University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Doubling student performance through the use of human capital at high-performing high-poverty schools

(USC Thesis Other)

Doubling student performance through the use of human capital at high-performing high-poverty schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content DOUBLING STUDENT PERFORMANCE THROUGH THE
USE OF HUMAN CAPITAL AT HIGH-PERFORMING
HIGH-POVERTY SCHOOLS
by
Wendy Birhanzel
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2007
Copyright 2007Wendy Birhanzel
ii

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of the most inspirational educator
of my life, my mother. This is for you, mother!
iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to those who have helped and supported me
along this journey. This dissertation would not have been possible without their assis-
tance and encouragement:
Thanks to Dr. Larry Picus for believing in me and sharing his expertise.
Thanks to Dr. Gilbert Hentschke and & Dr. John Nelson for their input and
support.
Thanks to Dr. Gabriella Mafi and Dr. Carol Wilson for being mentors, role
models, and friends.
Thanks to JD, Jason, and Frank for adopting the L.A. girl into your group and
being supportive throughout this entire process.
Thanks to Amber for her friendship, loyalty, and support throughout this
journey. I know our mothers are proud.
Thanks to my father and brother for their love and support that helped make this
dream a reality.
Thanks to Hans, Serena, and and Lars for inspiring me to make a difference in
the lives of children.
Thanks to Byron for his companionship, patience, and inspiration throughout my
journey. He was the coach in my corner during the times I needed it the most.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION. ..................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................................iii
LIST OF TABLES. .................................................. vi
ABSTRACT........................................................vii
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF STUDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background and Framework of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Statement of the Problem. ....................................... 5
Purpose of the Study. .......................................... 6
Research Questions. ........................................... 6
Significance of the Study. ....................................... 7
Summary of Methodology....................................... 8
Limitations................................................... 8
Delimitations................................................. 9
Assumptions.................................................. 9
Definition of Terms. ........................................... 9
Academic Performance Index................................. 10
Achievement Gap. ......................................... 10
Doubling. ................................................ 10
Economic Impact Aid (EIA) Funds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
English Language Learner. .................................. 10
Free and Reduced-Price Lunch. ............................... 10
Human Capital. ........................................... 11
Professional Development. .................................. 11
Standards-Based Education. ................................. 11
Student Achievement. ...................................... 11
Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grant (TIIBG) Funds. . . . . 11
Title I Funds. ............................................. 12
Urban Schools............................................. 12
Organization of the Dissertation. ................................. 12
Chapter 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. ........................... 14
Accountability. ............................................... 14
Historical Perspective. ...................................... 14
California’s Accountability Movement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Urban Schools. ............................................... 22
Urban School Student Achievement.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
iii
Successful Schools............................................. 27
Recruiting Teachers. ........................................... 32
Retaining Teachers............................................. 35
Quality Teachers. ............................................. 38
Professional Development. ...................................... 42
Coaching. ................................................ 42
Collaboration. ............................................ 43
Summary. ................................................... 44
Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY. ............................ 46
Sample and Population.......................................... 47
School/Student Overview. ...................................... 48
API. .... .................................................... 48
Data Collection Instruments...................................... 48
Survey Questionnaire. ...................................... 52
Interviews. ............................................... 52
Observations.............................................. 53
Artifact/Document Analysis. ................................. 54
Data Collection Process. ........................................ 54
Document/Artifact Analysis. ................................. 57
Validity and Reliability...................................... 57
Summary. ................................................... 58

Chapter 4: FINDINGS............................................... 59
Analysis of Findings: Research Question 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Questionnaire. ............................................ 60
Interview. ................................................ 61
Observation............................................... 64
Document Analysis......................................... 67
Summary: Research Question 1. .............................. 67
Analysis of Findings: Research Question 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Questionnaire. ............................................ 69
Interviews. ............................................... 70
Observation............................................... 72
Document Analysis......................................... 74
Summary: Research Question 2. .............................. 74
Analysis of Findings: Research Question 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Questionnaire. ............................................ 78
Interviews. ............................................... 79
Observation............................................... 81
Document Analysis......................................... 82
Summary: Research Question 3. .............................. 84
Analysis of Findings: Research Question 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
iv
Questionnaire. ............................................ 84
Interviews. ............................................... 85
Observation............................................... 88
Document Analysis......................................... 89
Figure 1: Professional development budget line items. . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Summary: Research Question 4. .............................. 90
Discussion. .................................................. 90
Themes ..................................................... 91
Theme 1: Resources Allocated for Human Capital Focusing on
Instructional Improvement................................ 92
Theme 2: Highly Qualified Staff With High Expectations for
All Students. .......................................... 94
Theme 3: Focused Professional Development to Build Human
Capital Capacity........................................ 95
Theme 4: Collaborative Model That Maximizes Human Capital. . . . . 95
Theme 5: Data-Driven Decision Making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Conclusion. .................................................. 97
Chapter 5: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION. ............................ 98
Summary of the Study. ......................................... 98
Purpose of the Study. ....................................... 99
Research Questions......................................... 99
Methodology. .............................................100
Discussion of Findings..........................................101
Theme 1: Resources Allocated for Human Capital to Focus on
Instructional Improvement................................102
Theme 2: Highly Qualified Staff With High Expectations for
All Students. ..........................................102
Theme 3: Focused Professional Development to Build Human
Capital Capacity........................................102
Theme 4: Collaborative Model to Maximize Human Capital. . . . . . . .102
Theme 5: Data-Driven Decision Making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
Recommendations. ............................................103
Suggestions for Further Research..................................104
REFERENCES CITED. ..............................................106
Appendice s
Appendix A:HUMAN CAPITAL SURVEY QUESTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117
Appendix B: PARTICIPANT LETTER. ...............................118
v
Appendix C: INTERVIEW GUIDE. ..................................119
Appendix D:OBSERVATION GUIDE. ...............................122
Appendix E: OBSERVATION TEMPLATE. ...........................123
Appendix F: DOCUMENT REVIEW. ................................124
Appendix G: DOCUMENT REVIEW GUIDE...........................125
Appendix H:CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE LETTER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Population of the Study. .................................... 49
Table 2: Ethnic Breakdown of Students. ............................... 50
Table 3:Breakdown of Teachers and Support Staff at Schools A and B. . . . . . . 51
Table 4: Data Collection Timeline. ................................... 56
Table 5:Literacy Coach’s Daily Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 6:Document Analysis Regarding Research Question 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Table 7: Human Capital Utilization. .................................. 73
Table 8:Comparison of Schools in Present Study With Data in
Washington Evidence-Based Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Table 9:Teachers’ Years of Experience: High-Performing School.. . . . . . . . . . 83
Table 10:Teachers’ Years of Experience: Low-Performing School. . . . . . . . . . . 83
vii

ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study was to examine the use of human capital at a school
that has been deemed high achieving by the California Department of Education based
on the school’s Academic Performance Index rankings. Four research questions were
developed to help guide the study:
1.How are resources allocated to focus on learning at a high-performing high-
poverty school?
2.Where do the differences lie in human resource allocation between high-
performing and low-performing high-poverty schools?
3.How does a high-performing high-poverty school recruit and retain quality
educators?
4.How is professional development used in a high-performing high-poverty
school to support and continue professional growth and student achievement?
This study used an in-depth case study approach in describing the use of human
capital within this particular school. Several data collection instruments were utilized to
enhance the validity of the study including the use of a survey, interview with staff
members, observations, and a review of documents related to human capital.
The following major findings emerged from the study:
1.Resources allocated for human capital focused on instructional improve-
ment.
2.Highly qualified staff held high expectations for all students.
viii
3.Focused professional development built human capital capacity.
4.The collaborative model maximized human capital.
5.Data-driven decision making was used at all times.
Recommendations for doubling student achievement at other schools were
recruiting, hiring, and retaining quality personnel; setting high expectations for all stu-
dents; building the capacity of teachers and administrators to interpret and apply assess-
ment data in classroom instruction; defining special education as the path to success in
the general education program; promoting collaboration for instructional improvement;
and using data-driven decision making. Suggestions for future research included study-
ing a larger sample of schools, exploring instructional coaching positions, examining
the effect of a principal’s instructional knowledge, and examining various approaches to
servicing special needs students.
1
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF STUDY
Many schools across the United States are undergoing a major transformation
where policymakers, business leaders, community members, and parents are demanding
high standards and accountability. There is a growing sense of urgency that schools do
a better job in educating students. It is expected that schools should focus on meeting
high academic standards and shift their priorities to improving the academic success of
all students. The pressure of public scrutiny to improve test scores is causing schools to
focus on the teaching and learning process. According to Tucker and Codding (1998),
“American educators are hungry for a way to make their schools work [for students],
but they find themselves trapped in a century-old system that routinely defeats and frus-
trates the most capable and caring of school people” (p. 19).
For Californians, improving the state’s educational system remains the state’s
most important issue. In an era of budget limitations, the public demand for better
schools is ever present because they believe that they are crucial to the state’s future
(Russonello & Stewart, 2003).
In 2000-2001, the kindergarten through 12 -grade (K-12) student enrollment in
th
California totaled 6,050,895, not including 648,564 at the private schools (EdSource,
2002). This enrollment was a reflection of not only California’s size but its ethnic di-
versity as well. California has four ethnic subgroups of significant size, differentiating
it substantially from other states having minority populations. Hispanic students have
2
surpassed the number of White students as the largest ethnic group and account for a
significant portion of the growth in enrollment. Almost one fourth of the students in
California are classified as English Language Learners (ELLs), whose primary language
is not English (EdSource, 2002). Of these, 83% have Spanish as their native language,
but a large number of ELLs speak other languages. Despite the challenges of educating
such a diverse population, “[California] public schools can give [all students] exactly
the same good solid basic education they gave similar waves of impoverished immi-
grant children back at the turn of the century” (Merrow, 2003, ¶ 3).
Researchers have studied a variety of factors that strongly influence academic
achievement, including language, culture, home stability, and poverty. In fact, it has
been determined that poverty can be a highly accurate predictor of poor student perfor-
mance (EdSource, 2003a). Thus, the challenge confronting educators is to balance the
demands of accountability and high achievement while simultaneously countering the
effects of ethnic and academic diversity of students, limited financial resources, and the
unrelenting public pressure to prepare students for successful transition into the work-
force and society as a whole.
Background and Framework of the Problem
Public schools throughout the United States are being challenged to meet the
demands of high standards and accountability. The increased demands for student
achievement are causing school leaders to make decisions about curriculum, resources,
and personnel that will affect the teaching and learning processes. Schools are
3
attempting to define quality and effectiveness and are looking for ways to create and
manage environments that support increased academic achievement (National Associa-
tion of Elementary School Principals, 2001).
The greatest challenge to date is improving student achievement for all students.
Preparing children to be productive, reflective citizens of the 21 century is the first
st
priority. Exemplary student performance must be central to school design and prac-
tices. The pursuit of new endeavors, the continuation of existing practices, and the
abandonment of present strategies have to be screened for their contribution to exem-
plary student performance and heightened accountability (Rallis & MacMullen, 2000).
The goal of creating a high-performing school based on student outcomes has been part
of the educational culture for years. However, it has traditionally focused on manage-
ment by objectives and a top-down direction of authority and decision making (Huber-
man & Miles, 1998). The scope was narrow, did not look to the future or school culture
(DuFour, 2002), and did not focus on the needs and issues closest to the point of con-
tact—the students (Elmore, 2002; Odden, 1995). The “Big Idea” encompassing a broad
scope of knowledge and curriculum did not enter the picture (Odden).
Districts and schools have adopted many initiatives in the hope of finding the
right combination of reforms to generate the momentum for systemic reform and create
high-performing schools where students meet standards and are assessed using quality
multiple measures (Rallis & MacMullen, 2000). The goal is to build capacity at the
school and, within the district design, plan and implement a system of mutual/shared
accountability (Rallis & MacMullen, 2000) that would cause all students to achieve, all
4
teachers to create learning communities, and involve all stakeholders in the education
of the children through a shared leadership model. A plan would include opportunities
for knowledge acquisition, training, planning, collaborating, implementing, and reflect-
ing with high stakes internal and external accountability attached to the process (Glick-
man, 1991; Rallis & MacMullen).
In order to create a high-performing school, a conversation centered on stan-
dards and what all students are expected to know becomes crucial. Successful institu-
tional reform and creating a high-performing school requires a refocused look at the use
of human capital. Long-term professional development built around a clear focus on
student achievement brings understanding and commitment to the process and a stron-
ger school culture (Eaker, DuFour, & Burnett, 2002). To be held accountable, all
members of the learning community must have the knowledge and desire to use results
as the driving force for institutional change and professional development/implemen-
tation (Odden, 1995; Schmoker, 1999). A shared responsibility and sense of commit-
ment come from knowledge, with time for staff to be active learners and to practice and
reflect on new strategies and skills.
Recent studies by Odden, Picus, Goetz, & Fermanich (2006) have identified six
core strategies that will lead schools to provide an adequate education with the current
financial resources, while achieving high student achievement levels: (a) recalibrating
goals, (b) reengineering schools, (c) redesigning teacher development, (d) reinforcing
achievement for struggling students, (e) retooling schools’ technology, and (f) restruc-
turing teacher compensation. Each of these six strategies involves the aspect and
5
utilization of human capital. Schools that succeed in these strategies must be examined
to determine how they are utilizing their human capital to implement the six core
strategies in order to be more successful than their counterparts. A specific focus on
high- performing high-poverty schools’ allocation of resources to human capital should
be examined to further understand how these successful schools make their funding
work.
Statement of the Problem
An achievement gap exists between students in high-poverty and low-poverty
schools. However, many urban schools across the United States are making positive
impacts on student achievement (EdSource, 2006). Evidence depicts that some schools
in these high-poverty and high-minority areas are indeed able to educate poor and mi-
nority students to high levels of student achievement (Ali & Jerald, 2001). Existing
research has identified several factors commonly attributed to positively impacting
student achievement (Cawelti & Protheroe, 2001; Fullan, 2003; Newmann, King, &
Youngs, 2000). Less is known about specific uses of human capital in successful urban
schools and how the use of human capital contributes to their exceeding performance
expectations. This study examined a high-performing high-poverty school to learn how
its effective use of human capital led to high academic achievement and how this
effective use can be transferred to other high-poverty schools.
6
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the use of human capital at a school
that has been deemed high achieving by the California Department of Education (CDE)
based on the school’s Academic Performance Index (API) rankings. The study used a
case study approach in describing the use of human capital within the selected school.
The selected school included a variety of characteristics that defined it as urban, includ-
ing having a large population of low socioeconomic (SES) students, having a subgroup
of ELLs, and being in a densely populated area that created overcrowding. The school
was selected due to its ability to produce and maintain high levels of student achieve-
ment in spite of challenges associated with poverty and high student populations.
Research Questions
The following research questions were investigated in the present study:
1.How are resources allocated to focus on learning at a high-performing high-
poverty school?
2.Where do the differences lie in human resource allocation between high-
performing and low-performing high poverty schools?
3.How does a high-performing high-poverty school recruit and retain quality
educators?
4.How is professional development used in a high-performing high-poverty
school to support and continue professional growth and student achievement?
7
These research questions served as the basis for the data collection, analysis,
and discussion. Each research question yielded detailed information for the analysis,
the conclusions, and the further recommendations portions of this research study.
Significance of the Study
It is important to identify and examine factors that have been found to be effec-
tive in improving student achievement in urban school settings so that educational
leaders can develop a deeper understanding of these factors and can replicate the find-
ings in low-achieving schools. It is also critical that the interrelations between the
factors that lead to improved performance and the conditions that foster improvement
be examined.All children can achieve at high levels despite their economic levels. Schools in
high-poverty areas must be structured in such a way to support this high achievement
level. Another important reason for this study was to identify how high-performing
high-poverty schools effectively and efficiently used their human capital. The findings
should serve as a model to other high-poverty schools regarding what works in human
capital allocation.
Site leaders and administrators should value the identification of specific human
resource allocations that will increase the academic potential of their students. Admin-
istrators will be more knowledgeable and better prepared to make informed budget de-
cisions regarding personnel in order to meet the needs of the school community. Dis-
tricts and local education agencies should be able to provide and focus necessary
8
financial support needed to facilitate the necessary human capital at each school site.
Finally, researchers in the area of school improvement, school finance, and successful
schools should able to use the results of this study to better understand how the use of
human capital relates to increasing student achievement of diverse student populations.
Summary of Methodology
In order to identify human capital use in California urban schools that have ex-
ceeded their expectations, a qualitative research design provided the most comprehen-
sive data. Specifically, a qualitative case study method tells the story of a specific
school that has consistently exceeded its API in California. A qualitative case study
allows for storytelling and use of a common language approach to evaluation (Meriam,
1998). The case study extracted information in natural settings from multiple sources
to retrieve thick descriptions of the use of human capital.
A study to develop a complete picture of a school exceeding its API expecta-
tions included data collection techniques to gather information regarding the utilization
of human capital, teacher recruitment, teacher retention, and ongoing development.
There are several ways that this sort of information can be gathered; however, using a
variety of methods allowed the study to have the greatest depth and established reliabil-
ity of findings through triangulation of data analysis (O’Conner & Miranda, 2002).
Limitations
As with any type of research, limitations existed for this research study. For the
purpose of this study, the following limitations were apparent:
9
1.The validity of the study was limited to the reliability of the instruments
used.
2.This study was conducted in one high-performing high-poverty school;
therefore, the results might not be generalizable to other urban or rural schools.
3.This study was limited to individuals who agreed to participate voluntarily.
4.The selection of the school being studied limited the pool of schools to those
performing well on the API over the last 3 years.
Delimitations
The delimitation of this research study is denoted as follows by the researcher:
This study was delimited through an in-depth analysis of one school that met set student
achievement criteria determined by the researcher.
Assumptions
For the purpose of this dissertation, the researcher assumed the following:
1.The responses given in interviews and surveys were provided freely and
with a degree of honesty.
2.The API is a valid measure of student achievement, and scores were not
manipulated.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined:
10
Academic Performance Index
A ranking system for California schools using a scale from 200 to 1,000 points,
with a score of 800 being the target performance for all schools in the state. It is used to
rank schools statewide.
Achievement Gap
A significant disparity in educational achievement and attainment among groups
of students as determined by a standardized measure.
Doubling
A term used in academic achievement referring to the increase of student
achievement as measured by standardized tests.
Economic Impact Aid (EIA) Funds
Aid that provides funds for educationally disadvantaged students and bilingual
education services for ELLs.
English Language Learner
Student whose primary language upon entering school is not English.
Free and Reduced-Price Lunch
Federally assisted meal program that provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost,
or free lunches to children.
11
Human Capital
All the human resources that staff a school, including custodians, secretaries,
administrators, teachers, and any other personnel at the school site.
Professional Development
The authentic training and learning opportunities for teachers, administrators,
parents, and all school staff.
Standards-Based Education
A common language (standards) and set of expectations that focus and drive the
instructional practice at the school; a set of expected outcomes and expectations for
achievement.
Student Achievement
High performance level based on the API.
Targeted Instructional Improvement
Block Grant (TIIBG) Funds
Grant that combines funds from Supplemental and Targeted Instructional Im-
provement Grants into one block grant. TIIBG funding can expended for any of the
purposes or for a combination of purposes of the programs included in the block grant
focused on improving student achievement.
12
Title I Funds
Provides funding to a school based on a formula that includes the number of
children from low-income families.
Urban Schools
Of or having to do with cities or towns. Some common characteristics associ-
ated with schools in urban areas today include high poverty rates, a highly diverse
student population, and/or a high turnover rate among classroom teachers.
Organization of the Dissertation
This study is organized into five chapters and appendices. Chapter 1 has pre-
sented the introduction, background of the problem, the statement of the problem, the
purpose of the study, the research questions to be studied, the significance of the study,
assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and the definitions of terms.
Chapter 2 is a review of the relevant literature. It addresses the following
topics: accountability, urban schools, student achievement, successful schools, teacher
recruitment, teacher retention, teacher quality, and professional development.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in the study, including the research
design; population and sampling procedure; and the instruments and their selection or
development, together with the information on reliability and validity.
Chapter 4 focuses attention on presenting the findings and analysis of data for
each of the established research questions. Chapter 5 is devoted to summarizing the
13
study, presenting conclusions based on the findings, and identifying future implications
for educational leaders and educational researchers.
14
CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Across the nation, the correlation or relationship between school-level demo-
graphics (such as percentages of students from families with low incomes and educa-
tion levels) and school-level academic achievement is quite high. However, it is also
true that two schools serving similarly challenging student populations can have very
different levels of performance (EdSource, 2006).
Much is known about student achievement, standards-based curriculum, high-
stakes testing and accountability, effective schools, school finance, and good leadership
from various research sources (Ali & Jerald, 2001; Carter, 2000; Eisner, 2003; Resnick,
2003). Researchers have identified high-achieving schools across the nation and have
created a large amount of literature on the factors associated with their success
(Clubine, Constable, & Smith, 2002; Darling-Hammond, 1999, Harris, 2006; Ragland,
Reeves, 2000). What has yet to be examined is how to use human capital to improve
student learning in schools that have defied publicly held low expectations for their
student populations.
Accountability
Historical Perspective
In 1965, Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
aimed at supporting the education of the nation’s poorest children. The act must be
renewed every 6 years to reflect the priorities of the current administration and
15
Congress (EdSource, 2002). ESEA provided financial assistance to urban schools to
assist public urban schools in meeting national education goals and to improve the
nation’s global competitiveness by improving education. The objective of the act
aimed to improve the achievement level of all public school children while focusing on
closing the achievement gap between urban and non-urban public school students (U.S.
Department of Education, 2004). The “Coleman Report” found that family SES was
the single best predictor of a child’s school success level and that effects of school were
not sufficient enough to offset the effects of SES levels (Coleman, 1966).
President Lyndon B. Johnson’s sweeping “Great Society” legislation initiated
programs in response to the Coleman Report, including Title I and Head Start, that
targeted federal funds to low-income families (Wirst & Kirst, 2001). Currently accurate
discussions about student achievement across the nation are limited, as a standards
evaluation tool of performance does not exist. The closest evaluation tool is the
criterion-referenced National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) given peri-
odically since 1969. The most recent results from the 2005 NAEP reading, mathemat-
ics, and science assessments of 4 - and 8 -grade students across the United States in-
th th
dicated that students eligible for the National School Lunch Program perform signifi-
cantly below their more advantaged classmates.
In 1983, President Ronald Reagan’s education commission released the most
influential report in several decades, labeled A Nation at Risk. The commission report
pointed out the failure of public education (as cited in Lutz & Merz, 1992). As a direct
result of the report, the National Commission on Education called for more rigorous
16
standards and accountability mechanisms to bring the United States out of the educa-
tional slump and into competition with the industrialized world (as cited in Amrein &
Berliner, 2002).
The drive for accountability and standards formally commenced as a result of
the Education Summit in 1989, where national educational goals were developed
(Allen, 1994). This summit encouraged efforts to set standards in each of the main aca-
demic content areas including science, history, civics, and the arts. Since the mid-
1990s, education reform by states instituting standards-based accountability policies has
focused on student performance.
The intent of accountability was to create incentives aligned to curriculum and
instruction with standards, foster the analysis and use of data, and focus attention on
continuous student progress (EdSource, 2000). Defying this approach were account-
ability incorporated assessments of student performance and mastery such as tests,
student work portfolios, teachers’ evaluations, projects, and formal exhibitions.
America 2000, adopted in 1989, identified the standards that students were
expected to achieve by the year 2000. Two of these goals related directly to student
achievement, where students in the 4 , 8 , and 12 grades will demonstrate competency
th th th
in challenging subject matter; specifically, they will be first in the world in mathematics
and science achievement (National Education Goals Panel [NEGP], 1991). Revised in
1994, Title I provides funding to schools having socioeconomically disadvantaged
students. It requires that states establish challenging content performance standards,
17
develop high-quality assessments, measure student progress annually, and identify
low-performing schools (EdSource, 2000).
Goals 2000: Educate America Act, amended in 1996, was designed to “improve
student learning through a long-term, broad-based effort to promote coherent and coor-
dinated improvements in the system of education throughout the Nation at the State and
local levels” (Kendall & Marzano, 1997, p. 3). The law supported state efforts to de-
velop clear and rigorous standards for what every child should learn and be able to do,
as well as supported comprehensive state- and districtwide planning and implementa-
tion of school improvement efforts focused on improving student achievement to those
standards. Goals 2000 also required states to align assessments with their content and
performance standards and to develop systems that hold districts and schools account-
able for student performance (Kendall & Marzano). In 1996, the Improving America’s
Schools Act (IASA) set forth the movement toward standards, which included aca-
demic content standards, performance standards, and proficiency levels. Assisted in
part by the mandates in IASA, states are being further challenged by the more intense
accountability demands of the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001
(EdSource, 2003c).
The NCLB, the reauthorization of the ESEA, is a nationwide reform initiative to
promote academic achievement and learning. Adopted during President George W.
Bush’s administration, NCLB established an educational system with an emphasis on
accountability where states are required to develop and adopt standards based upon
performance assessments that measure student growth and achievement. The purpose
18
of this legislation is to direct all K-12 schools and school districts to establish and
maintain high academic standards in reading, mathematics, and science. NCLB re-
quires states and school districts to act aggressively to improve or overhaul failing
schools within 5 years; it mandates that students in failing schools be given the chance
to receive tutoring or to attend a better school rather than enduring the improvement
process. Ultimately, the responsibility for improving students’ academic performance
falls upon schools and school districts where failure may lead to potential conse-
quences.
The NCLB legislation reflects a trend to use student performance data to evalu-
ate the effectiveness of schools and their programs. Successful reform strategies that
result in improved student achievement reflect clear goals, commitment, collaboration,
support, and leadership (Johnson, Livingston, & Schwartz, 2000). Although political
leaders have acted to institute standards and accountability, their commitment to pro-
viding adequate resources and flexibility is routinely called into question (Betts,
Rueben, & Danenberg, 2000).
California’s Accountability Movement
California has enacted several accountability laws to oversee the progress of its
schools. In 1988, the CDE passed the School Accountability Report Card law (Educa-
tion Code 33126) as a way of publicly announcing the condition of California schools.
This law provided the public with detailed information of programs in place, credentials
19
of the teaching staff, student demographic information, and a variety of other items
related to the productivity of individual schools (EdSource, 2003c).
In 1995, California lawmakers approved Assembly Bill 265, a plan to develop
academic content standards in a movement toward school improvement (Betts et al.,
2000). Senate Bill 376 established the Standardized Testing and Reporting System
(STAR), which required that the State Board of Education adopt statewide content and
performance standards no later than January 1, 1998. It also required that public
schools test its students in Grades 2-11 to determine how well schools are teaching and
students are progressing toward mastery of the academic content standards. Within the
STAR system, the API is the cornerstone of the Public Schools Accountability Act
(PSAA) of 1999. The other two central components are the Immediate Intervention/
Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) and Governor’s Performance Award
Program (GPA; O’Day & Bitter, 2003).
The API is a composite scale, from 100 to 1,000, used to measure student aca-
demic performance levels and growth of schools (EdSource, 2003b). It incorporates
individual student test scores on a standardized assessment—the Stanford-9 (prior to
2003) of the California Achievement Test-6 (beginning in 2003)—and on the California
Standards Tests (CSTs), which are criterion-referenced tests that measure how well
students perform with respect to identified statewide adopted academic content stan-
dards. There are five performance levels (Far Below Basic, Below Basic, Basic, Profi-
cient, and Advanced) of the CSTs that establish the point at which students demonstrate
progress toward mastering grade-level standards (CDE, 2003). Factored into the API
20
composite score are student and teacher attendance, graduation rates, and the number of
high school students passing the high school exit exam (EdSource, 2000). Further
impacting schools’ API scores, the achievement results of ELL students who have lived
in California for at least 1 year are included.
An API score, which is 5% of the distance between a school’s current, or base-
line, API and the statewide API goal of 800, is targeted annually for each school
(EdSource, 2003b). To measure annual progress of individual schools, the state com-
pares its current API scores to the prior year’s scores. II/USP funds schools that are low
performing in exchange for them being subject to future sanctions for failing to im-
prove. The GPA Program rewards schools by providing financial incentives if they
meet their schoolwide API growth target, show comparable growth among all signifi-
cant student subgroups, and satisfy participation rates.
The California public school system serves over 6 million students encompass-
ing such diversity as ethnicity, language, academic capabilities, and SES (EdSource,
2003e). School districts must determine how to balance state mandates of accountabil-
ity and testing with a local system of accountability and learning in a way that will
result in an honest inquiry into practice (Shawn, 2001). In considering how best to
approach this challenge, educational leaders have an obligation to create systems that
address student performance and a responsibility to share these outcome with the
public. This system must take into account California’s primary testing system, STAR,
which is under constant revision as content standards continuously change and evolve.
21
To serve the changing needs of its student population, districts in California
must adapt to the accountability demands of its legislature and the financial condition of
the state’s economy. It appears that California can afford to increase education ex-
penditures for a better school system and increased student performance; however, it
has chosen instead to place a higher spending priority on corrections, police and fire
protection, and health care and hospitals as compared to other states (Betts et al., 2000).
In reality, California spends less per student than the majority of states, but only about
one third of Californians knows this (Russonello & Stewart, 2003). However, a number
of urban schools having limited financial resources are, in fact, meeting this challenge
by achieving well beyond the state’s growth targets for student performance.
Faced with student diversity, rising enrollment, a large percentage of students
living in poverty, and inadequate funding, California must contend with the demands of
the credentialing requirements of NCLB. According to the Center for the Future of
Teaching and Learning (as cited in Russonello & Stewart, 2003), students in poor inner-
city schools who have the greatest need for qualified teachers are much more likely than
their more advantaged suburban counterparts to have underqualified teachers, although
the most important factor relating to student outcomes is SES. At the secondary level
alone, shortages amount to at least 3,500 teachers (EdSource, 2003d). The level of
teacher experience and the percentage of teachers without a full credential impact
student outcomes. Complicating this situation is the distribution of qualified teachers,
which not only varies across schools throughout the state but also often varies across
schools within the same district. An exploration of the qualities of successful urban
22
schools is important to identify and create the conditions necessary for all students to
meet the demands of greater accountability.
Urban Schools
In 1996, one of four individuals in the United States under the age of 18 was
living in poverty, which Payne (2001) defined as “the extent to which an individual
does without resources” (p. 22). Research has found that poverty is the primary reason
why children differ in ways that affect school performance, both before they enter
school and once they are enrolled (EdSource, 2003a). Regardless of race or ethnicity,
poor children are more likely than non-poor children to give birth during teen years, to
suffer developmental delay and damage, and to drop out of high school (Miranda,
1991). These same pressures within low-income communities-isolation, struggling
families, health problems, and hunger-affect students’ ability to learn (EdSource,
2003c).
After World War II, an eighth-grade education was sufficient for a person to
support a family, buy a house and a car, and pay college tuition with the wages from a
factory. Presently, U.S. citizens with limited job skills who are living below the pov-
erty level may be employed but they are barely able to support themselves, let alone a
family; they are sometimes referred to as the “working poor” (U.S. Census Bureau,
2000). Not only are these workers earning low wages, but also they are likely to have
few opportunities for advancement. Most children growing up in poverty do not have
the resources to compete for high-skill, high-wage jobs (Payne, 2001). For most, the
23
pattern continues to repeat unless they experience good fortune or have personal resil-
iency (Tyack, 1994).
Urban children are capable, motivated, and able to learn when educators capital-
ize on the innate cultural strengths that students bring with them (Woods, 1997). Urban
schools play an essential role in the education of America’s children. American urban
schools from coast to coast are struggling to improve student achievement (Wilms,
2003). Urban schools face unique challenges and often are plagued with a multitude of
internal obstacles. Obstacles range from superintendents whose average job tenure
span is less than 3 years to a centralized bureaucracy that is slow to respond to the needs
of the schools, or even scarce finances masked with impromptu Band-Aid™ solutions
(Peterson, 2003; Wilms).
In addition, urban school districts face external forces that may include gang
activity, access to illegal substances, and a breakdown of the community structure.
Students, in turn, bare the brunt of the urban challenges of poverty, hunger, poor hous-
ing, the lack of medical care, and inadequate nutrition (Peterson, 2003). Districts
nationwide viewed prospective solutions as ranging from improved teacher training to
class size reduction, the lengthening of the school day, and the alignment of teacher
salaries to student test results (Wilms, 2003).
A national effort to address the achievement gap and meet the needs of urban
students took place in May of 1995. The Urban Education Network’s vision called for
changes in urban schools. Effective schools would (a) recognize, respect, and build
upon the knowledge, values, and experiences of urban children; (b) hire teachers who
24
exemplify a caring, culturally sensitive nature with the ability to link students’ back-
grounds with curriculum and high expectations; and (c) create a schoolwide educational
environment whose foundation centers on high expectations that foster a caring support
for and opportunities to participate in all aspects of a school (Woods, 1997). To facili-
tate the academic challenge, students are provided with more challenging academic
curricula, tasks, and challenging tasks that require higher order thinking skills (Gardner,
1988). Research shows that students who are instructed in the most basic of skills in a
challenging environment and in context will learn best (Schmoker, 1999). “Low per-
forming students stand to gain the most from approaches that incorporate basic skills
into complex, higher-order tasks and problems” (Schmoker, p. 71).
Urban School Student Achievement
Students from low socioeconomic backgrounds have traditionally lagged behind
their counterparts from high socioeconomic backgrounds with regard to academic
achievement (Stone, 1998), and researchers have found many factors that contribute to
this discrepancy. SES is the most reliable predictor of academic achievement (Sacks,
1997). Thus, students with high SES tend to achieve at a high academic level while
students with low SES tend to achieve at a low academic level. This is a significant
problem for inner-city schools because many of the students who attend these schools
come from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Stone). In addition, many researchers,
including the U.S. Department of Education, “suspect that test bias accounts for the
disproportionate representation of certain groups in special education, especially males
25
and children of color, and the neglect of many children of color who are gifted” (Halla-
han & Kauffman, 2000, p.102). Urban schools that have demonstrated progress have
tended to focus on items that are not necessarily measured by a standardized test; rather,
the culture and climate of the school seem to be most important in establishing
student’s belief in their own ability to succeed academically.
In the winter of 2002, the NAEP conducted a study of urban school districts to
analyze how large city school systems were doing with students in key subject areas (as
cited in Manzo, 2003). While the writing results were at or close to the national aver-
age in some cities, none of the six districts tested (Atlanta; Chicago; Houston; Los
Angeles; New York City; and Washington, D.C.) met the national average score for
reading. In addition, the disparity between White students and their Black and Hispanic
peers was very large, which is consistent with other national and state-level assess-
ments. More than 90% of White students in the fourth grade in all districts that were
tested scored at least at the basic level on the writing test, while their Black and His-
panic counterparts ranged from 71% to 83%. While over a third of White fourth-grade
students overall (and a staggering 64% in the District of Columbia and 70% in Atlanta)
were “proficient in writing, only 7-21 percent of Black and Hispanic students met that
mark (Manzo, ¶ 2).
In reading, the gap was even wider. In Washington D.C., 91% of White fourth
graders scored at least at the basic level of reading, while only 28% of Black students
and 34% of Hispanic met the same mark. While 67% of Atlanta White 4 graders were
th
26
judged to be “proficient” on the reading test, just 8% of their Black peers scored simi-
larly (Manzo, 2003).
These data are particularly insightful because they point out that large school
districts are succeeding with White students but are falling well below the mark with
Black and Hispanic students. The accountability movement is based on the premise
that schools are operating with similar resources and personnel. These data belie that
assumption. Edmonds and Fredrickson (1979) pointed out that equity for all students
should be a goal for those in public education, but that the definition should be elevated
from one that simply relates mediocrity with equity. “Equitable public school begins by
teaching poor children what their parents want them to know and ends by teaching poor
children at least as well as it teaches middle class children” (Edmonds & Fredrickson,
p.15). Edmonds and Fredrickson also pointed out in 1979 that
we can, whenever and wherever we choose, successfully teach all children
whose schooling is of interest to us. We already know more than we need to do
that. Whether or not we do it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact
that we haven’t so far. (p. 23)
The low achievement of urban school students is not a new concern. Ravitch
(1974) stated that in New York City schools, the education of low-income students has
been a significant, challenging dilemma since 1805. Although reasons have differed
slightly, numerous studies have pointed to the inequity in academic achievement of
low-SES students when compared with their high-SES counterparts (Childs & Shake-
shaft, 1986; Coleman et al., 1996; Jencks et al., 1972; Kozol, 1991).
27
Standardized test scores have consistently shown that students from wealthy
homes outperform students from poor backgrounds; wealth positively and consistently
impacts test scores (Sacks, 1997). Urban school students achieve an average of 20 per-
centile points lower in reading in comparison with their suburban counterparts, and the
gap is greater in math and science (Olson & Jerald, 1998). Due to the high percentage
of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, inner-city schools face a daunting
challenge of trying to assure that all students are achieving at a high level (Stone, 1998).
Successful Schools
Public schools are facing a highly competitive market. Parents and the public
are looking for good and successful schools. In the 32 Annual Phi Delta Kappa Poll
nd
of the Public’s Attitudes Towards the Public Schools (Phi Delta Kappa International
and Gallup Organization, 2001). Seventy-five percent of those polled would like to see
public schools strengthened or improved. The poll indicated that respondents valued
highly qualified competent teachers, safety in the schools, and local control and ac-
countability. Research that has examined successful schools has found common fac-
tors. Good and successful schools are academically focused, have highly qualified
teachers, are safe and orderly, and are accountable to the community.
The Effective Schools Movement began with educators’ concern over the ap-
parent academic inequity between children from different socioeconomic classes. Ed-
monds, a spokesperson for the Effective Schools Movement, advocated five necessary
characteristics for a successful school. Edmonds found the five characteristics that
28
existed in effective schools in poor communities with many minority students to be the
following:
1.High teacher expectations for all students;
2.Teacher/principal agreement on basic skills education as the school’s central
goal;
3.Principals as instructional leaders;
4.An orderly, well-maintained environment with generally accepted disciplin-
ary standards; and
5.Regular standardized testing to measure student achievement, with instruc-
tion adjusted accordingly (Edmonds & Fredrickson, 1979).
Lightfoot (1983) examined the way that success was defined in six schools. He
concluded that there was openness and flexibility, “imperfections” but a willingness to
“shift ideals to excellence” (p. 309). There was a balancing act, but the schools had
clear goals and a utopian vision. Lightfoot concluded that good schools had “strong,
consistent, and inspired leadership” (p. 323). Good teachers are central to good
schools. Teacher autonomy and decision making, a safe and regulated environment,
and valuing students and teachers are all elements that were identified in Lightfoot’s
research on good schools.
Renchler (1992) researched student and teachers’ roles in successful schools.
Creating “academic success and motivation to learn” (p. 2) is central to effective
schools. The leaders “can create a school culture conducive to learning by shaping the
instructional climate” (p. 2). Schools must create an atmosphere that values
29
achievement and where all students experience some type of success. Success must be
advertised and valued by administrators, teachers, and students and communicated fre-
quently to parents and the community. Students, teachers, and parents understand that
success is not only a fundamental expectation but is also consistently rewarded.
Reeves (2000) examined “90/90/90 Schools,” which were schools that had more
than 90% poverty, minority students, and achieved at more than 90% on tests. Analysis
resulted in five characteristics identified to include focus on academic achievement,
clear curriculum choices, frequent assessment, emphasis on writing, and external
scoring. These successful schools were consistent in focus, writing, performance
assessment, and teacher collaboration. These schools had effective teachers and admin-
istrators who were “using strikingly similar techniques without the assistance of exter-
nally imposed methods of instruction” (p.192). As for programs or textbooks, the study
found that “the techniques are replicable but there is certainly not a need for schools to
purchase textbooks to achieve the level of success” (p.192). The schools used instruc-
tion and assessment that were consistent. The focus was on the standards and how they
were implemented, monitored, and assessed.
Carter (2000) reviewed 21 high-performing high-poverty schools. In research-
ing successful schools, Carter found that “the schools profiled hold all students, of all
races and income levels, to high standards and expectations—and then make sure that
all children succeed” (p. 3). He found that “parents are clamoring to send their children
to high performing schools” (p. 5). Carter also found that “effective principals want
parents who are personally invested in the education of their children” (p. 14). The
30
principals were instructional leaders and controlled staffing and budget. There were
clear expectations, and “each student is held accountable for his or her own success” (p.
17).
Johnson et al. (2000) examined research on good schools and found that
“schools must have a high expectation for their leaders, teachers and students . . .
showing students and their parents that we believe all students can learn at a high level”
(p. 10). Research on community and parent involvement found that the schools had
“academic instruction in a caring and supportive environment, strong and supportive
relations with parents and community members, and a sense of community” (p. 9).
Ragland et al. (2002) studied five high-performing and high-poverty schools.
All the schools studied “embraced the belief that all students can be academically
successful” (p. 1). The findings described nine common strategies that strengthened
these schools and impacted student achievement. They encompassed factors such as
capitalizing on the strengths and talents of the teaching staff, regular communication
across the grade levels, test data driving instructional improvement, parents as critical
partners, collaboration among colleagues to find solutions, and special education inte-
grated into the regular programs.
Payne (2003) researched students of poverty and concluded that “the key to
achievement for students from poverty is in creating relationships with them” (p.142).
Among many key points, Payne (2003) related that “as educators we must teach them
and provide support, insistence, and expectations” (p.11). When reflecting on how the
cycle is broken, Payne (2003) quoted Lewis (1996) in Breaking the Cycle of Poverty:
31
“Educate the parents, especially the mothers of the children in school: the educational
level of mothers is the most important influence on the educational attainment of chil-
dren” (p.156). One of Payne’s (2003) key points was that “for our students to be suc-
cessful, we must understand their hidden rules and teach them the rules that will make
them successful at school and at work” (p.11).
Finally Marzano’s (2003b) study of research on successful schools categorized
factors into five elements of good and successful schools. They have “guaranteed and
viable curriculum, challenging goals and effective feedback, parent and community in-
volvement, safe and orderly environment, and collegiality and professionalism” (p. 15).
Schools with strong administrative leadership, emphasis on basic skill acquisition, high
expectations for student achievement, and frequent monitoring of student progress were
schools that were successful.
Marzano’s (2003a) research on effective classrooms found that “effective
teachers appear to be effective with students of all achievement levels” (p. 1). The
effect that the teacher has on student achievement is in making wise choices about the
most effective instructional strategies to employ, designing classroom curriculum to
facilitate student learning, and making effective use of classroom management tech-
niques (Marzano, 2003b). Marzano’s (2003b) research concluded that the classroom
teacher has the greatest impact on student achievement.
Good and successful schools research often blends the criteria for effective
schools. The elements of all successful schools include strong leadership, focused
curriculum and vision, parental involvement, and an organizational environment that
32
supports instruction. Stolp (1994) found that “successful leaders view their organiza-
tion in a holistic way” (p. 2). Stolp believed that when leaders understand that impact
of school culture and climate, they can work to reframe the values, beliefs, and attitudes
that are necessary for a stable and nurturing leaning environment. A healthy and strong
culture correlates with increased student achievement and motivation and with teacher
productivity and satisfaction. Hence, successful schools succeed at recruiting teachers,
retaining teachers, helping teachers develop as professionals, and utilizing human
capital in the most effective and efficient way possible.
Recruiting Teachers
An estimated 2.2 million teachers will be needed in the next decade to teach
over 48.1 million students (Protheroe, Lewis, & Paik, 2002). This statistic, along with
an increased emphasis on accountability and recent studies indicating that teacher qual-
ity is one of the most important factors affecting student achievement, presents school
districts with a challenge. Locating and hiring quality teachers will be of vital impor-
tance in the coming decade. Currently, shortages exist in certain areas and geographical
locations. These staffing needs are generally most pressing at the nation’s high-poverty
schools (Archer, 2002).
As Olson (2000) reported, “the United States does not have an overall ‘teacher
shortage,’” but instead has “problems of distribution in the supply of teachers” (p. 17).
Too few teachers are available in such subjects as special education, bilingual educa-
tion, mathematics, and science. Too few people are willing to work in schools that are
33
“under-funded or in rundown or isolated areas” (Olson, p. 5). In addition, schools face
a shortage of minority teachers. “Ethnic teachers currently represent about nine percent
of U.S. public school teachers, but that number is expected to drop to less than five
percent in the coming years” (Jorgenson, 2001, p. 65).
Many people believe that raising salaries are imperative to attract more teachers.
In response to this belief, some states have raised salaries across the board or offered
increased salaries to beginning teachers. States also increasingly offer scholarships and
loan forgiveness programs to new teachers, as well as cash bonus incentives (Olson,
2000).
Critics argue that these approaches fail to recruit teachers to areas where they
are most needed. Many believe that districts should offer additional compensation to
those who teach in hard-to staff subjects, as well as to those “willing to work in hard-to-
staff schools” (Olson, 2000, p. 8). Some states have begun addressing these concerns
and “are offering signing bonuses, housing assistance, free graduate course work, and
other incentives to attract teachers to the hardest to staff areas” (Hirsh, Koppich, &
Knapp, 2001, p. 3).
Many states are also expanding their applicant pool by establishing alternative
pathways into the profession. The National Center for Education Information (NCEI;
as cited in Hirsh, Koppich, & Knapp, 2001) reported that 41 states and the District of
Columbia have some type of alternative teacher certification. There are over 100 such
programs available nationwide for those with a bachelor’s degree seeking to become
licensed teachers. “NCEI estimates that 75,000 people have been licensed through
34
these programs, with 25 states reporting an increase in the number of alternative li-
censes over the last five years” (Hirsh et al., p. 5).
In the same vein, a recent study indicated that teachers from nontraditional
backgrounds are often eager but overlooked prospects (Blair, 2002). Once certified,
they “outperform their colleagues . . . and stay longer in teaching positions than their
peers” (p. 21). Researchers found both larger and more racially diverse groups of
potential recruits than they had expected and also found the individuals to be of excep-
tionally high quality. Similar programs allowing prospective teachers to pursue alterna-
tive routes to teaching have shown promise in attracting more “minority teachers, math
and science teachers, and candidates willing to work in urban schools” (Olson, 2000, p.
6).
Other reasons for the teacher shortage may include cumbersome hiring prac-
tices, “redundant requirements” for qualified and credentialed teachers from other
states, “late budget decisions and teacher-transfer provisions . . ., a lack of pension
portability across states, and a loss of salary credit for teachers who move” (Darling-
Hammond, 2001, p. 13). States are addressing some of these concerns by creating
uniform hiring and application processes statewide and establishing centralized state
education employment databases on the Internet (Hirsh et al., 2001). Darling-
Hammond (2001) offered the following additional suggestions for addressing teacher
shortages: (a) establish licensing reciprocity across states, (b) create national recruit-
ment initiatives, (c) streamline hiring procedures, (d) expand teacher education
35
programs in high-need areas, and (e) provide incentives for more extended teacher
education programs.
Retaining Teachers
NCLB stipulates that each classroom should contain a highly qualified teacher,
defined as one who possesses a teaching certificate, bachelor’s degree, and can demon-
strate competence in the subject matter. Presently an explicit “teacher gap” exists such
that there may be up to 50% of classrooms across America that do not contain a highly
qualified teacher (“Quality Counts,” 2003). The majority of these classrooms are found
in urban, poor, and diverse communities (“Quality Counts”). The primary reason for
the lack of highly qualified teachers is the high rate of teacher attrition (Darling-
Hammond, 2003). Therefore, if new teachers are not provided with the support and
motivation to remain in the field, the NCLB-mandated reform will have limited success
in helping increase student achievement.
Teacher attrition has been a serious problem since the 1970s (Schmidt, 1990).
During this time, 25% of people certified to teach never even began teaching or left
teaching within a few years. Each year more individuals are being trained to teach, but
only 60% of trained teachers actually enter the teaching profession. Currently 4 million
people in the United States are trained to teach but choose not to (Ingersoll, 2001). In
addition, one in five education graduates start teaching after college but leave the pro-
fession within 4 years. In urban districts, close to 50% of new teachers leave the profes-
sion during the first 5 years of teaching (Streisand & Toch, 1998).
36
Attrition is an even more serious concern among minority educators. Research-
ers predict that currently, minority teachers are retiring at a faster rate than there are
minority teachers available to replace them (Ohio Legislative Office of Education Over-
sight, 1997). This issue is significant, as educational researchers predict that by the end
of the first part of this century, as many as 40% of students and 5% of teachers will be
minorities, thereby creating a severe shortage of teacher role models which, in turn, may
exacerbate urban plight (National Education Association [NEA], 2004). In addition,
the percentage of Hispanic students has nearly tripled over the past 3 decades (National
Center for Educational Statistics [NCEA], 1996) and is expected to rise to almost half
of the student population by 2020 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Lenhardt (2000) re-
ported that nationally, 13.5% of the teacher workforce is represented by minorities,
although more than 30% of the student population is of minority decent.
The rate of attrition is highest in disadvantaged schools where minorities are
prevalent (Delgado 1999; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future
[NCTAF], 1999). Perhaps most significant is the fact that high rates of attrition are
most often a result of teachers’ dissatisfaction with their careers. Dissatisfaction may
arise from low salaries, student discipline concerns, and minimal faculty input in school
decision making (Useem & Neild, 2005). In addition, research has indicated that
without induction support, the attrition rate for teachers is 70% higher than for those
who do receive support (NCEA, 2000).
Unfortunately, these types of issues are confounded for a newly credentialed
teacher who is already challenged with beginning a new job in a profession that
37
frequently isolates its employees (NEA, 2003b). This fact is significant, as teacher
quality gained by experience is positively correlated with increased student achieve-
ment (Darling-Hammond, 2000b; Rice, 2003). As a means to staunch attrition rates,
data have indicated that teachers who participate in an induction program that includes
a trained mentor are not only more likely to be retained but also are more enabled to
move forward from concentrating on classroom management issues to focusing on
instruction (NCTAF, 1996).
Historically, efforts to staunch attrition rates have been geared toward increased
recruitment rather than the retention of experience teachers (Banks, 1999). However,
No Dream Denied: A Pledge to America’s Children (NCTAF, 2003, as cited in NEA,
2003a) states the need for sound preparation programs followed by support systems as
the most effective means to facilitate teacher retention. Educational researchers, such
as Darling-Hammond (2000a), have suggested that districts wanting to increase student
achievement should focus on retaining quality teachers in the classroom. This element
of educational concern has been shown to have a stronger influence on student achieve-
ment as opposed to other factors such as poverty, language background, and minority
status (Darling-Hammond, 2000a). Fortunately, some states are beginning to give
precedence to beginning teacher induction programs that include the presence of a
trained mentor over traditional methods and have designated millions of dollars to fund
mandatory beginning teacher induction programs (Wang, Tregindo, & Mifsud, 2002).
However, these programs have yet to be standardized and often lack a trained mentor to
38
support the relationship among the new teacher, mentor, administrator, and colleagues
(Moir & Gless, 2001).
Thus, the critical issue remains that if teachers are not provided with the means
to remain in the profession, essential review and reform, such as indicated by the
government-issued NCLB Act, will have limited success in achieving the commitment
to quality education in American society and increased student achievement (Luck-
singer, 2000). This issue is of such consequence that the NCTAF is calling all constitu-
ents engaged in the venue of education to accept the challenge to improve teacher
retention by as much as 50% (as cited in Hunt & Carroll, 2003).
Quality Teachers
The quality of the public school teaching force in the United States is not as
good as it needs to be to prepare American students for a global economy. The nation
does have thousands of highly skilled, dedicated teachers. However, since the 1960s,
the quality of the teaching profession has declined. This decline in teaching quality has
added to the decline in student achievement. Even more startling is the teacher quality
inequalities between poor and affluent schools. Disadvantaged students who need the
highest quality of teachers are the least likely to have them in their classrooms.
NCLB has added increased accountability measures to schools and districts,
including new requirements for teacher qualification. All teachers must be “highly
qualified” by the 2005-2006 school year. “Highly-qualified” under NCLB means that
“all teachers must have a college degree, state certification, and demonstrate mastery of
39
the subject they teach” (Porter-Magee, 2004, p. 27). States continue to create their own
determinants of what is required to gain state certification and show mastery of subject
content. This leeway offers an opportunity for states to take advantage of what is
known about preparing effective teachers and assuring that a license to teach is mean-
ingful and effective.
All students, regardless of socioeconomic level, both need and deserve high-
quality teachers. That need is largest in the high-poverty schools, which are least likely
to have high-quality teachers. A study in California showed that students in the state’s
lowest performing schools are up to 5 times more likely to be taught by underprepared
teachers than are students in high-performing schools (Curtis-Pierce, 2002). In New
York, a similar pattern emerges where urban schools, typically the lowest performing
schools, have the highest number of underprepared teachers (Ascher & Fruchter, 2001).
Research has found large gaps between the best and worst teachers and has
shown that this difference has significant impact on student achievement. Rivers and
Sanders (2002) found that “fifth-grade students experiencing highly ineffective teachers
in grades three through five scored about fifty percentile points below their peers in
comparable previous achievement who were fortunate enough to experience highly
effective teachers for those same grades” and that “a teacher’s effect on student
achievement is measurable at least four years after students have left the tutelage of that
teacher” (p. 16). In addition, switching from an average teacher to a teacher at the 90
th
percentile raises test scores by one eighth of a standard deviation on a normal distribu-
tion. Hence, the benefit from this switch is twice as large as a 10% cut in class size. A
40
student who swaps a teacher at the 10 percentile for a teacher at the 90 percentile
th th
would be expected to move his/her test scores up from the 50 percentile to the 60
th th
percentile (Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2004).
These proven differences in teacher quality affect the large achievement gap
between White and Black students. According to the NAEP (2005), Black 12 graders,
th
on average, score at about the same level as White 8 -grade students. Research on
th
teacher quality suggests if the quality of teachers is changed in the Black students’
classroom, this gap could be decreased. Moving a Black student from the classroom of
a 10 -percentile teacher to a 90 -percentile teacher for 4 years would help close this
th th
Black/White achievement gap. This research suggests that teacher quality must be
equalized between high-poverty schools and affluent schools while making a concerted
effort to attract the most skilled teachers to hard-to-staff schools.
Research continues to show that teacher effectiveness overshadows every other
variable, including class size and makeup, when it comes to student achievement. A
Texas study found that differences in teacher quality accounted for the variation in test
scores between White and Black students (Fuller, 1999). In a study in Tennessee, it
was found that teachers have both a profound and cumulative effect on student achieve-
ment. Students who had ineffective teachers for 3 years scored at levels that were less
than half of those of their peers who had received instruction from effective teachers
(Shepard & Linn, 2001).
All the research points to the case that if the nation is to raise student achieve-
ment of all students, all students must have access to highly qualified teachers. The
41
teachers in today’s classrooms must know both the subject matter as well as how to
teach it. Teachers must know how to diagnose student learning and adapt instructional
approaches to meet student needs.
This means knowing how to manage classrooms, develop standards-based lessons,
assess student work fairly and appropriately, work with special needs students and
English-language learners, and use technology to bring curriculum to life for the many
students who lack motivation. (Berry, Hoke, & Hirsch, 2004, p. 686)
In order to arm teachers with the necessary skills to become highly qualified and
to be effective in the high-poverty schools, the skills can be “readily learned through
effective teacher education, induction, and professional development experiences”
(Berry et al., p.686). Teacher education programs must prepare teachers to go into the
high-poverty schools and educate students with various needs. In addition, the teacher
education programs should be opened up to alternative preparation programs to broaden
the prospective candidate pool. Once teachers are hired and placed in schools, an in-
duction program, including mentoring and buddy systems, must be in place. These
programs will help new teachers be successful in the classroom, in turn leading to in-
creasing student achievement. Finally, professional development must be ongoing to
offer support to teachers in how to reach the students in their classrooms in order to
increase student learning. This support must focus on both the professional and per-
sonal levels. Only if all these programs are in place will students in all schools, includ-
ing high-poverty, schools have access to the high quality of teachers they deserve.
42
Professional Development
According to Fullan (2000), professional development refers to activities de-
signed to enhance the professional growth of teachers. If school districts and site ad-
ministrators expect teachers to deliver high-quality instruction, they must be committed
to providing the quality professional development that teachers need to hone their
practice. Specific professional development plans must be in place that are tailored to
support teachers in their instructional practices (Speck & Knipe, 2001). Professional
development activities include but are not limited to individual development, continu-
ing education, inservice education, peer collaboration, study groups, and coaching.
Successful professional development “not only makes teachers feel better about
their practice, but also reaps learning gains for students, especially in the kinds of more
challenging learning that new standards demand,” according to Darling-Hammond
(2000b, p. 597). Darling-Hammond (2000b) also stated that research shows that the
single most important factor in students’ learning is the expertise of their teacher. Other
research, such as studies from the Education Trust (Haycock, 1998) and the Regional
Alliance for Mathematics and Science Education (as cited in Glenn, 2001), have con-
curred that what the teacher knows and does is the most important influence of what
students can learn.
Coaching
In many current professional development models, coaching is an integral piece.
The coaching of teaching happens in the workplace following initial training. Coaching
43
supports teaching implementing a new skill. It also provides feedback on the technical
aspects of pedagogy and on the congruence of practice and ideal performance. Coach-
ing can help build a community of learners who continuously engage in the study of
their craft.
Joyce and Showers (1988) conducted a study on teacher training and found that
when professional development simply provided information, training outcomes were
significantly less than when the training included theory, demonstrations, practices,
feedback, and coaching. In fact, without coaching, the teachers were not able to transfer
the training in formation into their classrooms. In their study, Joyce and Showers con-
cluded that teachers can acquire new knowledge and skill and use it in their instruc-
tional practice when provided with follow-up coaching in the workplace.
Collaboration
Collaboration is the process of breaking down the isolation of teachers and
engaging teachers in groups to discuss curriculum and the learning processes at their
school site. Many practices and positions can be included in the process of collabora-
tion. A process of collaboration can be created between the supervisor and the teacher.
Collaboration can also occur among teachers in the form of coaching, mentoring, and
peer review or through the informal method of simply talking about the issues in their
practice and gaining insight from others (Danielson & McGreal, 2000).
The Beginning Teacher Support Assessment (BTSA) Program and the Peer
Assistance and Review (PAR) Program are two examples of policies that have
44
attempted to incorporate the strategies of collaboration. BTSA is designed to support
the professional development of beginning teachers; PAR is designed to support the
professional development of veteran or tenured teachers (CDE, 2006). Both programs
are focused on improvement of teacher practices. They are limited in their reach be-
cause not all teachers are included in the programs; however, the teachers who are
involved are provided with a veteran coach who guides the teacher. Meetings and re-
flection forms help guide the conversation regarding teacher practice.
In order to be successful, Hutchens (1998) stated that the focus of professional
development must shift from teachers to students; from districts to schools; and from
single, fragmented efforts to long-range, comprehensive plans. The focus must move
from outside-of-school training by experts to school-based, embedded learning in
classrooms. Effective professional development must be sustained over time and di-
rectly related to everyday teaching. Elements such as coaching models of professional
development, collaboration among grade-level teams of teachers, and individual teacher
reflections are also critical components that support learning.
Summary
Schools are being held to a high level of accountability. Currently, many urban
and high-poverty schools are failing to meet this high level of student academic
achievement. Some high-poverty schools are succeeding in spite of various obstacles
and offer practices for other schools to emulate. Schools looking to restructure them-
selves for increased student achievement must look at how successful schools are
45
utilizing their human capital. Successful schools are finding ways under their current
funding levels to effectively recruit teachers, retain teachers, and train the teachers to a
high level of quality. The practices at these schools allow the schools to become high
achieving and can help other schools follow in their footsteps.
46
CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter contains a review of the methodology associated with the study. It
includes the sampling procedure and population, instrumentation, and procedures for
data collection and analysis. The purpose of the study was to determine what uses of
human capital lead to high-performing schools in urban settings. The study examined
one high-poverty urban elementary school that had exceeded achievement expectations
on the API and one high-poverty urban elementary school that had not met its achieve-
ment expectations on the API. Schools strongly influence student achievement (Maz-
zeo, 2001), and individual circumstances dictate the success of particular intervention
strategies. This study identifies the particular uses of human capital that led to the high-
performing school’s positive impact on student achievement.
The qualitative case study approach was employed to identify the uses of human
capital that enabled the selected school to exceed its student achievement expectations.
Qualitative case study research studies are suited for “in-depth study of instances of a
phenomenon” (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003, p. 56). This approach aims to uncover the
interaction of significant factor characteristics of the phenomenon (Meriam, 1998).
This in-depth descriptive case study focused on a thick description of one elementary
schools that exceeded its expected achievement gains and the factors regarding human
capital that led to its performance.
47
There are several characteristics of effective high-poverty schools. This investi-
gator looked for specific uses of human capital in the school that were felt to be linked
to high-performing urban schools. The following questions guided the research and the
study of the schools:
1.How are resources allocated to focus on learning at a high-performing high-
poverty school?
2.Where do the differences lie in human resource allocation between high-
performing and low-performing high-poverty schools?
3.How does a high-performing high-poverty school recruit and retain quality
educators?
4.How is professional development used in a high-performing high-poverty
school to support and continue professional growth and student achievement?
Sample and Population
This case study called for the selection of one urban school that outperformed its
API growth target consistently over a 3-year period and exceeded state achievement
expectations based on published state rankings and similar school rankings, as well as
one urban school that did not achieve its API growth target. Further selection criteria
were a student population that consisted of a large ELL population and significant par-
ticipation in the National School Lunch Program, commonly referred to as the free or
reduced-price lunch program.
48
School/Student Overview
School A, the selected high-performing school, was located in Los Angeles
County in southern California and served 435 students in grades K-5. The school op-
erated on a traditional calendar. Almost 40% of the students at the school were ELLs
with Spanish as their primary language. The school also received Title I funding as a
result of the low socioeconomic status of the students’ families.
School B, the selected school that failed to meet its API target, was also located
in Los Angeles County and served 647 students in K-5. Forty-nine percent of the
students were ELLs, and 90% qualified for free/reduced-price lunch. Student character-
istics are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Table 3 contains a breakdown of teachers and
support staff.
API
School A, the high-performing school, had successfully met and outscored its
target API growth over the previous 3 years. The school’s current API was 838. In
similar school ranks, the school received a 10 out of 10. In addition, the school had
received the honor of California Distinguished School, which recognizes schools with
high academic achievement.
Data Collection Instruments
This case study sought to examine a southern California K-5 elementary school
by studying the utilization of human capital that contributed to the school’s success.
The data presented were collected through a survey/questionnaire, extensive
49
Table 1
Population of the Study
Grade level NELLsFree/reduced-price lunch
Kindergarten
School A603357
School B905082
1
School A794076
School B12069109
2
School A732671
School B11055100
3
School A702963
School B1004387
4
School A772571
School B11755101
5
School A751972
School B11045103
Note. ELLs = English Language Learners. Number of students in School A = 435;
number of students in School B = 647.
50
Table 2
Ethnic Breakdown of Students
S c h o ol A S c h o ol B
ab
______________________________
Ethnic description n % n %
African American19645.422635.0
Asian00.020.3
Filipino00.0132.0
Hispanic22952.338860.0
Pacific Islander10.2122.0
White92.150.7
N = 435. N = 647.
ab
51
Table 3
Breakdown of Teachers and Support Staff at Schools A and B
School ASchool B
Position n (FTE) n (FTE)
Teacher with full credential13.014.0
University intern6.06.0
District intern2.08.0
Pre-intern0.00.0
Emergency2.04.0
SDC teacher2.02.0
RSP teacher1.01.0
RSP aide1.01.0
Literacy coach1.01.0
Math coach0.00.5
Counselor1.01.0
Librarian0.01.0
Psychologist0.20.2
Health assistant1.01.0
Adaptive PE teacher0.20.2
Speech/language0.20.5
Assistant principal0.01.0
Principal1.01.0
Security1.01.0
Note. FTE = full-time equivalent; SDC = special day class; RSP = resource specialist;
PE = physical education.
52
interviews, observations, and analysis of artifacts/documentation. The four research
questions provided the foundation and purpose of each data collection instrument,
including surveys, interviews, observations, and data analysis.
Survey/Questionnaire
An anonymous five-question, open-ended survey for site faculty and staff was
created by the dissertation cohort (appendix A). The development of the questions was
guided by the four research questions and served to provide a foundation for data col-
lection and data analysis. Attached to each survey was a letter of introduction from the
researcher that reviewed the purpose of the study and reinforced the confidentiality of
the responses (appendix B). With the help of the school office manager, surveys were
placed in teacher and staff mailboxes located in the school’s main office. Each survey
had a stamped, self-addressed envelope with a request for participants to return the
survey to the researcher within 2 weeks of receipt. The researcher also placed a re-
minder notice in the faculty and staff mailboxes 1 week after the initial distribution.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted with the principal, office manager, eight teachers
representing a variety of grade levels, the literacy coach, the speech/language specialist,
and the counselor. The interviews were guided by a collection of rudimentary questions
(appendix C). The researcher then had the flexibility to move beyond the confines of
the established questions to seek further insight into an area of interest. Interviews with
aforementioned people were in person and lasted approximately 1 hour; however,
53
additional responses and clarifications were given upon request later via telephone or
email. The interviews followed the protocol suggested by Creswell (1998), which in-
cluded providing instructions to the interviewer, highlighting the key research questions
to be asked, following up on key questions to solicit more information, writing notes,
and tape recording the session. Informal interviews were documented on paper, using
some of the interview guide questions.
Observations
Observation of the school site was guided by the California Academic Audit
Process. The four Audit areas were used as a guiding assessment tool to identify suc-
cessful practices within the school. Formal observation included shadowing the princi-
pal for half a day and shadowing the literacy coach for half a day. Observations also
entailed attending a staff meeting, a grade-level meeting, and a parent meeting. Class-
room observations were conducted in four classrooms of varying levels. All formal ob-
servations were conducted with the role of the researcher known and the researcher
observing without participation. This type of observation lends itself to exploring
topics that may be uncomfortable for participants to discuss (Creswell, 1998).
Informal observations included extensive common area observation of the
school, such as the playground, the teachers’ lunchroom, and the teachers’ workroom.
Employees and students were quietly observed while on task and at various times
throughout the data collection period.
54
Informal and formal observations were recorded by the researcher using Cornell
note-taking strategies, where documentation of events were recorded on the right and
reflective analysis was written on the left side of the paper. The researcher also used an
observation template designed to guide the observation process (see appendices D and
E).
Artifact/Document Analysis
Analysis of documentation included but was not be limited to the school’s
Single Site Plan, School Accountability Report Cards, school budget, achievement test
results, school safety plan, the established goals of the schools, objectives and mission
statements, program materials, individual student achievement reports, teacher hand-
book, daily bulletin, memos, and school newsletters (see appendices F and G).
Data Collection Process
According to Huberman and Miles (1984), the data collection process should
consider the following elements of a study prior to the data collection: the setting, who
will be observed or interviewed, the events to be documented, and the process by which
the collection will occur.
In July 2006, prior to the collection of data, the school’s principal was contacted
and sent a proposal. A telephone conference was scheduled to introduce the researcher
and present her idea. After initial approval, the researcher met with the principal to go
deeper into the study.
55
Upon receipt of IRB approval, data collection for this study was conducted. The
study proposal was presented to the faculty at a site staff meeting and a timeline out-
lined (see Table 4). The researcher requested volunteers and contacted selected individ-
uals suggested by the principal to schedule interviews. The researcher met with the
office manager to ascertain appropriate documentation as outlined in the study and sug-
gested by the principal and members of the leadership team.
Data collection began in October 2006 with the distribution of surveys to the
school’s faculty and staff via mailboxes housed in the school’s main office. Attached to
the survey was a letter of introduction from the researcher that stipulated the purpose,
directions, and deadlines for submission of the survey responses (appendix B). All
participants were given a stamped and self-addressed envelope to return the survey to
the researcher within 2 weeks of receipt. A reminder notice was placed in their mail-
boxes 1 week prior to the requested due date.
Interviews began in October 2006 and included the principal, office manager,
eight teachers representing a variety of grade levels, the literacy coach, the speech/lan-
guage specialist, and the counselor. Consent to participate forms (see appendix H), as
required by the university Institutional Review Board (IRB), were signed by all partici-
pants prior to interviews. Each interview lasted approximately 1 hour and was tape
recorded for reference. Each recorded interview was transcribed and word processed by
the researcher. Additional questions and clarifications were solicited by the researcher
to the appropriate participant via phone or email conversations. Informal interviews
56
Table 4
Data Collection Timeline
Date Activity Participants
September 2006Contact and send proposal to princi-

pal.
principal, researcher
September 2006Apply to USC IRB’s approval of
study.
USC IRB panel, re-

searcher, dissertation chair

October 2006Contact and meet with principal.principal, researcher
October 2006Attend staff meeting to introduce

study and timeline.
school faculty, researcher
October 2006Disseminate surveys to all faculty

and staff.
office manager, researcher
October-November
2006
Meet with office manager to obtain

school documents.
office manager, researcher
October-November
2006
Schedule and conduct site interviews.
Deliver Consent to Participate forms
and collect all interview participants’

forms.
Teachers and staff, re-
searcher
October-December
2006
Conduct site and classroom observa-

tions.
teachers and staff, re-
searcher
December 2006Contact principal for a closing meet-
ing.
principal, school staff, re-

searcher
Note. USC = University of Southern California; IRB = Institutional Review Board.
57
were conducted onsite through discussions between the researcher and the participant.
Participant responses were recorded on paper and later word processed.
Observations of classrooms and common areas were conducted between Octo-
ber and December 2006. Formal observations were scheduled in advance with the ap-
propriate participants (i.e., principal, classroom teachers, program specialists, and the
office staff). Observations were recorded using the Cornell note-taking format, where
descriptive notes resided on the right side of the paper and reflective notes cor-
responded on the left (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). Formal classroom observations were
conducted using the Classroom Observation Form (see appendix E).
Once obtained, documentation analysis was conducted intermittently throughout
the study, which is a common strategy among qualitative studies. As interviews and
observations are conducted, more documentation can be requested and/or solicited.
Documentation/Artifact Analysis
This tool will be used to support information provided during the interviews and
observations. The researcher took a reduction approach to the data analysis by synthe-
sizing the information and categorizing the findings into common themes. The presen-
tation of the findings is based on the results of the four research questions.
Validity and Reliability
A qualitative case study must have validity and reliability. Validity is the accu-
racy of the study and of the study’s ability to actually measure what was intended to be
measured (Gall et al., 2003). Yin (1994) judged the quality of case study design by
58
three types of validity criteria and one reliability criterion. Construct validity is the
extent to which a measure used in a case study correctly operationalizes the concepts
being studied (Yin). Internal validity is the extent to which the researcher has shown a
causal relationship between two events. External validity is the extent to which the
findings of a case study can be generalized to similar cases. Reliability is the extent to
which other researchers would arrive at the same or similar results if they were to rep-
licate the study.
Triangulation increases the reliability of the data and the process of gathering it
(Creswell, 2003). Triangulation is the process of using multiple data collection meth-
ods, data sources, analyses, or theories to check the validity of the findings (Gall et al.,
2003). Triangulation helps to eliminate biases that may have resulted from relying ex-
clusively on one data source.
Summary
This chapter presented the design and procedure for the qualitative case study.
The chapter discussed the purpose of the selected approach, the types of collection pro-
cedures, including survey/questionnaire, interview, observation, and artifact/documen-
tation analysis, the procedure for recording the information, and the process of forming
conclusions based on the data collected. Chapter 4 highlights the research findings and
espoused themes.
59
CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS
This chapter presents an analysis of the data collected for the current study. The
purpose of the study was to examine specific uses of human capital in a successful
urban school and to look at how the use of human capital contributed to the academic
performance of the students. Qualitative case study methodology was used to collect
data (a) from a southern California elementary school whose student achievement data,
based on the statewide assessment reports, demonstrated notable growth over a 3-year
period, and (b) from a southern California elementary school whose student achieve-
ment data, based on the statewide assessment reports, did not demonstrate notable
growth over a 3-year period.
This case study was designed to investigate the following questions:
1.How are resources allocated to focus on learning at a high-performing high-
poverty school?
2.Where do the differences lie in human resource allocation between high-
performing high-poverty schools and low-performing high-poverty schools?
3.How does a high-performing high-poverty school recruit and retain quality
educators?
4.How is professional development used in a high-performing high-poverty
school to support and continue professional development growth and student achieve-
ment?
60
The data were collected over a 2-month period through questionnaires, inter-
views, observations, and document analysis. Of 33 questionnaires distributed, 25
respondents voluntarily completed the human capital questionnaires. The question-
naires were collected from 21 certificated personnel and 4 classified personnel. In
addition, 20 interviews were conducted over a period of 4 weeks. Individuals inter-
viewed included 11 teachers, 3 administrators, 3 subject matter coaches, 2 office man-
agers, and 1 specialist. School site observations occurred over a period of 6 weeks.
Observations included attending meetings, shadowing personnel, and viewing daily
interactions and business operations. Finally, various documents were reviewed in-
cluding achievement data, budget data, meeting agendas, meetings minutes, and other
various school site data. Following is a presentation of each research question, corre-
sponding data, and discussion of the findings as they relate to the study.
Analysis of Findings: Research Question 1
How are resources allocated to focus on learning at a high-performing high-
poverty school?
Questionnaire
Question 1 from the Human Capital Questionnaire provided insight into the first
research question regarding how resources were allocated to focus on learning at a high-
performing high-poverty school. At the high-performing school, over half of the re-
spondents noted the presence of a literacy coach. One survey respondent noted that “we
focus all the money we can on positions to improve instruction and student
61
achievement.” In addition, several surveys indicated the presence of after-school
programs, both academic and extracurricular, for students in all grade levels. The last
overwhelming comment found on several questionnaires acknowledged the profes-
sional development provided for the staff. One respondent declared, “Everything we do
here focuses on learning and the academic achievement of our kids.”
Survey responses from the low-performing school focused on a lack of funding
to help teachers. One survey participant stated that “we don’t have the materials we
need.” Another survey revealed: “I know we spend money on out-of-classroom peo-
ple, but I don’t think we get the support we should.”
Interviews
Interview question 1 delved more deeply into how resources were allocated to
focus on learning. All staff interviewed at the high-performing school stated that the
School Site Council decided all budget decisions, including money spent on human
capital. Multiple stakeholders convened once a month to analyze the current state of
the school’s budget and to determine future expenditures. In fact, it was the School Site
Council that decided to fund a literacy coach instead of an assistant principal or dean.
Teacher B, the School Site Council Chair, shared that “we base all of our decisions on
data. Our students were lacking in Language Arts, so we say the need to bring in a
literacy coach.”
62
The interview process uncovered the goals of the school, which aligned with the
federal NCLB mandate. The staff of the school aimed for students to be proficient and
advanced in language arts and math. The principal stated:
[The]School Site Council realizes that we need to put our money where our
mouth is. If we say our goal is for our students to achieve proficiency in lan-
guage arts and math, we must spend our money in these areas. With every
expenditure, we must ask ourselves, “How does this improve or add to student
achievement?’”
Teacher H pointed out:
We were struggling to get our kids to read on grade level and we were unsure
what else to do. Our Literacy Coach has helped assure that our kids are all
reading by third grade.
Finally, when asked what structures were in place to sustain the kind of instruc-
tion and support that best represented the school’s values, interview participants at the
high-performing school distinguished two key areas: the literacy coach and the princi-
pal. As discussed before, the literacy coach played a key role in students’ learning at
this school. Teacher C added:
It’s nice to have someone onsite that I can go to for help. She [literacy coach] is
also available to come in my room and actually show me how to teach compo-
nents of our language arts program or to watch me teach a lesson and give me
constructive feedback.
Teacher G agreed:
The Literacy Coach helps assure we all know how to teach our kids. For exam-
ple, we all know how to teach decoding, kindergarten through fifth, and we all
teach it the same way. This uniformity can only help our students.
63
The second key structure that led to student learning was the principal. All in-
terviewees noted the instructional leadership that the principal provided. Teacher B
said:
He [the principal] visits our classrooms all the time. He is always looking at
student learning.
Teacher A added:
Our Principal is an exemplary leader. He will come in your room and teach a
lesson—any subject, any grade level. Every staff development, he is there. He
really involves himself in the classroom instruction.
Teacher K recalled a telling experience with the Principal:
Two of my students were sent to the principal on a discipline referral. When
they returned, they informed me that while in the principal’s office, they had to
read the language arts story and answer comprehension questions. Only a
principal that knows instruction would be able to incorporate learning into
discipline management.
The Principal confirmed:
I visit each classroom at least once a week. I need to know what learning is
taking place. In addition, my observations are focused on student learning. If
we teach our hearts out and students don’t learn, we have not accomplished
anything. We must assure our students learn.
In contrast, staff interviewed at the low-performing school noted that most
budget decisions were made by the administration. Teacher S stated:
Our School Site Council doesn’t decide much. We just approve what the Prin-
cipal decides.
Teacher V agreed:
The administration makes all the budget decisions and all the personnel deci-
sions.
64
The interview also revealed that staff at the low-performing school all agreed that the
goal was for students to achieve proficiency but that systems were not in place for this
to happen. Teacher R explained that “we want our kids to be proficient, but we need
the support for this to happen.” The principal noted:
We are beginning to look at what support structures will help us get all our
students to proficiency and above.
Observation
Various focused observations at the high-performing school provided insight
into how this school allocated resources to focus on learning. First, the researcher
attended a staff development meeting that the leadership team conducted. The leader-
ship team explained that the school continued to be low in language arts in the specific
areas of writing and reading comprehension. The team asked each teacher to bring an
effective implementation technique in the areas of writing or reading comprehension to
the next meeting. The team also discussed offering before school tutoring. They
passed out a survey asking which teachers would be interested in providing before-
school tutoring. The goal was to have one teacher per weekday offering a morning
tutoring room. Even though the teachers would be volunteering this time and not being
paid, several teachers seemed interested.
Next, the researcher shadowed the principal. He began his day on the yard
having conversations with students as well as teachers who approached him. One
teacher asked the principal how to get his third graders to know their multiplication
facts, as they just did not seem to remember them. After the bell rang, the principal
65
returned to his office and met with two parents who had concerns. At 9:00 a.m., the
language arts block began in the classrooms and the principal visited all of the first-
second- and fifth-grade classrooms. Even though he was called to the office for a dis-
cipline issue and a phone call, he continued to visit the classrooms and asked the office
to hold the child until he returned and to take a message. During the classroom walk-
throughs, he focused his attention on what the students were doing and whether they
were learning. He left a reflective note in each teacher’s classroom, such as “Do you
think it would help the students if each one had a copy of the overhead slide you used
for vocabulary? They would be able to highlight as you review it.” At lunch, the prin-
cipal met with his leadership team consisting of himself, the counselor, the literacy
coach, a primary teacher, and an intermediate teacher.
Finally, the researcher shadowed the literacy coach, who devoted her entire day
to the instruction of language arts. She coordinated the language arts testing, offered
peer coaching, presented demonstration lessons in classrooms, presented observational
critiques, and provided needs-based staff development. Every aspect of her day was
tied to student learning. The literacy coach was extremely busy, and at no time did she
have a break or time for reflection. The schedule of the day that this researcher shad-
owed the literacy coach is summarized in Table 5.
During my observation, I also had a chance to visit the teachers’ workroom.
Before school, the workroom was busy with teachers checking their mailboxes and pre-
paring materials for the upcoming day. Two second-grade teachers discussed how to
blend the word “elephant,” as it had a “schwa” sound in it. A third-grade teacher came
66
Table 5
Literary Coach’s Daily Schedule at the High-Performing School
Time Activity
7:45-8:00Preconference with Teacher J about the lesson the literacy coach would be

demonstrating that day

8:00-9:15Pulled student data for first-grade students
9:15-10:00Demonstrated lesson in Teacher J’s class on phonics and reading comprehen-

sion

10:00-10:20Pulled student data for first- and second-grade students

10:20-10:40Conducted postconference with Teacher J regarding the demonstration lesson

10:40-11:00Planned for demonstration lesson in Teacher C’s fifth-grade classroom

11:00-11:30Visited all fourth-grade classrooms during vocabulary instruction

11:30-12:00Lunch

12:00-12:40Read with first- and second-grade students on yard
12:40-1:00Preconference with Teacher C about the lesson the literacy coach would be

demonstrating that week
1:00-1:45Pulled five second-grade students and did reading tests with them to diagnose

what skills each student was lacking
1:45-2:30Met with principal to discuss language arts test scores and plan professional

development
2:30-2:50Met with second-grade teacher to go over reading tests that she administered

to students; provided intervention strategies for teacher to implement
2:50-3:15Continued to plan for demonstration lesson in Teacher C’s fifth-grade class-

room
3:15-3:45Had conversation with third-grade teachers regarding fluency folders and how
to use them during class
67
into the workroom, and the second-grade teachers asked him how to teach rounding
because their students were struggling with the concept. Throughout the various times
of day, including before school, during recess, during lunch, and after school, some of
the conversations involved outside activities and recent movies; however, the over-
whelming topic in the workroom was instruction.
Observations at the low-performing school yielded contrasting results. The staff
development meeting involved teachers complaining about union issues for 20 minutes
and then going back to their rooms to work on room environments. Shadowing the
principal involved one classroom visit and the rest of the day in her office or on the
recess yard. Finally, shadowing the literacy coach entailed holding a class until the
substitute arrived, sorting and handing out assessments, and entering assessment data.
Document Analysis
In every document that was reviewed at the high-performing school, the focus
on instruction and learning could be found. Table 6 depicts the documents that were
reviewed, the human capital involved, and the connection to student achievement. The
documents that were reviewed from the low-performing school that tied to student
achievement included the school plan, school handbook, school site budget, and mis-
sion.
Summary: Research Question 1
In summary, the data collected relating to the first research question revealed
that all human capital at this high-performing school focused on learning and student
68
Table 6
Document Analysis Regarding Research Question 1
Document

reviewed
Human capital
involved
Connection to student
achievement
School planTeachers, principal, coun-
selor, literacy coach, aides
Focus on improving scores in language arts for
all subgroups; providing intervention in the

classroom and after school
School handbook,
home/school compact
TeachersResponsibility to communicate with family

and assure that students learn
Activity calendarTeachers, principal, coun-
selor, literacy coach
Focus on learning (e.g., Literacy Night, Math
Night); focus on achievement (e.g., awards

assembly, lunch with principal)
School site budgetLiteracy coach, counselor,
aides
Use of categorical monies to fund a literacy
coach, instructional aides, and half-time coun-

selor to offer support for student learning
Daily scheduleTeacher, literacy coach,

principal
Language arts block schoolwide and uninter-
rupted
Mission/valuesAll stakeholders Aim for all students to be proficient and/or ad-

vanced
BulletinsTeachers, literacy coach,
principal
Inclusion of upcoming assessments; inclusion
of themes being taught for each grade level;
inclusion of commendations from principal on

instruction in certain classrooms
Leadership team
meeting minutes
Principal, counselor, liter-
acy coach, teachers
Use of data to analyze schoolwide trends; es-
tablishment of schoolwide staff for develop-

ment needs
School Site Council
meeting minutes
Principal, teachersUse of data to analyze schoolwide progress
toward goals; determination of needs for sti-

pends to offer teachers time to collaborate
Professional devel-
opment calendar
Principal, teachers, liter-

acy coach, district office
Tie to schoolwide curricular needs
69
achievement. The focus for the personnel on student learning was not only evident in
job descriptions and on paper, but also in the physical day-to-day activities of the per-
sonnel. Conversely, human capital at the low-performing school were not all tied to
student achievement.
Analysis of Findings: Research Question 2
Where do the differences lie in human resource allocation between high-per-
forming and low-performing high-poverty schools?
Questionnaire
Question 2 from the Human Capital Questionnaire provided insight into the
second research question investigating where differences lie in high-performing high-
poverty schools and low-performing high-poverty schools. The questionnaires returned
from the high-performing high-poverty schools noted three important ways that respon-
dents felt their school effectively and efficiently spent their money on human capital.
One major area that most surveys discussed was the literacy coach who helped guide
instruction. Another key component to the school’s human capital was the principal,
who most deemed as a superior instructional leader. A final important element noted
by several respondents was the intervention for students, which occurred throughout the
day and after school. One survey noted that “we use our resources to provide interven-
tion to our kids during the day and after school. We surround our kids with instruc-
tion.”
70
The questionnaires returned from the low-performing high-poverty school
revealed differences. One survey stated:
We do everything we can. We need more money to help these kids get up to
grade level.
Another respondent revealed:
We have to use a lot of our resources to provide safety. It’s a matter of fact that
safety comes before instruction and funding yard supervisors and a security
guard adds up.
A final survey explained:
I feel we spend most of our resources on compliance issues rather than instruc-
tion. We have a lot of money tied up in coaches in coordinators that don’t seem
to affect instruction. Our test scores continue to go down.
Interviews
Interview question 2 uncovered where the differences lay in high-performing
high-poverty schools and low-performing high-poverty schools in regard to funding
human capital. Even though both schools funded similar positions, discrepancies arose
regarding the use of these personnel. Both principals mentioned the use of Title I
funding to help pay the salary of instructional coaches as well as instructional aides. In
addition, both schools received funding to pay for a resource specialist (RSP) teacher,
an RSP aide, two special day class (SDC) teachers, and two SDC aides.
The main differences identified through the interview process between human
capital allocation in a high-performing high-poverty school and a low-performing high-
poverty school were tied to intervention and special education. Many interviewees of
71
the high-performing high-poverty school mentioned the schoolwide focus on interven-
tion. Teacher C stated:
We have intervention embedded in our daily schedules for both language arts
and math. We also have support staff that know which of our kids needs inter-
vention and how to help each kid.
Teacher F agreed:
Since we are always analyzing data, it is public knowledge which kids in our
rooms need help. The Principal, the Counselor, and the Literacy Coach even
come in at times to help give our kids some extra help.
Finally, the principal stated:
We analyze the data after each unit assessment. We then identify which stu-
dents are at-risk in which areas. We target our intervention strategies for the
students that need them. It is our job as out of classroom personnel to make this
happen. We aren’t just responsible for the 20 students in our classroom—we
are responsible for the whole school. Intervention is built into each daily sched-
ule for math and language arts, and we provide after-school class and Saturday
school as well.
When asked about intervention at the low-performing high-poverty school,
Teacher M stated:
We have intervention in the classrooms for half an hour a day when the aide is
in our room, but the aides are pulled to do other things a lot, which means we
have no aide assistance.
Teacher J affirmed:
Our schedule is so full, my aide handles the intervention. Almost all of my
students are below grade level so they all need it, but only a few actually get the
extra help.
The other noticeable difference between the two schools in human capital allo-
cation involved special education. The high-performing high-poverty school used a
push in program for the RSP teacher and RSP aide, while the low-performing high-
72
poverty school used a pull-out program for the RSP teacher and RSP aide. A teacher
from the high-performing school noted:
It took a while for me to get used to having the RSP teacher come into my room.
Now it is great because it’s one more teacher in the classroom, and the aide
comes also. It really helps my whole class.
Teacher B agreed:
It’s kind of neat having the RSP teacher in the classroom. She has some good
strategies that I can use for my whole class.
The RSP teacher from the high-performing high-poverty school explained:
I push into the rooms during their scheduled intervention time to offer support
for my students. This is a good system because it allows two more adults [RSP
teacher and aide] to be in the room to offer small-group instruction to the stu-
dents. It was kind of hard to schedule it at the beginning, but now it runs
smoothly and all the students, not just my own, are making progress.
The principal from the low-performing school noted:
We try to have our students pulled out from their classrooms during the least
interruptive time; however, we have to fit all the students in, so sometimes there
are conflicts.
A classroom teacher from the low-performing school also mentioned:
My RSP students are pulled out inconsistently and miss out on language arts. I
really don’t see that they are getting the support they need, because while they
are there, they miss out on the lesson. Also, they don’t always use the same
curriculum we use.
Observation
Focused observations at the school sites attempted to gain insight into how the
schools allocated resources differently to human capital. During the observations at
both school sites, the researcher noted what the out-of-classroom support personnel
73
were doing for the majority of the observation sessions. Table 7 depicts the research-
er’s observations of human capital utilization at both school sites.
Table 7
Human Capital Utilization
Position
School A (high
performing)
School B (low
performing)
PrincipalIn classrooms conducting observationsIn office completing paperwork and

responding to email
Assistant principalN/AIn office with various students han-

dling disciplinary problems
CounselorIn classrooms presenting lesson on

accepting differences
In office pulling out students
Literary coachIn classroom conducting demonstra-
tion lesson and in office planning with

teachers
Covering a classroom until substi-
tute arrived and in office organizing
tests
Math coachN/AIn computer lab scanning math bub-

ble sheets
RSP teacherProviding small-group instruction in
regular education classrooms
Providing small-group instruction in

separate RSP classroom
RSP aideProviding small-group instruction in
regular education classrooms
Providing small-group instruction in

separate RSP classroom
Speech/languageWorking in office with four studentsWorking in office with three stu-
dents
Note. N/A = not applicable; RSP = Resource Specialist.
74
Document Analysis
To further understand where differences lay in human resource allocation be-
tween high-performing and low-performing high-poverty schools, the researcher ana-
lyzed several documents. She reviewed the evidence-based standards identified in the
Washington study of Odden et al. (2006) regarding the current human resource allo-
cations at the school sites. Table 8 compares the Washington evidence-based standards
for successful schools to the current state in both school sites.
Summary: Research Question 2
In summary, Table 8 reveals that both high-poverty schools were operating with
less personnel than recommended by the Washington evidence-based study (Odden et
al., 2006). In addition, both schools in the present study were spending less money than
recommended in the study of Odden et al. except in the area of instructional materials,
where both high-poverty schools allocated more than the recommended amount. The
main difference in human capital allocation between the high-performing and the low-
performing schools was the actual use of the personnel. Table 7 demonstrates the use
of human capital in the high-performing school to focus on learning while the low-
performing school’s use of personnel varied. It appeared that the high-performing
school used its human capital in a proactive manner and the low-performing school, in a
reactive manner. Therefore, both schools were operating at lower levels of human
capital and financing than the Washington study recommended; however, the high-
performing school utilized the human capital it did have in an effective way.
75
76
77
78
Analysis of Findings: Research Question 3
How does a high-performing high-poverty school recruit and retain quality
educators?
Questionnaire
Survey questions 3 and 4 helped to answer research question 3 by exploring
how this high-performing high-poverty school recruited and retained quality teachers.
In response to the recruitment of teachers, several survey respondents mentioned meet-
ing various school personnel at recruitment fairs and events. One teacher wrote:
I went to a recruitment fair that aimed to bring teachers to California. At the
fair, I was impressed with how professional the districts representatives were.
Then once hired, I interviewed with several schools within the district, but I felt
most welcome at this school.
Another recruitment strategy mentioned on the surveys was word of mouth. A respon-
dent recalled:
I heard about this school from a teacher who taught here. She told me how col-
laborative they were and how everyone was very supportive.
Answers to the retention-of-teachers question on the survey all revolved around
support. One individual proclaimed:
As a BTSA support provider, I focus on helping our new teachers. I really think
this coaching model helps our new teachers to be successful. I wish I could
have had this program as a new teacher.
Another short response was: “I think what makes people stay is the climate. We really
feel supported here.”
79
Survey responses from the low-performing school covered recruiting through
the district website and the BTSA program for the retention of teachers. One response
noted that “we really don’t recruit teachers, we simply post the openings on the district
Website.” Another survey response noted that “the BTSA program helps support and
retain new teachers at our school site.”
Interviews
Interview questions 3 and 4 attempted to further ascertain how a high-perform-
ing high-poverty school recruited and retained quality educators. Interview question 3
focused on the recruitment efforts at the school sites. The principal at the high-
performing school explained:
Our district recruits potential teaching candidates, and then the school sites in-
terview to find the best match.
A veteran teacher explained:
When we recruit teachers, we look for those that are going to be successful in
our environment. The teachers that have not made it here had difficulty with the
cultural environment.
The following list includes various selling points of the school that attracted current
employees to work at the high-performing school: (a) clean campus, (b) honest admin-
istration, (c) commitment to excellence, (d) welcoming front office and staff, and (e)
content employees.
The principal noted a key recruitment strategy that he had implemented at the
school:
80
I have established a working relationship with a local college of education.
Many of their teachers complete fieldwork and observation hours in our class-
rooms. In turn, our students benefit from having an extra adult, and we can hire
these teachers after they are done with their credential process.
Teacher E, who was hired this way, explained:
I completed my student teaching here. Then there was an opening so I applied.
It was a perfect fit because I already knew the culture and routines of the school.
The retention section of the interview process focused on how the high-per-
forming school retained high-quality teachers. According to Teacher A:
We don’t have a problem retaining teachers. Teachers want to be here. We
have a really low turnover of teachers. The only ones that leave seem to either
retire or move to another location for personal reasons.
The office manager agreed:
People really seem happy here. We rarely have teachers leave our site. In fact, I
know teachers from other schools that are really wanting to come over to our
school.
The Principal elucidated:
We have a really dedicated staff. They really care about these kids so we do
everything we can to keep our staff happy.
Teacher F stated:
I get support when I need it. I can go to the literacy coach, fellow teachers, or
even the principal.
Teacher B acknowledged:
We offer BTSA for our new teachers, but even us veterans need support, and we
get that through collaboration time and professional development.
Teacher G agreed:
I can get help in whatever I need. If I need a demo, the literacy coach will come
in. If I need help with discipline, I can talk to my principal. If I need help with a
81
student, I can talk to the counselor. It’s so different here than my last school.
Here it seems like we are all on the same team and everyone is willing to help.
Interviews tied to recruiting and retaining teachers at the low-performing school
yielded different results. Teacher V stated:
The only recruitment we do is to put the opening on the Internet. Then we
interview the qualified applicants.
The principal explained:
We don’t really recruit. The district handles all of that. We just inform the
district of the openings.
In terms of retaining teachers, the school relies on BTSA. The literacy coach said that
“BTSA helps to support out new teachers on site.” Teacher W, a new teacher clarified
that “the support I receive is all through BTSA. It helps, but I could use more.”
Observation
Throughout the researcher’s observations, she attempted to look into the re-
cruiting and retention processes at the school sites. She was unable to observe any re-
cruiting taking place at either site; however, she was able to observe a BTSA coaching
session and a literacy coach session that led to teacher retention at the high-performing
school. During the BTSA session, the BTSA coach and BTSA teacher had a conversa-
tion regarding student engagement. The new teacher stated:
I know how to teach the reading comprehension strategies, but I don’t feel like
the students are paying attention. I feel like I am talking to hear myself talk.
The BTSA support provider replied: “Okay, so today I will focus on student engage-
ment in my observation.”
82
The support provider observed the teacher during the language arts block and
the two teachers met at lunch to debrief. The support provider stated:
I understand what you mean about students being off-task. I think the pace you
were using is too slow. I know you want all students to master this skill, but it
repeats itself each week so you need to cover it and move on. This will help
keep students engaged.
As the conversation continued, the new teacher appeared to feel more confident and
comfortable with teaching the reading comprehension questions.
Document Analysis
In order to learn more about the recruitment and retention process at this school,
the researcher analyzed some documents. She reviewed the district’s recruitment
schedule. Over the course of a year, the district attended 15-20 recruiting events in
various states. It was at these recruiting events that the recruiting process for the
schools took place. In addition, the researcher looked at the professional development
calendars. At the high-performing school site, the literacy coach or other site staff
devoted one after-school staff development session each month to language arts staff
development. This procedure was not in place at the low-performing school site. After
each unit test in language arts and math at the high-performing school site, a collabora-
tion time was planned for the grade level to analyze the data and conduct unit planning
for the upcoming unit. This data analysis plan was nonexistent at the low-performing
school.
83
Finally, the researcher reviewed staff rosters from the past 10 years to analyze
the stability of the teaching staff. From these rosters, she gained the information sum-
marized in Tables 9 and 10.
Table 9
Teachers’ Years of Experience: High-Performing School
Number of yearsPercentage of teachers
1 year or less5
2-5 years30
6-10 years45
11 or more years20
Table 10
Teachers’ Years of Experience: Low-Performing School
Number of yearsPercentage of teachers
1 year or less30
2-5 years40
6-10 years20
11 or more years10
84
Summary: Research Question 3
In summary, the high-performing school recruited teachers who would fit into
their system and gave them the support needed to keep them there. A key recruiting
component was through college student teaching programs and through word of mouth
of current employees. The school then provided support for new teachers above and
beyond BTSA that allowed new teachers to feel welcomed, comfortable, and successful
in their positions. In contrast, the low-performing school relied on the district to recruit
teachers and on BTSA to provide support and to retain personnel.
Analysis of Findings: Research Question 4
How are resources allocated to focus on learning at a high-performing high-
poverty school?
Questionnaire
Question 5 of the Human Capital Questionnaire helped to answer research
question 4 pertaining to how professional development was used in schools to support
and continue professional growth and student achievement. The surveys from the high-
performing school mentioned three main issues tied to professional development that
helped the school achieve. One respondent reflected:
I have seen a real change in the professional development we are offered. It
used to be on any topic, but now it is all tied to our curricular programs.
Another participant agreed:
We have a lot of staff development on data analysis and how to improve our
weak areas.
85
A final survey respondent affirmed:
Our leadership team does a good job of providing us staff development in the
areas we need. If we ask for staff development in a certain area, we will get it in
a relatively short time.
In contrast, the low-performing school relied on the district to recruit teachers and on
BTSA to provide support and to retain personnel.
Interviews
Interview question 5 further investigated the professional development at the
schools by asking staff how the professional development supported their professional
growth and added to the academic achievement of students. When asked what staff at
the high-performing school delivered professional development, several staff members,
including the principal, literacy coach, and various teachers, were mentioned. Teacher
E stated:
Our professional development is usually offered by our own people. The prin-
cipal and literacy coach present most workshops, but sometimes teachers lead as
well.
The site principal elaborated:
We use our site experts to deliver professional development. The site expert
may be the literacy coach, a teacher, or myself.
The literacy coach continued:
I lead most professional development in language arts at our school. However,
if I know a teacher excels in an area we are covering, I will work with that
teacher to present the material. We like to find experts from within.
86
In addition to onsite professional development from staff members, outside
experts or consultants were invited in, and off-campus district training was offered.
One veteran teacher explained:
Professional development has changed here. Every professional development
we go to focuses on standards tied to our curriculum.
The literacy coach further explicated:
We brought in an Open Court consultant to help us implement the program with
fidelity. She helped give us a more intense training, and she helped me learn
how to better help our teachers.
The principal added:
Our teachers have a lot of onsite professional development, and once a year the
district offers training over the summer. When we find a specific need, we
bring in an expert such as an Open Court consultant.
All interview participants were quick to point out that all professional develop-
ment was tied to student learning and data analysis. Teacher C revealed:
We use data to drive all our professional development. If we have a training on
reading comprehension, it’s because our data showed a weakness in this area.
Teacher D recognized:
Our school is different. At my previous school, we gave tests and never looked
at the results. Here our results help us plan our instruction.
The literacy coach further clarified:
We have data meetings after every unit and benchmark test. We look at our
strengths and weaknesses. Then we determine as grade levels and as a school as
a whole what we need to change in our instructions to improve student achieve-
ment.
87
Finally, the principal explained the use of data in his school:
We give assessments to monitor student learning as well as our instruction. We
need to know what we need to teach better.
Another important component of professional development revealed through the
interviews was the collaboration that took place. The principal explained the profes-
sional development schedule:
The teachers have one grade level meeting each week where support staff takes
the students and once a month vertical teams meet. In addition, every Wednes-
day the students get out early so we an have a staff meeting or training.
The literacy coach attested to the importance of collaboration:
The important part of data analysis is the collaboration piece. Our teachers need
the chance to talk to each other about what does work.
In agreement, Teacher B declared:
It’s nice to have a chance to talk to other teachers about their experiences. It’s
also good to hear what’s going on in the grade above and below. We can all
learn from each other.
Contrary to the findings at the high-performing school, interviews at the low-
performing school revealed that there was not a great connection between professional
development and student achievement. Teacher R noted:
Our professional developments are inconsistent and a repeat of what we had the
last 2 years.
Teacher U agreed:
It seems like we get whatever professional development the district thinks we
need. It is not specific or helpful to our site.
88
Observation
Site observations focused on how the high-performing school used professional
development. First, the researcher was able to attend a leadership meeting where the
school leaders had a discussion regarding the professional development needs at the
site. During the meeting, the intermediate teacher representative mentioned that their
students were struggling with reading comprehension on story assessments. The liter-
acy coach added that it was more than upper-grade students’ struggle; it was, in fact, a
schoolwide area of concern. Therefore, the team decided to hold a professional devel-
opment on reading comprehension 2 weeks from then for the whole school. The liter-
acy coach would be in charge and would offer follow-up demonstration lessons in each
teacher’s classroom.
Next, the researcher observed a vertical alignment meeting. One teacher per
grade level attended while support staff watched the students. During this meeting each
teacher reported how the students in their grade level were performing. Then each
grade level shared concerns they had. A fourth-grade teacher shared his concern over
students’ lack of writing and the pressure to perform on the California state writing test.
A discussion took place regarding what each previous grade level was responsible for
teaching in written language. For example, the team decided that students must come
out of second grade writing a five-sentence, solid paragraph to allow them success for
fourth grade.
Finally, the researcher observed a professional development meeting on an
early-release Wednesday. All students were released 30 minutes early, and the staff
89
met in the cafeteria. The focus of the meeting was data analysis of the Trimester Math
Assessments. The teachers sat in grade levels and analyzed student data. Each teacher
brought his or her classroom data, and the grade level combined the information to find
grade-level trends. For example, second-grade teachers found a weakness in algebra
and functions. Next, each grade level created an action plan to improve the weak areas.
Second-grade teachers decided to focus 10 minutes of their daily math intervention time
on algebra and functions. At the end of the meeting, each grade level shared to the rest
of the school their grade-level test results and action plan for improvement.
Document Analysis
The researcher reviewed two main documents to look at professional develop-
ment at the high-performing school site. First, she reviewed the budget line items to
examine what expenditures were set aside for professional development. Figure 1
details how professional development activities were funded at this school site.
In addition, the researcher reviewed the School Plan to identify areas addressing
professional development. The School Plan identified the need for professional devel-
opment in the areas of language arts, math, and English language development support.
The School Plan allocated money to professional development needs by way of teacher
stipends to attend trainings after school hours, teacher release time to attend trainings
during school hours, support staff salaries to provide professional development, and
consultant contracts to provide more intense professional development sessions.
90

Item Title I ELAP EIA TIIBG SLIBG
Teacher stipends X X
Teacher release time (substitutes) X X
Professional development insti-
tutes
Consultants X X
Support staff X X X
Figure 1. Professional development budget line items. ELAP = English Language
Acquisition Program; EIA = Economic Impact Aid; TIIBG = Targeted Instructional
Improvement Block Grant; SLIBG = School and Library Improvement Block Grant.
Summary: Research Question 4
In summary, all professional development at the high-performing school was
data driven and connected to direct student needs. Staff development was not sched-
uled just to be held and to fulfill a certain number of meetings. A need was identified
through student data or teacher observation, and the staff development was planned and
held to address the concerns. This made professional development real, practical, and
useful. In contrast, staff development at the low-performing school seemed disjointed
and unconnected to student and teacher needs.
Discussion
The four research questions launched in the case study were the following:
1.How are resources allocated to focus on learning at a high-performing high-
poverty school?
91
2.Where do the differences lie in human resource allocation between high-
performing high-poverty schools and low-performing high-poverty schools?
3.How does a high-performing high-poverty school recruit and retain quality
educators?
4.How is professional development used in a high-performing high-poverty
school to support and continue professional development growth and student
achievement?
Five very distinctive thematic trends surfaced in the surveys and were later cor-
roborated through the data collected from interviews, observations, and document
analysis. Findings for each of the research questions were based upon careful analysis
and the triangulation of data: the combination of documents, surveys, interviews, and
observations. The findings were subsequently reviewed and analyzed, resulting in the
emergence of the major themes discussed below. The literature review in chapter 2
supports the findings in this case study.
Themes
Findings for each research question were determined following a careful analy-
sis of the data. The wealth of rich data lent itself to the emergence of the following five
themes:
1. Resources allocated for human capital focused on instructional improve-
ment. Most unanimous throughout the data was the strong conviction that all human
capital at the school site was focused on improving instruction.
92
2. Highly qualified staff had high expectations for all students. There was a
strong emphasis on the quality of staff members brought into the school, as well as the
retention of these high-quality educators.
3. Focused professional development builds human capital capacity. Focused,
ongoing, sustained professional development was critical to the improvement in student
achievement.
4. The collaborative model maximizes human capital. Collaborative structures
both inter- and intra-grade level had improved instruction, leading to improved student
achievement.
5. Decision making was data driven. All decisions at the school site regarding
instruction and professional development needs were based on student data.
Theme 1: Resources Allocated for Human
Capital Focusing on Instructional
Improvement
All staff members at the high-performing school site were actively involved in
gathering, analyzing, and using student achievement data. Support staff members
might analyze the data by student, by teacher, and by grade level. If any student was
failing to make sufficient progress, support staff met with the student’s teacher to assist
in developing an intervention strategy. The staff used assessment data to identify stu-
dents in need of one-on-one tutoring, small-group instruction, and other types of sup-
port.
93
In addition, the staff at this school recognized the effectiveness of addressing the
needs of students in small groups. To this end, the school site had created many oppor-
tunities for students to receive small-group instruction that more specifically met their
needs with respect to instructional delivery and the skills addressed. All students
participated in small-group reading intervention instruction, but smaller groups were
formed for students who were identified as needing additional support. The RSP teach-
er and RSP aide also provided small-group support during reading and mathematics,
depending of the specific needs of the students. These teachers monitored students
during direct instruction, provided small-group or individual re-teach, or assisted with
modifications during guided and independent practice.
The only way that data analysis and small-group intervention instruction work
to improve instruction is by allocating resources to the process. This school site had set
aside funds by means of teacher stipends, teacher release time, consultant contracts, and
literacy coach salary to assist in the data analysis process. In addition, every week the
staff met on Wednesday with the focus of the professional development stemming from
the data analysis. This school site allocated resources to assure that the data- driven
decision-making was driving the instructional practices. In addition, a site decision was
made to provide intervention in both language arts and mathematics in the classroom
every day. Finally, the RSP teacher and aide pushed into the classrooms to add more
human capital available to students during the intervention time block.
94
Theme 2: Highly Qualified Staff With
High Expectations for All Students
When recruiting new staff, the principal at the high-performing school looked
for individuals who shared beliefs critical to the school’s success, such as a commit-
ment to the goal that students will master curriculum beyond their grade level. Teach-
ers who chose this school were a self-selecting group, as they were likely to be well
aware of the school’s reputation for hard work and high expectations. The principal
also encouraged teacher leadership and supported effective classroom instruction. He
tried to relieve teachers on noninstructional duties so that teachers could focus more on
teaching. The principal ensured that resource allocation decisions supported high-
quality instruction. He collaborated with teachers and support staff and took an active
role in formulating instructional strategies.
Among the most striking characteristics was the extent to which the school
personnel embraced the belief that all students could be academically successful. The
overriding goal was to ensure that all students performed at or above grade level. They
set high expectations for all students regardless of special education needs or English
proficiency level. The staff continuously worked to improve instruction so that all
students could learn. This staff had spent many hours becoming familiar with the state
curriculum standards and the objectives measured by the state assessments. The con-
tinuous professional development allowed the teachers to continue to grow in their pro-
fessional skills.
95
Theme 3: Focused Professional Development
to Build Human Capital Capacity
The high-performing school used data to drive professional development ses-
sions. In addition, the site offered professional development every Wednesday after
school. All professional development sessions were inclusive of a follow-up, whether
it was a form to fill out or an observation. Therefore, the professional development at
this school site was focused, ongoing, and sustained, thus making it effective in increas-
ing student achievement.
Unlike most school sites where staff members dread meeting days, this school
staff looked forward to professional development sessions. The teachers wanted to
know how to do things better. Once a professional development need was identified,
planning took place to address the need. All teachers received the training to add to the
skill repertoire of the entire staff. This process in itself built human capacity whereby
all teachers could become experts in teaching decoding, rather than just the literacy
coach or the one good first-grade teacher. The professional development at this school
site improved instruction for all students, as shown in their academic achievement.
Theme 4: Collaborative Model That
Maximizes Human Capital
The high-performing school represented an educational community in which
every teacher was invested in the success of every student. This sense of shared respon-
sibility was both a catalyst for and the result of frequent communication and collabora-
tion among teachers. Staff members at this school were accustomed to turning to one
96
another for help. They collaborated both by providing instructional support for students
outside their regular classes and by offering activities and ideas to one another when
student learning difficulties arose.
Collaboration took place at this school in many forms including grade-level
teachers sharing instructional strategies that had proven successful, support staff collab-
orating with classroom teachers to provide small-group instruction, and cross-grade-
level teachers discussing skills that students needed to be successful in future grades.
Through the collaboration that occurred at the school site, all teachers’ skills were fine
tuned and honed in order to provide more effective instruction. When all teachers are
able to teach all the skills that students must know, instruction improves and leads to
increased student achievement.
Theme 5: Data-Driven Decision Making
Out-of-classroom personnel played a leadership role in the ongoing gathering,
analysis, and use of student achievement data at the high-performing school. This
school site used the results of the district benchmark tests that were given every 6
weeks. The results of these tests were made available so that instruction could be
modified to address the specific academic needs of each student. Complete records
were kept by the support staff of the progress of every student enrolled in the school.
The support staff also analyzed the data by student, by teacher, and by grade level.
If any student was failing to make expected progress, the principal and support
staff met with the teachers involved, either individually or in grade-level teams, to
97
determine what was being done to address the problem and to offer assistance to
teachers in bringing students to standard. For example, the literacy coach searched for
additional curriculum materials, modeled lessons, and identified appropriate profes-
sional development activities. The principal made sure that all of the teachers knew
that they had his support. He conducted daily visits to each classroom and obtained for
teachers any additional materials they needed for instruction.
Conclusion
The findings from this study showed that even under the most difficult educa-
tional circumstances, it is possible to observe gains in student learning. An urban
school can provide high-quality instruction and strong student academic performance.
Successful urban schools exist that have double student achievement levels. It is im-
perative that the first thing a school prioritizes is personnel. Results of the data and
research found in literature reiterate that it is the personnel who make the difference.
The words of Collins (2001) echo that one must first get “the right people on the bus,
the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats—and then they
figure out where to drive it” (p. 13).
Chapter 4 has addressed the four primary research questions in the study by
providing an in-depth look at the data and corresponding analysis. Five common
themes were extracted from the findings and shared by the researcher. Chapter 5 will
conclude the study by summarizing the purpose and methodology, sharing the overall
findings, and making recommendations for further study.
98
CHAPTER 5

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter is divided into four major sections that provide an analysis and
discussion of the study. The first section presents a summary of the study that includes
a brief statement of the problem and a review of the procedures utilized in conducting
the investigation. The second section deals with the findings of this particular study.
The third section offers recommendations for school sites. The final section addresses
this investigator’s suggestions for further research.
Summary of the Study
Urban schools have long been branded as high poverty and low performing.
Schools within urban communities confront a liturgy of challenges that range from
inadequate housing, poverty, unemployment, and gangs to issues of health, nutrition,
and second-language learners. Often the least experienced and least qualified faculty
are entrenched in those schools. High-stakes testing and standards-based instruction
characterize nationwide reforms and governmental legislation. School districts and
school sites are accountable and face sanctions if students do not demonstrate yearly
academic growth. The expectation for all students is high academic achievement.
Research supports the existence of high-poverty, high-performing schools.
While some schools claim that they are failing to meet state and federal standards due
to lack of funding, other schools are succeeding with current levels of funding. A con-
ceptual framework in this study examined the concept of high-performing high-poverty
99
schools being successful in spite of while focusing on human capital. The study was a
qualitative case study. Selection of a case study school paralleled the criteria for Cali-
fornia Distinguished School eligibility:
1.It outperformed its API growth target consistently over a 3-year period.
2.It exceeded state achievement expectations based on published state rank-
ings and similar school rankings.
3.It had a large ELL population.
4.There was significant participation in National School Lunch Program.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the use of human capital at a school
that had been deemed high achieving by the CDE based on the school’s API rankings.
Research Questions
To facilitate identifying salient factors, a framework of four research questions
was designed:
1.How are resources allocated to focus on learning at a high-performing high-
poverty school?
2.Where do the differences lie in human resource allocation between high-
performing high-poverty schools and low-performing high-poverty schools?
3.How does a high-performing high-poverty school recruit and retain quality
educators?
100
4.How is professional development used in a high-performing high-poverty
school to support and continue professional development growth and student achieve-
ment?
Methodology
This study employed qualitative methodology through a case study. The study
examined the in-depth phenomenon of a successful school in its “natural context and
from the perspective of the participants involved in the phenomenon” (Gall et al., 2003,
p. 438). The purpose of the case study research was to “produce detailed descriptions
of a phenomenon, to develop possible explanations of it, or to evaluate the phenome-
non” (Gall et al., p. 437).
In this study, the phenomenon of thick description focused the researcher on the
participants within the organization. The participants, the human capital at the school,
were the focus to build the description. The study examined the descriptive data to
“bring order to the data” and relate it to the literature (Gall et al., 2003, p. 439).
The study looked for themes in the descriptions that were characteristic features
of the successful school. The case study examined the constructs or concepts that could
be used to explain the phenomenon of a successful urban school. Through the case
study model, the researcher looked for patterns and variations.
To facilitate acquisition of the data, investigative instruments were designed.
To ensure accuracy and prevent the researcher from becoming exclusively dependent on
one tool for results, triangulation of the data occurred. A survey, an interview guide, an
101
observation sheet, and a document analysis sheet were created. Surveys were sent out
to site personnel. In-person interviews were conducted with stakeholders, including
administration, teachers, and support staff, and the researcher recorded observations.
Finally, documents were collected and analyzed. Triangulation and analysis of the data
provided answers to the four research questions. Collected evidence revealed and
formulated five concurrent themes tied to human capital that contributed to the success
of this urban school.
Discussion of Findings
This case study was designed to investigate (a) how high-performing high-
poverty schools allocate resources to human capital, (b) how high-performing high-
poverty schools utilize human capital differently than low-performing high-poverty
schools, c) how high-performing high-poverty schools recruit and retain quality educa-
tors, and d) how high-performing high-poverty schools utilize professional develop-
ment.
A thorough review of the literature provided an understanding of successful
organizations and successful school practices. This review also assisted in identifying
key elements and trends within successful organizations. The review focused on the
key role of human capital when examining schools.
Through survey, interviews, observations, and documentation, a close examina-
tion of human capital in a successful urban school was analyzed. The thick description
developed through the survey, interview, and observation process gave clarity to the
102
qualities of this case study. Key elements were supported by the literature. Through
the triangulation of data, the key elements were verified. The themes were strongly
evident when the case study data were analyzed. Through the analysis of the findings,
the following themes were revealed.
Theme 1: Resources Allocated for Human
Capital to Focus on Instructional Improvement
This school set aside financial resources for human capital that focused on
instruction, including the literacy coach’s salary, part of the counselor’s salary, teacher
stipend funds, teacher release time funds, and consultant contracts.
Theme 2: Highly Qualified Staff With
High Expectations for All Students
This school recruited high-quality personnel with a commitment and focus on
student success. High expectations for students and staff were evident.
Theme 3: Focused Professional Development
to Build Human Capital Capacity
Professional development was focused, ongoing, and sustained. Data analysis
uncovered the areas of need for professional development.
Theme 4: Collaborative Model to Maximize
Human Capital
Collaboration utilized human capital to its fullest. Collaboration occurred both
inter- and intra-grade level and both inside and outside of the classroom.
103
Theme 5: Data-Driven Decision Making
All instruction and professional development occurred as a result of the data.
All staff members were involved in analyzing the data to identify the current achieve-
ment levels of students, and future instruction and professional development were
based on this analysis.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are made as a result of the conclusions and
findings of this study. These recommendations should help urban schools build capac-
ity to double student performance:
1. Recruit, hire, and retain quality personnel. Personnel are paramount to the
success of an urban school. Echoing the words of Collins (2001, one must first get “the
right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right
seats and then they figure out where to drive it” (p. 13).
2. Set high expectations for all students. High goals must be set for all stu-
dents with the belief that all students can be academically successful. The school as a
whole is responsible for assuring that all students are held to this high standard.
3. Build the capacity of teachers and administrators to interpret and apply
assessment data in classroom instruction. It is crucial that all school staff members are
able to understand and use assessment data to drive instruction. Identifying barriers to
learning as early as possible allows for the implementation of intervention pieces.
Quality professional development will help staff assist struggling students.
104
4. Define special education as the path to success in the general education
program. Schools should view special education as a means to fully integrate students
with disabilities into the regular education program. Students should be provided with
every means of support and assistance they need, with placement in special education
viewed as a temporary placement rather than a permanent placement.
5. Promote collaboration for instructional improvement. Collaboration must
occur among classroom teachers as well as between classroom teachers and support
staff. Support staff must be helping instruction on a daily basis to impact and improve
student achievement.
6. Use data-driven decision making. Every member of a school’s professional
staff should be trained in the methods of using assessment data to improve classroom
instruction.
Suggestions for Further Research
The recommendations outlined below are based on the questionnaires, inter-
views, observations, and document evaluation. Further investigation will benefit from
their utilization:
1.Future investigations should include a larger sample of high-performing and
low-performing schools from a wider geographical area.
2.Future investigations should further explore the instructional coach position.
3.Future investigations should examine the effect of a principal’s instructional
knowledge on student achievement levels.
105
4.Future investigations should examine various approaches to service special-
needs students in general education settings.
106
REFERENCES CITED
Ali, R., & Jerald, C. (2001). Dispelling the myth in California: Preliminary findings
from a state and nationwide analysis of “high-flying” schools. Washington, DC:
Education Trust-West.
Allen, J. (1994). A primer on school accountability. Washington, DC: Center for
Educational Reform. Retrieved January, 3, 1994, from http://edreform.com/pubs/
account1.html
Amrein, A., & Berliner, D. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student
learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(8). Retrieved October 6, 2005,
from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/
Archer, J. (2002, April 3). Research: Focusing on teachers. Education Week, 21(132),
3.
Ascher, C., & Fruchter, N. (2001). Teacher quality and student performance in New
York City’s low performing schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 16, 199-214.
Banks, D. (1999). Issues of supply and demand: Recruiting and retaining quality
teachers. Oak Brook, IL: School Development Outreach Project.
Berry, B., Hoke, M., & Hirsch, E. (2004). The search for highly qualified teachers.
Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 684-689.
Betts, J., Rueben, K., & Danenberg, A. (2000). Equal resources, equal outcomes? The
distribution of school resources and student achievement in California. San Fran-
cisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved October, 21, 2005, from
http://www.ppic.org
Blair, J. (2002, January16). Program finds new teachers in unexpected places:
Schools. Education Week, 21(127), 10-11.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1998). Qualitative research in education, an introduction to
theory and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
California Department of Education. (2003, August). Performance level tables for the
2003 California Standards Test and the California Alternate Performance Assess-
ment. Sacramento: Author. Retrieved October, 21, 2005, from http://www.cde
.ca.gov/statetests/star/resources/star03perflvls.pdf
107
California Department of Education. (2006). Demographic viewable reports-
statewide. Sacramento: Author. Retrieved October 5, 2005, from http://www
.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/sums05.asp
Carter, S. (2000). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing, high-poverty
schools. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.
Cawelti, G., & Protheroe, N. (2001). High student achievement: How six school dis-
tricts changed into high-performance systems. Arlington, VA: Educational Re-
search Service.
Childs, T., & Shakeshaft, C. (1986). A meta-analysis of research on the relationship
between educational expenditures and student achievement. Journal of Education
Finance, 12, 249-263.
Coleman, J. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. De-
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Center for Education Statis-
tics.
Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Wood, A., Weinfeld, F., et al.
(1996). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Curtis-Pierce, E. (2002, February). California’s initiative to attract quality teachers
into low performing schools. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Associ-
ation of Colleges for Teacher Education, New York, NY.
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional
practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-
ment.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Making relationships between standards, frameworks,
assessment, evaluation, instruction, and accountability. Journal of Staff Develop-
ment, 21, 1-9.
108
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000a). Solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand, and
standards: How we can ensure a competent, caring, and qualified teacher for
every child. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000b). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review
of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 12-23.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The challenge of staffing our schools. Educational
Leadership, 58, 18.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters what leaders
can do. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6-13.
Delgado, M. (1999). Lifesaving 101: How a veteran teacher can help a beginner.
Educational Leadership, 56(8), 27-29.
DuFour, R. (2002). The learning-centered principal. Educational Leadership, 59(18),
12-15.
Eaker, R., DuFour, R., & Burnett, R. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to
become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National Education
Service.
Edmonds, R., & Fredrickson, J. (1979). Search for effective schools: The identifica-
tion and analysis of city schools that are instructionally effective for poor children.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Center for Urban Studies.
EdSource. (2000). National accountability movement offers lessons for California.
Palo Alto, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2002). California student achievement: Multiple views of K-12 progress.
Palo Alto, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2003a). California’s lowest performing schools. Palo Alto, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2003b). California’s student testing program: STAR. Palo Alto, CA:
Author. Retrieved October 21, 2005, from http://www.edsource.org/pdf/
QA_STARfinal.pdf
EdSource. (2003c). Executive summary: Narrowing the achievement gap. Palo Alto,
CA: Author. Retrieved October 21, 2005, from http://www.edsource.org/pdf/
EdFact_Final.pdf
109
EdSource (2003d). How California ranks: The state’s expenditures for K-12 educa-
tion. Palo Alto, CA: Author. Retrieved October 21, 2005, from http://www
.edsource.org/rankingsfinal03.pdf
EdSource. (2003e). Show me the data. Palo Alto, CA: Author. Retrieved October 21,
2005, from http://www.edsource.org/pdf/forum03report_final.pdf
EdSource. (2006). Similar students, different results: Why some schools do better?
Palo Alto, CA: Author. Retrieved July 12, 2006, from http://www.edsource.org/
pub_abs_simstu05.cfm
Eisner, E. (2003, May). Questionable assumptions about schooling. Phi Delta
Kappan, 84(9), 648-657.
Elmore, R. (2002). Hard questions about practice. Educational Leadership, 59(18),
22-25.
Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappa, 81, 581-
584.
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Fuller, E. (1999). Does teacher certification matter? A comparison of TAAS per-
formance in 1997 teachers. Austin: University of Texas, Charles A. Dana Center.
Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7 ed.).
th
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gardner, J. (1988). Leadership and power. NASSP Bulletin, 72(512), 47.
Glenn, J. (2001). Before it’s too late: What happens in most classes. National Staff
Development Council, 6(11), 12-19.
Glickman, C. (1991). Pretending not to know what we know: Creating successful
schools through professional development. Educational Leadership, 48(18), 4-10.
Harris, P. (2006). It’s probably good to talk. Journal of Developmental Psychology,
52, 158-169.
Hallahan, D., & Kauffman, J. (2000). Exceptional learners: Introduction to special
education (8 ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
th
110
Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well qualified teachers can close
the gap. Washington, DC: Education Trust. Retrieved November 2, 2006, from
http://www.edtrust.org
Hirsh, E., Koppich, J., & Knapp, M. (2001, February). Revisiting what states are
doing to improve the quality of teaching: An update on patterns and trends [Work-
ing Paper]. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching
and Policy, and National Conference of State Legislatures.
Huberman, M., & Miles, M. (1984). Rethinking the quest for school improvement:
Some findings from the DESSI study. Teachers College Record, 86(1), 34-54.
Huberman, M., & Miles, M. (1998). Innovation up close. New York: Plenum Press.
Hunt, T., & Carroll, T. (2003). No dream denied: A pledge to America’s children.
Washington, DC: National Council on Teaching and America.
Hutchens, J. (1998). Research and professional development collaborations among
university faculty and education practitioners. Arts Education and Policy Review,
99(5), 35-41.
Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of
schools. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and
Policy.
Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., et al. (1972).
Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New
York: Basic Books.
Johnson, J., Livingston, M., & Schwartz, R. (2000). What makes a good elementary
school? A critical examination. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 339-348.
Jorgenson, O. (2001). Supporting a diverse teacher corps. Educational Leadership,
58(18), 64-67.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development.
New York: Longman.
Kendall, J., & Marzano, R. (1997). The rise and fall of standards-based education.
Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Regional Education Laboratory. Retrieved Octo-
ber 20, 2005, from http://www.mcrel.org/products/standards/fallrise.asp
111
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York:
Crown.
Lenhardt, B. (2000). The preparation and professional development of teachers in the
Northwest: A depiction study. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory.
Lucksinger, L. (2000). Teachers: Can we get them and keep them? Delta Kappa
Gamma Bulletin, 67(1), 11-15.
Manzo, K. (2003, July 22). Urban students lag in reading and writing, NAEP scores
show. Education Week, 14(112). Retrieved July 23, 2005, from http://www
.edweek.com
Marzano, R. (2003a). Classroom management that works: Research-based strategies
for every teacher. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Marzano, R. (2003b). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Al-
exandria: VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mazzeo, C. (2001). Frameworks of state assessment policy in historical perspective.
Teachers College Record, 103, 367-397.
Meriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merrow, J. (2003). The Merrow Report: From first to worst. Retrieved March, 17,
2006, from http://www.pbs.org/merrow/tv/ftw/index.html
Moir, E., & Gless, J. (2001). Teacher quality squared. Journal of Research in Profes-
sional Learning, 22(1), 62.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2005). Nation’s report card. Wash-
ington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved July 3, 2006, from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nrc/reading_math_2005/30002.asp
National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2001). Leading learning com-
munities: NAESP standards for what principals should know and be able to do.
Washington, DC: Collaborative Communications Group.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). Out-of-field teaching and educa-
tional equality. Washington, DC: Author.
112
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Induction success. Washington, DC:
Author.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most:
Teaching for America’s future. Washington, DC: Author.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1999). Solving the de-
mands of teacher supply, demand, and standards: How can we ensure a compe-
tent, caring, and qualified teacher for every child. Washington, DC: Author.
National Education Association. (2003a). A better beginning: Helping new teachers
survive and thrive. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 15, 2005, from
http://nea.org
National Education Association. (2003b). Teacher retention key to teacher shortage
crisis. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February 16, 2005, from http://www
.nea.org
National Education Association. (2004). NEA and teacher recruitment: An overview.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February 1, 2005, from http://www.nea.org/
recruit/minority/overview.html
National Education Goals Panel. (1991). The National Education Goals Panel: Build-
ing a nation of learners. Washington, DC: Author.
Newmann, F., King, M., & Youngs, P. (2000, August). Professional development that
addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. American
Journal of Education, 108, 259-299.
O’Conner, S., & Miranda, K. (2002). The linkages among family structure, self-
concept, effort, and performance on mathematics achievement of American high
school students by race. American Secondary Education, 31(1), 72-95.
O’Day, J., & Bitter, C. (2003). Evaluation study of the Intermediate Intervention/
Underperforming Schools Program and the High Achieving Improving Schools
Program of the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. Washington, DC:
American Institutes for Research. Retrieved October, 10, 2005, from http://www
.air.org/publications
Odden, A. (1995). Educational leadership for American schools. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
113
Odden, A., Picus, L., Goetz, M., & Fermanich, M. (2006). An evidence-based ap-
proach to school finance adequacy in Washington. Paper presented to K-12 Ad-
visory Committee of Washington Learns, Olympia, WA.
Ohio. Legislative Office of Education Oversight. (1997). Availability of minority
teachers. Columbus, OH: Author. Retrieved June, 15, 2004, from http://www
.loeo.state.oh.us
Olson, L. (2000, December 6). Teacher quality: Finding and keeping competent
teachers. Education Week, 20(114), 32-38.
Olson, L., & Jerald, J. (1998, June 24). Quality counts. Education Week, 17(17), 6-19.
Payne, R. (2001). A framework for understanding poverty. Highlands, TX: Aha!
Process.
Payne, R. (2003). A framework for understanding poverty (3 ed.). Highlands, TX:
rd
Aha! Process.
Peterson, K. (2003). Building collaborative cultures: Seeking ways to reshape urban
schools. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Re-
trieved October 10, 2005, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educators/
leadership/pet.htm
Phi Delta Kappa International and Gallup Organization. (2001). Attitudes regarding
public schools. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa International. Retrieved Oc-
tober 15, 2005, from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0109gal.htm
Porter-Magee, K. (2004). Teacher quality, controversy, and NCLB. The Clearing
House, 78(1), 26-29.
Protheroe, N., Lewis, A., & Paik, S. (2002). Promoting quality teaching. Alexandria,
VA: ERS Spectrum.
Quality counts. (2003, January 5). Education Week, n.v. Retrieved January 17, 2005,
from http://www.edweek.org
Ragland, M., Clubine, B., Constable, D., & Smith, P. (2002). Expecting success: A
study of five high performing, high poverty schools. Washington, DC: Council of
Chief State School Officers. Retrieved June 21, 2005, from ERIC database.
Rallis, S., & MacMullen, M. (2000). Inquiry-minded schools: Opening doors for ac-
countability. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 766-773.
114
Ravitch, D. (1974). The great school wars—New York City, 1805-1973: A history of
the public schools as a battlefield of social change. New York: Basic Books.
Reeves, D. (2000). Holistic accountability: Serving students, schools, and community.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Renchler, R. (1992). School leadership and student motivation [Report No. EDO-EA-
92-4]. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearing House of Educational Management. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED346558)
Resnick, L. (2003). Principles of learning for effort based education. Atlanta, GA:
Southern Regional Education Board. Retrieved June 3, 2006, from http://www
.sreb.org/programs/hstw/publications/2005Pubs/05V28.pdf
Rice, J. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attri-
butes. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Rivers, J., & Sanders, W. (2002). Teacher quality and equity in educational oppor-
tunity: Finelines and policy implications. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2004). Teachers, schools, and academic achieve-
ment. American Economic Review, 94, 247-252.
Russonello, B., & Stewart, R. (2003). Focus on quality: Californians views on teach-
ers and teaching. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learn-
ing.
Sacks, P. (1997, March/April). Standardized testing: Meritocracy’s crooked yardstick.
Change, 29(12), 25-28.
Schmidt, P. (1990, January 7). Teacher shortages and red tape hurt effort to help im-
migrants. Education Week, 40(11), 19.
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2 ed.).
nd
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Shawn, J. (2001). Survive or thrive? Turning state mandates into local results. Lead-
ership, 31(2), 22-24.
Shepard, L., & Linn, R. (2001, April 11). Teacher effects and teacher effectiveness:
Tennessee added value assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
National Council on Measurement in Education, Seattle, WA.
115
Speck, M., & Knipe, C. (2001). Why can’t we get it right? Professional development
in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Streisand, B., & Toch, T. (1998, September 14). Many millions of kids and too few
teachers. U.S. News and World Report, 10, 24-26.
Stolp, S. (1994). Leadership for school culture. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon,
College of Education, Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
Stone, C. (1998). Introduction: Urban education in political context. In C. Stone
(Ed.), Changing urban education (pp. 1-20). Lawrence: University Press of
Kansas.
Toch, T. (1991). In the name of excellence: The struggle to reform the nation’s
school— why it’s failing and what should be done. New York: Oxford Press.
Tucker, M., & Codding, J. (1998). Standards for our schools: How to set them, mea-
sure them, and reach them. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tyack, D. (1994). The one best system: A history of urban education. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Demographic trends. Washington, DC: Author. Re-
trieved on June, 23, 2006, from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/demographics
.html
U.S. Department of Education. Office of the Secretary. (2004). A guide to education
and No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: Author.
Useem, E., & Neild, R. (2005). Supporting new teachers in the city. Educational
Leadership, 62(8), 44-47.
Wang, A., Tregindo, A., & Mifsud, V. (2002). Analyzing state policies and programs
for beginning teacher retention: A comprehensive framework. Ewing, NJ: Edu-
cational Testing Service. Retrieved July 3, 2005, from http://www.ets.org
Wilms, W. (2003). Altering the structure and culture of American public schools.
Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 600-615.
Wirst, F., & Kirst, M. (2001). The political dynamics of American education. Rich-
mond, CA: McCutchun.
116
Woods, M. (1997). Heeding unique needs of urban schools essential to closing
achievement gap. Journal of Staff Development, 18(1). Retrieved September 20,
2005, from http://www.nsdc.org/library/jsd/woods181.htm
Yin, R. (1994). Discovering the future of the case study method in evaluation research.
Evaluation Practice, 15, 283-290.
Prepared by USC Rossier School of Education dissertation study cohort, 2006.
1
117
APPENDIX A
HUMAN CAPITAL SURVEY QUESTIONS
1
1.How do you feel the allocation of resources to human capital at this school contrib-
utes to the high student achievement?
2.How do you think your school utilizes its personnel more effectively or efficiently
than other schools?
3.How does your school recruit quality educators?
4.How does your school retain quality educators?
5.How is professional development used to support and continue professional growth
and student achievement?
118
APPENDIX B
PARTICIPANT LETTER
September 4, 2006
Dear Teacher/Principal/Counselor/District Administrator:
My name is Wendy Birhanzel, and I am currently working on a doctoral dissertation study for the Doctor
of Education (Ed.D.) program at the University of Southern California. I am conducting a qualitative
case study at your elementary school during the fall and spring semesters of 2006-07. During that time, I
will be conducting interviews with various stakeholders, doing observations at various times, and looking
at data regarding the school’s organizational structure, leadership style, and resource allocations as they
relate to overall student achievement and the use of human capital. My focus is to try and understand
how these high-poverty schools utilize human capital, if it is particularly successful with certain types of
students and why, and, if so, determine if it can be replicated and brought to scale in other settings.
To learn more about the schools, I will be speaking with various individuals and looking at supporting
documents such as test scores, budget reports, minutes from faculty meetings, and mission statements. I
would like to conduct a private, audio-taped interview with you at your convenience in the location of
your choosing. This interview should last approximately 20 to 30 minutes, and all of the information will
be anonymous. Nothing that you share with me will be identifiable to you. The names of all individuals
and the school’s name will be masked for your privacy. Anything I learn from you during the interview
will be reported in my research in a general way about the school, not by your name or by subject area
taught.
The school district and site administration have approved my presence at the school and have agreed to
allow my research here. However, your participation in this interview is voluntary and is optional for
you. There are no repercussions for nonparticipation. My intention is to better understand the schools,
how they promote student achievement, and the roles of the individuals who work at each site.
If you agree to the short interview, please contact me and let me know the time and location of your
preference. I will be in contact to confirm our appointment. Should you have any additional questions
about this project, you may contact me or my faculty advisor. Thank you in advance for your time and
cooperation with this study.
Sincerely,
Wendy Birhanzel, Principal InvestigatorDr. Lawrence O. Picus, Faculty Advisor
USC Ed.D. StudentProfessor, USC Rossier School of Education
(Cell) 310/809-2507Office 213/740-2175
[email address]lpicus@usc.edu
Prepared by USC Rossier School of Education dissertation study cohort, 2006.
1
119
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW GUIDE
1
Research Questions Interview Questions
Research Question 1:
How are resources allocated to focus
on student learning at high-performing,
high-poverty schools?
Who determines how money is spent on human capital?
Probing Questions:
•Are multiple stakeholders involved in the decision-
making process?
•What criteria are those decisions based upon?
What are the specific goals and objectives of the school?
What are the key pieces of the school program?
Probing Question:
What students are in place to sustain the kind of instruction
and student support you feel best represents your school’s
values?
Research Question 2:
Where do the differences lie in human
resource allocation between high-per-
forming and low-performing, high-pov-
erty schools?
Tell me how your school is organized.
Probing Questions:
•Staffing
•Coaches
•Aides
How are the positions outside classroom teachers funded?
120
Research Question 3:
How do high-performing, high-poverty
schools recruit quality teachers?
Describe the teacher recruitment process at your school.
Probing Questions:
•Methods used
•People involved
•Specific characteristics looked for in a teacher
What attracted you to work at this school?
Probing Questions:
•Selling points of school
•Personnel
What challenges have you encountered in the recruitment
of teachers?
How many teachers are here?
Probing Questions:
•New versus veteran teachers
•Retention rate of teachers
•Average number of years at the school?
How do you retain exceptional teachers?
Probing Question:
•What supports are in place to help new and veteran
teachers?
Have you encountered any challenges in the area of retain-
ing teachers?
121
Research Question 4:
How is professional development used
in high-performing, high-poverty
schools to support and continue profes-
sional growth and student achieve-
ment?
Do you deliver professional development to fellow staff
members?
Probing Question:
•If so, what do you do?
How are fellow staff members utilized for the delivery of
professional development?
Does anyone besides fellow staff members deliver profes-
sional development?
Probing Questions:
•Do you think the personnel (staff/outside consultants)
are effective?
•Do you gain knowledge from the professional devel-
opment activities?
How often are professional development activities offered
to you?
What strategies are used to build organizational capacity at
your school site?
Probing Questions:
•Do you and your grade-level team collaborate horizon-
tally and vertically?
•How often are you given the opportunity to collaborate
within the working day?
•Are your staff meetings used for collaboration and/or
professional development?
•Are you provided with current research pertaining to
effective educational strategies?
Is professional development strategically linked to student
learning outcomes?
Probing Questions:
•Who determines professional development needs for
your staff?
•Is professional development aligned with the
standards-based curriculum?
•Does professional development focus on research-
based instructional strategies?
•Do your students take benchmark assessments?
•Are these assessment outcomes utilized to drive pro-
fessional development?
•Do you utilize technology to access data to assist you
in identifying learning gaps for your students?
Prepared by USC Rossier School of Education dissertation study cohort, 2006.
1
122
APPENDIX D
OBSERVATION GUIDE
1
Site Observation: 3-5 days
Plan: Schedule observations around scheduled school activities/events.
1.Faculty meeting
2.Leadership meeting
3.Parent meeting
4.Support staff meeting
5.Grade level meeting
6.School-sponsored student activity
a.After-school programs
b.Tutoring
c.Classroom instruction
7.Shadow support staff member
8.Shadow principal
9.Teacher workroom
10.Library
11.Technology
12.Before school
13.Recess
14.After school
Prepared by USC Rossier School of Education dissertation study cohort, 2006.
1
RQ = research question.
123
APPENDIX E
OBSERVATION TEMPLATE
1
Descriptor RQ Data Interpretation
A ctivity:
Purpose of Activity:
Location:
Date:
T ime:
Physical Environment:
Leader:
Role in Activity:
Behavior/Interaction:
Other Participants:
Roles in Activity:
Behavior/Interaction:
Transition Activities:
Focus of Next Observation:
Additional Data Needs:
Prepared by USC Rossier School of Education dissertation study cohort, 2006.
1
CST = California Standards Test; CAT6 = California Achievement Test-6.
124
APPENDIX F
DOCUMENT REVIEW
1
Necessary documents to review:
G School Plan
G School Accountability Report Card (SARC)
G School Handbook
G Home/School Compact
G School Activities Calendar
G School Budget
Additional documents that might be useful:
G CST/CAT6 school assessment reports
G Daily schedules
G Mission statement/vision statement
G Teacher credentialing data
G School bulletins/newsletters
G Promotion/retention records
G Leadership team meeting minutes
G School site council minutes
G Professional development calendar
Prepared by USC Rossier School of Education dissertation study group, 2006.
1
125
APPENDIX G
DOCUMENT REVIEW GUIDE
1
Title of
Document
Date
Type of
Document
Author/Decision Maker
Location of Source
How closely is
the document
related to the use
of personnel to
increase student
achievement?
How closely is
the document related to
funding sources
and resource
allocation for
human capital?
Documents
reflecting
relationship
between human
capital and
student
achievement?
Linkages stated
within document
to improve
student
achievement
Reflections
126
APPENDIX H
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE LETTER
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall 904 C
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4039
INFORMATION SHEET
******************************************************************
Doubling Student Performance Through the Use of Human Capital at
High-Performing High-Poverty Schools
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Wendy Birhanzel, Ed.D.
student candidate, Principal Investigator and Dr. Lawrence O. Picus, Faculty Advisor,
from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California because
you are an employee of Caldwell Elementary School, King Elementary School, or of the
Compton Unified School District. The results of this research will contribute to a
doctoral dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because
you have some first-hand knowledge about the school or the agreement that supports
the existence of the school. A total of 24 subjects will be selected to participate. Your
participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to understand the use of human capital and resource alloca-
tions in a high-performing high-poverty elementary school with regard to the impact
those choices have on student achievement for a variety of learners. The researcher
would like to understand if this particular utilization of human capital is successful for
particular types of students in relation to academic achievement. The researcher would
also like to understand how the school is funded and determine if this can be replicated
or brought to scale in other settings.
Response to the interview questions will constitute consent to participate in this
research project.
127
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things:
Audio-taped Interviews
You will be asked to participate in one 30-minute interview in which the researcher will
be asking you information related to the use of human capital in the organizational
structure of the school, related duties of your position, decision-making processes at the
school related to human capital and resource allocations. There will be four main ques-
tions related to the main foci of the study. Each question will be followed with several
clarifying questions which will provide the researcher with additional detail about the
topic.
This meeting will be a private meeting between you and the researcher, at a time of
your choosing.
You may also choose to be interviewed without being audio-taped; the researcher will
take written notes during the interview as a means to record the information.

Provide Documents to the Researcher(s)
The researcher is specifically interested in studying documents related to the purpose of
this study. The researcher will be making copies of the desired items and using a
template to analyze the document’s connection to these purposes, which will lead to a
greater understanding of the organization. Although this is not intended as an exhaus-
tive list, these items might include:
a)School Site Plan
b)School and District Accountability Report Cards (SARC)
c)STAR test scores/API/AYP reports
d)School Handbook
e)Home/School Compact
f)Monthly Attendance Reports
g)School Activities Calendar
h)School Budget
I)Total enrollment information broken down by ethnicity
j)Daily Schedules
k)Mission/Vision Statement
l)Minutes from School Site Council, PTA, Faculty Meetings
m)Teacher credentialing information
n)Memos to staff related to professional development
o)School Bulletins
128
p)Promotion/Retention Records
q)2005 CBEDS Report
r)Staff Roster
s)Professional Development Calendar
t)Other items related to the human capital and allocated resources as needed
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated physical, financial, social, legal or psychological risks that
might result from your participation in this study. All interview questions and docu-
ments needed for analysis should be related to your day-to-day job and do not call for
you to reveal private information or breach confidentiality in any way that might harm
your professional reputation or jeopardize your job.
You do not need to answer any questions call you don’t want to and have the right to
withdraw from the interview at any point with no repercussion.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not benefit from this research study.
The potential benefits to society may include the contribution to educational research on
the topic.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no information obtained in connection with this study that can be identi-
fied with you. Your name, address or other information that may identify you will not
be collected during this research study.
The information gained in this research will be stored electronically on the researcher’s
personal computer for a period of 3 years, or until approximately May 2010, at which
time it will be erased permanently. No unauthorized persons will have access to this
information. The researchers, including Wendy Birhanzel and Dr. Lawrence O. Picus,
are the only authorized personnel who will have access to the information during this
time and it will only be used for educational purposes.
When the results of the research are published or if it is discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If audio-taped recordings
of you will be used for educational purposes, your identity will be protected or dis-
guised. You have a right to review the audio-tapes before and after they are transcribed
for purposes of accuracy, if you so choose. These tapes will be destroyed after 3 years.
129
Your identity will be masked in the final dissertation. Nothing you share will be iden-
tifiable to you personally.
You may choose to be interviewed without being audio-taped. In that case, the re-
searcher will take only written notes instead to record the information and will mask
your identity.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The in-
vestigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact the
Primary Investigator, Wendy Birhanzel, at xxx-xxx-xxxx or xxx-xxx-xxxx or by email
at [email address]. You may also speak to the Faculty Advisor, Dr. Lawrence O. Picus,
at 213-740-2175. You may also contact him via mail at the Rossier School of Educa-
tion, WPH 904 C, Los Angeles, CA 90089-4039 and by email at lpicus@usc.edu.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without pen-
alty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your partici-
pation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a research
subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research,
Grace Ford Salvatori Hallig, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695, (213) 821-5272
or upirb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of the study was to examine the use of human capital at a school that has been deemed high achieving by the California Department of Education based on the school's Academic Performance Index rankings. Four research questions were developed to help guide the study: 1. How are resources allocated to focus on learning at a high-performing high-poverty school? 2. Where do the differences lie in human resource allocation between high-performing and low-performing high-poverty schools? 3. How does a high-performing high-poverty school recruit and retain quality educators? 4. How is professional development used in a high-performing high-poverty school to support and continue professional growth and student achievement?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

The open enrollment of advanced placement classes as a means for increasing student achievement at the high school level

PDF

The impact of leadership on student achievement in high poverty schools

PDF

The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within a site-based managed elementary school: a case study

PDF

The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within an elementary school in a centrally managed school district: a case study

PDF

School-level resource allocation practices in elementary schools to increase student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of four California charter schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Evidence-based resource allocation model to improve student achievement: Case study analysis of three high schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Navigating troubled waters: case studies of three California high schools' resource allocation strategies in 2010-2011

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Birhanzel, Wendy (author)

Core Title Doubling student performance through the use of human capital at high-performing high-poverty schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/19/2007

Defense Date 03/29/2007

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

Tag collaboration,data analysis,human capital,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,student achievement

Language English

Advisor Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee member), Nelson, John L. (committee member)

Creator Email wbirhanzel@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m420

Unique identifier UC1471145

Identifier etd-Birhanzel-20070419 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-477271 (legacy record id),usctheses-m420 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Birhanzel-20070419.pdf

Dmrecord 477271

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Birhanzel, Wendy

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