successfully?

- How has the district done on statewide testing programs? What types
of improvements have been seen since the focus on 21
st
century skills?

- Are teachers using the strategies in their classrooms? How do you
know?

- Are teacher created assessments more aligned to the outcome goals
for 21
st
Century Skills or California Standards Tests?

- Are students more prepared for college and the work world upon
graduation? What more do they need?

- Do you see equitable implementation across different socioeconomic
level schools?
- Is there anything I haven’t asked you that you would like to share?

123
APPENDIX B
Principal Focus Group Guide

Research Questions Interview Questions
1. What influences are driving
the demand for 21
st
century
skills as equity pedagogy at the
district?

- Can you describe your view of the districts’ role of preparing students
for a new global economy in relation to meeting academic content
standards?

- What types of messages are sent from the district office in regards to
21
st
century skills?

- Do you feel more pressure from the district to prepare students for the
statewide testing or 21
st
century skills? In what ways.

- What does compliance and creativity mean to you in practical terms to
the way you and your teachers do business at the school site?

- How does the district utilize educational research in the area of
teaching and learning and did this influence implementation?
2. What is the district’s design
for utilizing 21
st
century skills
as a pedagogy for teaching
standards-based academic
content knowledge?
- What types of district level professional development and support are
given to school sites in relation to 21
st
century skills?

- What types of school-based professional development and support are
given to your teachers in relation to 21
st
century skills?

- What have you done to ensure student and school success on 21
st

century skills?

- Is the focus on 21
st
century skills reflected in district and schoolwide
improvement plans, mission statements, core values and beliefs,
ESLRS?

- What other types of support are given to you by the district office in
relation to implementing 21
st
century skills?
3. To what extent has the
district’s design been
implemented successfully?

- What evidence do you have that teachers are using 21
st
century skills
as a strategy to teach academic content standards?

- Please provide some examples of student work/projects that show they
are learning using 21
st
century skills.

- Are teacher created assessments more aligned to the outcome goals for
21
st
Century Skills or California Standards Tests?

- Are students more prepared for college and the work world upon
graduation? What more do they need?

- Do you see equitable implementation across different socioeconomic
levels within your school?
- Is there anything I haven’t asked you that you would like to share?

124
APPENDIX C
Teacher Survey

Section I
Please indicate the degree to which each of the following influences what you teach in
class:
Strong
Negative
Influence
Somewhat
Negative
Influence
Little or
No
Influence
Somewhat
Positive
Influence
Strong
Positive
Influence
CA Framework and Standards

District’s Strategic Plan

Textbook/Instructional Materials

State Tests

Preparation of Students for Next Grade

Preparation of Students for 21
st
Century

Section II
For each of the following district or school sponsored professional development activities
that you participated in during the last 12months, what best describes the impact of the
activity?
Participate
d? Yes/No
Had Little
to No
Impact
Trying to
Use
Change
My
Teaching
Practice
How to implement state content standards

How to implement new curriculum or
instructional materials

New methods of teaching

In-depth study of content

Meeting the needs of all students

Multiple strategies for student assessment

Educational technology

Participated in a teacher network or study
group on improving teaching

How to prepare students for the 21
st
century

125
Section III

In this section you are asked to provide information on the relative amount of
instructional time devoted to various ways in which instruction is presented to your.
There are two steps involved in responding to this section: 1. In the table that follows,
you are asked to first determine the percent of instructional time spent on each mode of
presentation listed. Refer to the "Relative Time Codes" below for indicating the percent
of instructional time spent using each mode. Assume that the entire table totals 100%. An
"other" category is provided in case there is an important mode of presenting
instructional material that is not included in the table. If you indicate a response for the
"other" category, please identify the additional means of instructional presentation in the
space provided. 2. After indicating the percentage of time spent on each mode of
presentation with the target class, use the columns to the right of each mode of
presentations to indicate the relative emphasis on each of the seven performance goals
identified. Refer to the "Performance Goal Codes" below for indicating your response.
Relative Time Codes: 0 = None 1 = less than 10% 2 = 10% to 25% 3 = 25% to 49% 4 =
more than 50%
Performance Goal Codes: 0 = Not a performance goal for this topic; 1 = less than 25%;
2 = 25% to 33%;

Relative Time on
Task
Memorize,
Recall
Understand
Concepts
Communicate,
Empathize Investigate
0 1 2 3 4
Modes of
Presentation 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Whole class lecture

Teacher
demostration

Individual student
work
Small group work
Tests, quizzes

Field study, out of
class investigations

Whole class
discussion

Student
demostrations,
presentations

Multi-media
presentations

Whole class
simulations

Other:
________________

126
Section III, Continued
Analyze Evaluate Integrate
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to systematically understand how Harbor Heights Unified School District, a socioeconomically diverse district, decided upon, implemented, and evaluated a plan to foster 21st Century skills in their students and continued to improve its API scores. The hypothesis of this dissertation, based on an extensive review of the literature, was that the 21st Century skills are a highly effective pedagogy for teaching academic content knowledge, particularly for students of color. Anecdotal and statistical data bore out that HHUSD has made great strides in enacting this type of program.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Strategies California superintendents use to implement 21st century skills programs

PDF

What strategies do urban superintendents utilize to address global challenges in the implementation of 21st century skills

PDF

The role of district leadership and the implementation of 21st century skills through professional development

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st century skills

PDF

The role of the school district toward preparing students for the 21st century

PDF

Impact of leadership on professional development programs on districts' and schools' implementation of 21st century skills

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st century skills

PDF

Preparing students for the future - 21st century skills

PDF

Restoring the value of a high school diploma in the United States using 21st century skills as pedagogy: a case study of 21st century skills development and preparation for the global economy

PDF

The process secondary administrators use to implement twenty‐first century learning skills in secondary schools

PDF

Evaluating the implementation of 21st century skills and learning

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st-century skills

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st century skills

PDF

Developing 21st century skills through effective professional development: a study of Jamestown Polytechnic Charter School Organization

PDF

A new generation: a new model of education in the 21st century

PDF

Emerging practices for a changing world: a case study of 21st century learning

PDF

A case study of 21st century skills programs and practices

PDF

Embracing globalization and 21st century skills in a dual language immersion school

PDF

Influence of globalization, school leadership, and students’ participation in science competitions on 21st-century skill development, instructional practices, and female students’ interest in sci...

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...

Asset Metadata

Creator Schwartz, Robert (author)

Core Title 21st century skills as equity pedagogy to teach academic content standards: a socioeconomically diverse district's implementation

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/11/2010

Defense Date 03/30/2010

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

Tag 21st century skills,assessment,content standards,district,equity,implementation,OAI-PMH Harvest,pedagogy

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Garcia, Pedro E. (committee chair), Crew, Rudolph "Rudy" (committee member), Wohlstetter, Priscilla (committee member)

Creator Email rmschwar@usc.edu,robertschwartz@alumni.usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3126

Unique identifier UC1475373

Identifier etd-Schwartz-3814 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-349576 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3126 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Schwartz-3814.pdf

Dmrecord 349576

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Schwartz, Robert

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