University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Wicked problems for high poverty schools: an improvement study in Texas

(USC Thesis Other)

Wicked problems for high poverty schools: an improvement study in Texas

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 1

Wicked Problems for High Poverty Schools: An Improvement Study in Texas
by
Scarlett Papas

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

August 2019

Copyright 2019 Scarlett Papas

WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 2
Abstract
Texas implemented an A-F accountability system in 2018. This qualitative study examined how
elementary school administrators in nine high-poverty elementary schools plan to meet annual
accountability measures. Data were based on documents and interviews with school
administrators. An analysis of knowledge influences, motivational influences, and
organizational barriers reveal that school leaders must implement a practitioner-led inquiry
model to meet the unique needs of that impact each campus serving a low SES population.

WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 3
Dedication
To Nia and Ana-Sophia who inspire me to be a better woman every day.
To Matt, who has been my pride when I felt embarrassed and guided me when I needed
directions. Thanks for the journey through dozens of nights spent listening to Death Cab for
Cutie while I have worked on this research.
To my parents and generations before them, for teaching me how to love, forgive, and
persevere. I hope I bring our family pride.

WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 4
Acknowledgements
Thank you to my advisory committee, Dr. Fred Freking, Dr. Anthony Maddox, and Dr.
David Cash, who taught me to trust the process and the College of Rossier for providing me the
opportunity to make this dream a reality.

WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 5
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 4
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 7
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 8
Introduction to Problem of Practice ................................................................................................ 9
Organizational Context and Mission .............................................................................................. 9
Importance of Addressing the Problem ........................................................................................ 10
Purpose of the Project and Questions ........................................................................................... 11
Current Performance Status .......................................................................................................... 12
Global Performance Goal ............................................................................................................. 13
Stakeholder Group of Focus ......................................................................................................... 13
Review of the Literature ............................................................................................................... 14
Standardized Testing in Education ............................................................................................... 14
Historical Perspective ............................................................................................................... 15
High Poverty School Performance ............................................................................................... 18
Wicked Problems in Public Schools ......................................................................................... 18
Characteristics of High-Poverty Schools .................................................................................. 19
School Accountability and Low-Achieving Schools .................................................................... 20
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences ............................................................... 21
Knowledge Influences .............................................................................................................. 22
Motivation Influences ............................................................................................................... 26
Organizational Influences ......................................................................................................... 30
Interactive Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................... 34
Data Collection and Instrumentation ............................................................................................ 36
Documents and Artifacts........................................................................................................... 36
Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 37
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 38
Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 39
Participating Stakeholders ........................................................................................................ 39
Knowledge Findings ................................................................................................................. 40
Motivational Findings ............................................................................................................... 47
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 6
Organizational Findings ............................................................................................................ 52
Synthesis of Findings .................................................................................................................... 59
Solutions and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 60
Knowledge Recommendations ................................................................................................. 60
Motivation Recommendations .................................................................................................. 65
Organization Recommendations ............................................................................................... 68
Limitations and Delimitations ...................................................................................................... 72
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 73
Appendix A: Stakeholders and Sampling Criteria ........................................................................ 75
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale............................................................................... 75
Appendix B: Protocols .................................................................................................................. 78
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness .............................................................................. 80
Appendix D: Validity and Reliability ........................................................................................... 82
Appendix E: Ethics ....................................................................................................................... 85
References ..................................................................................................................................... 87

WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 7
List of Tables
Table 1. Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis .............. 25
Table 2. Motivational Influences and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis ........................ 29
Table 3. Organizational Influences and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis .................... 33
Table 4. Summary and Demographic Profile of Participating Schools ....................................... 40
Table 5. Representation of Student Demographics in Texas ........................................................ 40
Table 6. Factual Knowledge Aligned to Principal Standards ...................................................... 43
Table 7. Descriptions of Motivational Strategy SIP Findings ...................................................... 49
Table 8. Evidence of Distributed Leadership by Administrator Campus ..................................... 51
Table 9. Self-Efficacy Probe ......................................................................................................... 52
Table 10. Resources Needed to Produce Student Results ............................................................. 55
Table 11. Gap in Administrator Knowledge ................................................................................. 56
Table 12. A Different Gap in Administrator Knowledge .............................................................. 56
Table 13. Professional Development for Teachers ....................................................................... 58
Table 12. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ......................................... 61
Table 13. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations .......................................... 65
Table 14. Administrator Responses to the Self-Efficacy Probe .................................................... 67

WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 8
List of Figures
Figure 1. Presentation of the KMO conceptual framework. ........................................................ 35
Figure 2. Evidence of factual knowledge by school campus. ...................................................... 45
Figure 3. Word tree denoting the context when referring to mentor. ........................................... 50
Figure 4. Curriculum resources by subject area. .......................................................................... 57
Figure 5. Prioritization of reading over the other three academic subjects combined. ................ 58
Figure 6. Ten steps to practitioner-led inquiry. ............................................................................ 64
Figure 7. Words used by school administrators to describe organizational strategies. ................ 69

WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 9
Wicked Problems for High Poverty Schools: An Improvement Study in Texas
Introduction to Problem of Practice
The U.S. Department of Education (2015) refers to students living in poverty as having a
low socioeconomic status (SES), and the American Psychological Association (n.d.) defines a
low SES status as a decreased social level based on an individual’s education, income, and
occupation. The National Center for Children in Poverty (2016) suggests that SES affects an
estimated 15 million children who attend U.S. public schools. Logan, Minca, and Ader (2012)
declare poverty is a disparaging aggregate for school achievement and that most schools remain
segregated by race and poverty. For schools serving geographic regions where more than 50%
of the population identifies as economically disadvantaged, school achievement is consistently
lower than schools in less impoverished communities (Clayton, 2011). Consequently, education
researchers have acknowledged poverty in education as a wicked problem. Rittel and Webber
(1973) defined wicked problems as those with no definitive solution because the problem has a
destructive nature that requires an extensive understanding of the context. Essentially, wicked
problems are systemic in society and not easily solved or resolved by, for example, local policies
and strategies that can be generalized to other locations or organizations. Wicked problems can
impact educational accountability systems. High-poverty schools are held accountable for
closing the achievement gap for economically disadvantaged students each year. Yet, high-
poverty schools face potential sanctions because of their wicked problems.
Organizational Context and Mission
The Texas Education Agency implemented a new accountability system in 2018.
Districts and campus’ receive ratings on an A-F scale and overall ratings are reported as “Met
Standard”, “Improvement Required”, or “Met Alternative Standard”. This dissertation examines
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 10
how a state education agency (SEA) can improve support for high-poverty schools in Texas with
a rating of Improvement Required. In 2015-2016, total student enrollment in Texas was
5,299,428 and 58% or 3,122,764 of the student population had an economically disadvantaged
categorization. Of the 8,685 elementary schools, 445 schools meet the criteria for Improvement
Required/Academically Unacceptable based on the academic achievement standards or
alternative standards for ranking. In 2017, 40 schools were rated as Improvement
Required/Academically Unacceptable for five or more consecutive years.
The mission of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) is to improve the quality of education
for all public-school students in Texas through the provisions of leadership, guidance, and
support. To support this mission, TEA issued a strategic plan to improve low-performing
schools. And, to achieve this goal, TEA has instituted an A-F academic accountability system
based on four criteria: achievement, progress, gap closing, and post-secondary readiness. Each
criterion has a target score, and each school must meet at least three criteria to receive a rating of
Met Standards. If they do not meet this rating standard, then the state agency will require actions
that can impact the school or district accreditation if not resolved (TEA, 2018). Together, these
ratings have been designed from a policy perspective to improve the quality of public education
in Texas.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The issue of academic achievement for students living in poverty is important to address
for several reasons. On a macro-level, poverty in childhood has long-lasting adult implications.
Duncan, Ziol-Guest, and Kalil (2010) suggest that children from a low SES background grow
into adults with less education, more physical ailments, and more mediocre psychological well
being than peers who grow up in homes that had incomes of at least double the federal poverty
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 11
level. Kena et al. (2016) suggests that students from a low SES background are less likely to
graduate from a four-year higher education institution than students from a middle-class
background, and more than a quarter of students from a low-socioeconomic level background
often do not seek post-secondary training. This breakdown in education—low levels of
academic achievement—is an important factor in the reproduction generational poverty.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
In March of 2018, TEA submitted its final plan to comply with the Every Student
Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA, 2015) to the U.S. Department of Education. TEA surveyed more
than 29,000 community members and educators across the state in 2016 to garner input from
stakeholders Tamez, 2018, October 25). One question in the survey asked respondents what they
believe the education agency can do to improve struggling schools. Results from the survey
suggest three primary needs, including increased funding for curriculum resources and
technology, incentives for excellent teachers to contract with struggling schools, and increased
social services like health/behavioral care or parent education. This study expands on that
survey to understand the specific educational needs that this group of stakeholders identified.
This study performs a gap analysis to examine the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational elements that school administrators from high-poverty schools use to meet Texas
accountability targets. Although a complete gap analysis would examine all stakeholders, this
study focuses on school administrators. The study identifies elements that may the impact
accountability system and attempts to validate these elements empirically. The study concludes
with some recommendations for improving the quality of low-performing Texas public schools.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 12
 What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements that school
administrators use to improve accountability performance indicators for high-poverty
schools?
 What is the relationship between the school culture and the school administrator’s
knowledge and motivation?
 What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions for
high-poverty elementary schools in Texas?
Current Performance Status
In August of 2017, a total of 371 schools in independent school districts or public
charters in Texas did not meet the target for the ranking of Met Standards. One hundred and
thirty-four schools have been rated as Needs Improvement for two to four consecutive years.
And, an additional 40 schools have been ranked Academically Unacceptable/Needs
Improvement for five to eight consecutive years. These rankings highlight the need to improve
the academic performance of public schools in the state of Texas.
Texas House Bill 1482 allows for the commissioner to provide intervention or to sanction
schools identified as Needs Improvement. Highlighted in the bill is the option to investigate
deficiencies and potential solutions through on-sight visits and sanctions to revoke accreditation
and face closure for failing to improve schools after two consecutive years. Section three of the
house bill discusses the expected actions of the commissioner when a campus performs below
the expected annual standards. Those actions include the assignment of an intervention team that
will complete on-site needs assessments, recommendations for improvement, and progress
monitoring for continuous school improvement. Also described in the bill are the expected
assessments used to evaluate a low performing school, which includes twelve guidelines for
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 13
conducting a gap analysis: (a) teacher certification and retention, (b) class size, (c)
appropriateness of instructional materials and technology, (d) parental involvement, (e)
mentorship for new teachers, (f) professional development for all staff, (g) analysis of vulnerable
populations of students, (h) disciplinary data, (i) school finances, (j) quality of teaching
strategies, (k) a comparison of similar districts, (l) any other data that is research-based that may
help the campus improve. Hence, this bill helps the commissioner improve public schools.
Global Performance Goal
By September 2018, the TEA will identify public schools that have declining student
performance based on the states A-F accountability system. TEA will also begin helping those
public schools improve their academic performance and implement an intervention plan that
complies with House Bill 1482 and Texas Education Code (TEC) Chapter 39. The Division of
School Improvement at TEA provides resources to help schools turnaround their campus through
systemic data analysis and needs assessments. Schools considered Academically Unacceptable
are required to develop a systemic approach to improve student achievement within two years.
Stakeholder Group of Focus
The stakeholder group includes school administrators for public schools with 75% or
more of their student population classified as economically disadvantaged when taking their state
assessment in one region of Texas. The school administrators are the school leaders usually
represented by different titles like school principal, vice principals, assistant principals, or house
administrators. It is vital to understand this stakeholder group because they are responsible for
the components of the comprehensive school level investigation (Lenarduzzi, 2015). The school
administrators are the leaders that are expected to organize systemic change to help the school
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 14
meet at least 50% percent of the indicators and obtain the target scores for academic achievement
that will allow the public school to exit the state-initiated monitoring and support plan.
Review of the Literature
The literature review explores theories and empirical research that may help explain the
gap in academic achievement for high-poverty schools. The review begins with a historical
review of state standardized testing in the United States. The review discusses school
accountability concerning rewards, sanctions, and equitability followed by a description of the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. These three different influences
constitute the conceptual foundation or framework of this dissertation.
Standardized Testing in Education
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, 2002) raised the achievement standards
for children attending more than 90,000 public schools in the United States (Dee & Jacobs,
2011). One of the major components of the act was closing learning gaps for underrepresented
populations of students, including those with a low SES background. However, Logan, Minca,
and Ader (2012) assert that most public schools in the United States remain segregated by race
and poverty. High-poverty schools consistently rank lower in academic achievement than areas
where poverty is less concentrated (Clayton, 2011). Although NCLB increased standards of
achievement, required Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for schools, and mandated highly
qualified teachers, there was little guidance on how schools were to accomplish these goals,
leaving much leeway and variation among states (Simpson, Lacava, & Patricia, 2004).
The impact of poverty on public education is a wicked problem because every school is
different in regard to their student population, resources, staff, culture, and many other variable
(Armstrong, 2017; Murgatroyd, 2010) There is no formula for success that can be generalized
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 15
from one school to the next (Rittel & Webber, 1973; Murgatroyd, 2010) In 2015 NCLB was
reauthorized as ESSA (2015). However, state standardized testing remains an elusive story of
success for many public schools that students from a low SES background.
Historical Perspective
Global competition in education has influenced American politics for more than 60 years.
Morrell (2017) traces the systemic change in the national concern for the adequacy of public
schools to the launching of Sputnik by Russia. Bracey (2011) claims A Nation at Risk reignited
political concerns about the United States’ capacity to remain a superpower in 1983. Before A
Nation at Risk, changes in k-12 education evolved more slowly (Bracey, 2011). According to
Morrell (2017), the federal government became increasingly concerned about the proficiency of
the workforce in the United States and how to assess the quality of public schools to meet the
future demand for skilled workers (Bracey, 2011). For instance, the A Nation at Risk report
announced a nationwide call for public education to prepare a workforce to compete globally
(National Commission of Excellence in Education, 1983).
NCLB. The NCLB mandated AYP for public school students in grades 3–8 (Linn, Baker,
& Betebenner, 2002). The federal government tasked states to set cut scores for achievement
and proficiency standards to measure AYP (Linn et al., 2002; NCLB, 2002). Dee and Jacobs
(2011) determined that the accountability systems did not improve public school achievement for
students with from a low SES background. Although several studies suggest that NCLB had an
insignificant effect on increasing achievement for high-poverty schools, it did require public
schools to report demographic information that exposed the inadequacy of progress for under-
represented populations (Dee & Jacobs, 2011; Hanushek & Raymond, 2005).
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 16
As public schools began sifting through the mounting data generated from the state
assessments, pubic schools struggled to translate the scores into meaningful information (Malloy,
2011). NCLB (2002) also required public school systems to use research-based practices and
interventions to close achievement gaps according to race, disability, and SES. However, the
application of research requires practitioners to consider the appropriateness and limitations of
research to their specific context or situation (Bardach & Patashnik, 2016; Malloy, 2011).
Dee and Jacobs (2011) found that school leadership began allocating funds to resources
that would benefit the students most likely to meet academic achievement standards and improve
the schools rating or score according to the state accountability system. Although NCLB (2012)
intended to promote progress for vulnerable students, the emphasis on ratings turned into a
numbers game for many schools. For example, the allocation of resources and interventions to
help students on the bubble (Dee & Jacobs, 2011) took priority over helping students more
significantly below proficiency (Hanushek & Raymond, 2005). Findings suggest that using
rewards and punishments to increase academic achievement for failing schools has been mostly
ineffective and has contributed to re-segregation (Hanushek & Raymond, 2005).
ESSA. ESSA (2015) is the newest national accountability act signed as a reauthorization
of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) by the Obama administration on
December 15, 2010 (Darling-Hammond et al., 2016). One difference between ESSA and NCLB
is that ESSA created equity-based accountability measures and had less punitive consequences
for high-poverty schools (Darling-Hammond et al., 2016; Dennis, 2009). ESSA continues to
require testing for English language arts and math in grades 3-8, plus one grade in high school,
but some additional stipulations underscore the importance of improvement. For example,
stipulations for improvement require state accountability systems to set an additional indicator
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 17
that measures student growth rather than the proficiency of academic achievement (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2016). The difference between growth and achievement has been an ongoing
debate for practitioners and is broadly understood that, although students might grow in skill and
ability, they may at the same time perform below grade level. Other indicator requirements
include proficiency measures for English Learners and one measure of school quality or student
success (ESSA, 2015). Specific measures are to be proposed by each state for approval. Some
examples include school climate surveys, readiness measures, or similar ratings that are not
directly tied to the state achievement assessment (Darling-Hammond et al., 2016).
ESSA (2015) also requires public school districts to file a Comprehensive Support and
Improvement Plan for the lowest performing five percent of schools that receive Title I funds
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2016). ESEA first introduced Title I in 1965, after the federal
government recognized that high-poverty schools required more funding for resources (Liebman
& Mbikiwa, 2016). However, research has shown that districts consistently spend more money
per student in more affluent schools than in schools that qualify for the Title I funds (Liebman &
Mbikiwa, 2016). The purpose of a Comprehensive Support and Improvement Plan is for public
school districts to monitor their allocation of title funds and provide equitable resources to the
most impoverished schools residing in their district (Liebman & Mbikiwa, 2016).
State accountability systems. States started adopting accountability policies in the
1970’s. However, very few states had an accountability structure that could easily be retrofitted
to comply with the adoption of NCLB (Brewer, Knoeppel, & Lindle, 2015). States retained the
right to implement their curriculum content, select assessment tools to measure student
performance, and determine the merits of defining a highly qualified teacher after adopting
NCLB and accepting federal funding (Vinovskis, 2015).
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 18
High Poverty School Performance
Academic achievement for high-poverty schools is not an isolated issue. Understanding
the complexities of why schools with a dense population of students with low SES is essential to
finding potential solutions to improve school performance rankings. School performance is
impacted by a variety of issues that can be described as wicked (Rittel & Webber, 1973). It is
essential to understand the characteristics of high-poverty schools and how social problems can
impact school reform efforts.
Wicked Problems in Public Schools
Rittel and Webber (1973) suggest 10 attributes necessary to categorize a problem as
wicked. The 10 attributes of a wicked problem include:
 Defining the problem depends on an individual or entities workable solutions for
tackling it.
 There is not a threshold for eliminating the problem entirely.
 Solutions can create polarity because individuals view the solution as good or bad
rather than true or false. There is not a single solution.
 There is not a way to test potential solutions because the problem is malignant and
creates different problems.
 Evolution of solutions through a process of trial and error are unsuccessful.
 There is no limit to possible solutions to the problem.
 Wicked problems are unique.
 Every wicked problem links to another problem.
 The problem can be explained in a variety of ways, and none of them are exclusively
right or wrong.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 19
 The problem and solution impact many people.
Social issues in high-poverty schools complicate efforts to meet proficiency measures.
Weber and Khademian (2008) claim that efforts to reform high-poverty schools can be classified
as wicked because it is difficult to identify a single cause, changes affect multiple stakeholders,
and the problems often persist. Head and Alford (2015) recommend the leadership style for
managing a wicked problem focus more on the leader showing adaptive behaviors rather than
utilizing a transformational style. For example, performance measures and organizational
structures may need to be flexible as the problem changes in dimension. Leadership should
expect to coordinate and collaborate extensively in the framing of school problems (Head &
Alford, 2015; Weber & Khademian, 2008). Kahlenberg (2010) also reports that, although some
research has found positive affects for high-poverty public schools, the structures and strategies
of these successes remain challenging to replicate in other settings or by different people.
Multi-dimensional problems layered together in high-poverty public schools include
inequitable academic opportunities intended to prepare students for post-secondary education,
fewer high-quality rated teachers, and less funding (Kahlenberg, 2010; Weiner, 2007). Rebell
(2007) cites failures in public policy to recognize the breadth of conditions associated with
poverty for students with low SES. For example, over-crowded housing, access to health care,
and hunger are everyday struggles for 28% of black children and 31% of Hispanic students in the
United States (Rebell, 2007). Kahlenberg (2010) adds parent participation and positive peer
relationships to his definition of necessary resources lacking in high-poverty schools.
Characteristics of High-Poverty Schools
Re-segregation by SES is evident in the demographic data of U.S. public schools
(Kahlenberg, 2010; Rumberger, 2007). The National Center for Education Statistics (2015)
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 20
found that only 14% of white students attended high-poverty schools, whereas Rumberger
(2007) revealed that only 25% of students with low SES attend low-poverty schools.
Approximately 40% of high-poverty schools were in urban areas in 2007-2008, according to the
National Center for Education Statistics. The remaining 60% of high-poverty schools are in
towns, suburbs, and rural settings (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). Rumberger
used a sample of 9,276 kindergarten students for a longitudinal study to evaluate the effects of
attending high-poverty elementary schools. This study suggests that students are not adversely
affected by attending a high-poverty school, but it was clear that there was a disparity in the level
of growth and achievement made by students in more affluent schools..
School Accountability and Low-Achieving Schools
Dubnick (2014) proclaims that the word accountability has had a cultural impact on
society and is now a keyword in our collective vernacular. The original meaning of the word
was based on the root word “count” and it was used sparsely until about the 1980’s when it
became commonly used in governance and policy. The meaning of the word also shifted to
become more closely related to the word responsible (Dubnick, 2014). Today, the word
accountability most often appears in the context of a public school rating systems.
ESSA (2015) defines low-performing schools as the lowest 5% of schools, where more
than one-third of the students fail to graduate. One change to the accountability system under
ESSA is that it limits the power of the federal government to require any strategies or
methodology for improvement and returns that authority to state agencies (Egalite, Fusarelli, &
Fusarelli, 2017). During the tenure of Arne Duncan as the U.S Secretary of Education, there was
a mandate that schools that failed to meet AYP must choose closure, restart, transformation, or
turnaround within five years (Allen, 2010; Hochbein, Mitchell, & Pollio, 2013). The concern in
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 21
the change of policy is that the restoration of power to the states without prescriptive
interventions may limit the improvement of schools that serve vulnerable populations of students
and have low rates of academic achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Egalite et al., 2017).
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Clark and Estes’ (2008) conceptual framework was employed to qualitatively understand
how high-poverty schools are engaging with the problems preventing them from reaching high
levels of academic achievement. Selecting a sustainable performance solution relies on
identifying gaps in the knowledge and motivation of employees or organizational barriers that
prohibit goal attainment (Clark & Estes, 2008). In a revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy for
learning, Krathwohl (2002) claims that the four dimensions of knowledge are factual knowledge,
conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge. Motivational
influences are primarily affected by self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000; Pajares, 2006). According to
Eccles (2006), efficacy impacts worker beliefs that they can and have a desire to do the job.
Organizational barriers include policies, processes, or resources that leverage the ability to
progress in the achievement of an identified goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). This study used Clark
and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers conceptual framework to
identify gaps in each component that prohibit high-poverty schools from meeting academic
performance expectations. First, the analysis will categorize the knowledge gaps identified by
school administrators according to the knowledge dimensions identified by Krathwohl (2002).
Next, administrator efficacy will be examined to determine deficiencies in engagement and
motivation. Finally, organizational barriers identified by administrators will be analyzed.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 22
Knowledge Influences
This section examines the knowledge and skills literature that will support the
organizational and performance goals for high-poverty, low-achieving schools in Texas.
Krathwohl (2002) defines declarative knowledge types as either factual or conceptual.
Factual knowledge is a lower level taxonomy that focuses on essential elements of knowledge,
whereas conceptual knowledge is the relationship among the components within a structure
(Krathwohl, 2002). In Krathwohl’s revised taxonomy, the knowledge that emphasizes how to do
a task or use a methodology falls within the knowledge type of procedural knowledge. The third
knowledge type, according to Krathwohl, is metacognitive knowledge. Mayer (2011) describes
metacognition as a learner’s awareness of how they acquire information and control their
learning process. Each knowledge type represents an influence that impacts performance.
Clark and Estes (2008) claim that one of the pitfalls for goal attainment is gaps in
knowledge. To determine the knowledge influences for schools, school administrators must
analyze the stakeholder groups. Deeds and Pattillo (2015) claim that schools are pluralistic
environments where various stakeholder views are under-represented or assumed in the analysis
of low-performing schools. The dissonance in the adequacy of progress towards meeting the
goals of various stakeholders is the responsibility of school administrators (Deeds & Pattillo,
2015). Marsh (2012) contends that school leaders must accurately assess the needs of students
and make sense of the data obtained from benchmarks tests. Lenarduzzi (2015) asserts that
principals feel split between representing the school community and fulfilling their responsibility
to carry out the expectations of the governing board that they report to in the districts.
School leaders identify needs for improving student achievement. At a declarative
level, schools must identify students that impact achievement. NCLB (2002) mandated that
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 23
schools annually assess their needs and create action plans to improve academic performance.
However, research has found the quality of those plans vary in terms of goals, implementation,
and evaluation of academic progress (Strunk, Marsh, Bush-Mecenas, & Duque, 2016).
School improvement plans (SIP) in educational settings have been empirically found to
be less successful in creating meaningful or sustainable change (Struck et al., 2016).
Researchers attribute these findings to the loftiness and complexity of the goals often identified
by the individual schools (Broadhead, Cuckle, Hodgson, & Dunford, 1996; Clark & McCarthy,
1983; Conley, 1993; Levine & Leibert, 1987; Strunk et al., 2016). Other research has focused on
evidence to determine the effectiveness of school improvement plans for subgroups of vulnerable
populations. Most schools create a SIP out of compliance and fail to focus on the knowledge
necessary to identify strategies that align with school goals (Huber & Conway, 2015).
School leaders must consider the readiness of the school to participate in systemic
improvement that contributes to student achievement. Elements found to be lacking in most
SIPs include procedural protocols for acquiring data, implementing analysis strategies, and
leadership strategies for decision-making (Beach & Lindahl, 2004; Hall & Hord, 2011; Huber &
Conway, 2015; Reeves, 2004). Such procedures include disaggregating data to determine the
needs of each ethnic/demographic group. Hubers, Schildkamp, Poortman, and Pieters (2017)
found that the organizational routines for collecting and using data were often inefficient.
Practitioner-led inquiry. Malloy (2011) suggests that better decision-making is not
based solely on the use of data. Practitioners must have a system for collecting the right data, by
the right people, and interpreting the data in the right way for it to be useful (Malloy, 2011).
Accessing data is not an issue for many school practitioners because of the many state mandates
for self-reporting data and state standardized testing results (Clayton, 2011). Since NCLB,
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 24
education reform efforts have adopted the principles of continuous improvement for public
schools (Tichnor-Wagner, Wachen, Cannata, & Cohen-Vogel, 2017). Cohen-Vogel et al. (2015)
explain that there needs to be a shift not only in the model for implementing a continuous
improvement plan but also in the role of researchers. Researchers must collaborate with school
practitioners to identify the specific needs of each school (Cohen-Vogel et al., 2015; Strunk et
al., 2016). Morris and Hiebert, (2012) declare that schools must create a knowledge product that
has a shared systemic goal, ongoing progress monitoring using data, and process for building
capacity to continuously improve.
School leaders must participate in ongoing knowledge development. Cosner and Jones
(2016) found that leadership behaviors that impacted student performance in high-poverty
schools were goal setting with action plans, active participation in professional developments
alongside the teaching staff, and consistent evaluations of lesson delivery and curriculum.
Leithwood and Strauss (2009) determined that school leaders are responsible for deciding how to
lead the learning of staff to create sustainable change for low performing schools.
Metacognition and reflection. Rodgers (2002) proclaims that reflection is a meaning-
making process. One knowledge influence school administrators need is to self-reflect on their
leadership skills and use of data to lead change for high poverty schools (Malloy, 2011). Careful
consideration of the inquiry-led process is a metacognitive component. Mayer (2011) suggests
that metacognition involves self-regulated activities that allow the individual to monitor their
progress towards goal attainment. Barley (2012) reports that practitioners need to continuously
evaluate their actions and adjust their strategies to meet the demands of a task. School
administrators must respond to varying issues throughout the school day. To move high-poverty,
low performing schools forward, school administrators must utilize reflection to ensure their
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 25
behaviors show value toward meeting school objectives. Table 1 provides the organizational
mission proposed by the TEA, global goal of all schools, and stakeholder goal of school
administrators as well as the knowledge influences, knowledge types, and knowledge influence
assessments. Declarative, procedural and metacognitive knowledge types are specified in the
table that will be used to meet the stakeholder goal.

Table 1
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
The organization seeks to enable every child to enroll in college, join the military, or obtain
employment through the provisions of a free and public education.
Organizational Global Goal
By September of 2018, the organization will identify public schools that have declining
student performance according to an A–F academic accountability system and help the schools
improve academic performance services.
Stakeholder Goal
The school identified will meet at least 50 percent of the indicators evaluated and obtain the
targets for Academic Achievement components to exit the state-initiated monitoring and
supported plan.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
School leaders need to identify
needs for improving student
achievement.

Declarative (factual) Document Analysis: Campus
Improvement Plan
School Administrators need to
implement practitioner-led inquiry
is part of the learning process for
schools.

Procedural Interview protocol: How do you
know that staff is using student
data to drive instructional
decisions?
School administrators need to
engage in reflection that evaluates
the use of data and inquiry led
process based on Malloy (2011) 10
steps for practitioner-led inquiry
Metacognitive Interview protocol: Tell me about
the last time you reflected on
what you know about meeting
student needs.

WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 26
Motivation Influences
A review of literature about school staff motivation is presented in this section. Staff
motivation is a critical element in schools achieving their goal to increase performance ratings.
For students to show proficiency in any subject, the school must provide adequate instruction
that leads to skills mastery as early as pre-kindergarten. School administrators must motivate
staff to buy into the innovative approaches or procedures identified in school improvement plans.
Anderman and Anderman (2006) claim that in an attribution model, external and internal
factors affect learning. Internal controls are factors that students take responsibility for owning
and managing, whereas external controls are factors that students think changed their learning
opportunity (Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Pekrun, 2011). For example, external control might
include a student’s SES while internal control might include the staff’s efficacy for teaching
students from a low SES. This locus of control in this attribution model affects the behaviors of
the individuals responsible for facilitating instruction (Anderman & Anderman, 2006).
Pekrun (2011) suggests that emotions influence human learning in either a positive or
negative way, and these different emotions play a vital role in the learning process. For example,
in terms of students’ SES, the influence becomes one that can change a teacher’s response to
instructing a student depending on the teacher’s motivation. There are several motivational
influences that schools must address to support the staff’s ability to increase school performance.
Some of these influences include goal orientation, attributions, utility value, cost belief, and self-
efficacy. This review highlights goal orientation theory and self-efficacy.
Goal orientation theory. The tension between performance goals and mastery goals
exist in a social cognitive theory of achievement known as goal orientation theory (Yough &
Anderman, 2006). School administrators must identify needs and develop a plan for
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 27
implementing changes that is likely to increase school performance. In the goal-oriented
framework, achievement goals meet mastery when individuals accomplish a task for the sake of
self-improvement, whereas unlike performance goals are met by way of benchmarking progress
to compare individuals or organizations (Yough & Anderman, 2006). Butler (2007) suggests
that teachers who sought help more frequently were also more likely to exhibit strategies
associated with goal orientation. Furthermore, Rubie-Davies, Flint, and McDonald (2012)
suggest that a teacher’s years-of-service do not always have an impact on the quality of
instruction. Therefore, it is vital that school leaders create an environment where the school
becomes a learning organization grounded in the notion of continuous learning.
Expectancy-value theory. Another cognitive, motivational theory is the expectancy-
value theory. The expectancy-value theory differs from goal-oriented theory because it focuses
on what should be expected in return for performing a task. Finnigan and Gross (2007) suggest
that sanctions and policies affect school motivation in different ways. Using surveys and
interviews, 80% of 269 Chicago teachers reported a belief that accountability goals were
worthwhile, but their motivation tended to decrease in schools that did not meet academic
performance expectations. School administrators in high-poverty schools must select the right
people to participate in their practitioner-led inquiry process to achieve their identified goals
(Malloy, 2011) while considering how realistic and feasible the implementation process is for
resolving each school’s unique set of needs (Bardach & Patashnik, 2016).
Efficacy and the collective agency of school staff. Bandura (2000) suggests efficacy is a
form of the human agency found in an individual’s belief that they can perform a task. However,
an organizational environment can attribute to the agency of its group members (Bandura, 2000).
In a survey of 502 elementary teachers in the Netherlands, Thoonen et al., (2011) found teacher
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 28
efficacy to be the most important motivational factor in the adoption of new practices. This
findings is vital to schools because teachers must believe that they can teach all children despite
a variety of external factors that may affect the learning process in different ways. Butler (2007)
suggests that teachers who avoid work and cite external controls as a factor in low performance
tend to have lower levels of self-efficacy. In high-poverty schools, school leaders must consider
how individual efficacy contributes to the collective agency of its staff (Bandura, 2000).
In other research on teacher motivation, Gokce (2010) suggests that teacher stress and job
satisfaction can compromise both goal attainment and student achievement. Thoonen et al.
(2011) found that teachers must be part of a school culture that values high-quality professional
learning communities (PLC) for teacher practices to improve. The same study concludes that
self-efficacy in teachers tends to correlate with planning, openness to ideas, and persistence in
problem solving (Thoonen et al., 2011). Rubie-Davies et al. (2012) suggests that teacher beliefs
impact teacher’s behaviors, and this impact can influence student outcomes. Therefore, school
administrators might consider how their leadership is contributing to the efficacy of the school
staff when they communicate their expectations for student achievement.
Utility value. Eccles (2006) defines utility value as how well the work individuals do
align with personal goals that individuals have set for themselves. For school staff, it is essential
that teachers see how the work they do leads to the goals they aspire to reach. School
administrators can emphasize the importance of improvement strategies to help staff facilitate
growth. Velasquez, Andre, Thomas Shanks, and Meyer (2015) suggest that ethical thinking in
accountability measures for goal attainment encourage individuals to develop practices that
enable them to reach their full potential. Lastly, school administrators should consider the utility
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 29
value that teachers may assign to the work asked of them while protecting staff from tasks that
do not promote the stakeholder or the organizational goal, overall.
Cost belief. A cost belief system is not always associated with time or money. Instead,
Eccles (2006) characterizes a cost belief system as one that allocates a value to each task that
hinges on an individual’s associated beliefs. For example, a teacher may associate the cost of
asking for extra professional development or assistance as too significant because it may lead to
others questioning their ability to teach. For this reason, the creation of a safe climate for
teachers to grow and seek assistance is required to maximize the adoption of new actions
proposed and implemented as a result of a campus’s school improvement plan.
Perceived costs based on reputation and status can impede knowlede and skills. These
perceived costs are influenced by negative feelings that impact an individual’s image or self-
worth (Eccles, 2006). Teachers must also see the tasks they need to fulfill as worth their time
and energy. School administrators need to provide staff with precise and accurate feedback
throughout the implementation of any identified action that will promote school performance
measures (Pintrich, 2003). Other design principles recommended by Pintrich (2003) include
highlighting effort and self-control when helping individual control beliefs and build their
motivation for meeting goals. Table 2 focuses on the motivational indicators that apply to the
organizational mission, global goals, and stakeholder goal. Each motivational influence is
assigned a motivational influence assessment for schools as attributions, utility value, goal
orientation, or a cost belief system.

Table 2
Motivational Influences and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 30
Organizational Mission
The organization seeks to enable every child to enroll in college, join the military, or obtain
employment through the provisions of a free and public education.
Organizational Global Goal
By September of 2018, the organization will identify public schools that have declining
student performance according to an A–F academic accountability system and help the schools
improve academic performance services.
Stakeholder Goal
The schools identified will meet at least 50 percent of the indicators evaluated and obtain the
targets for Academic Achievement components to exit the state-initiated monitoring and
supported plan.
Motivational Indicator(s)
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment

Utility Value – School leaders need to ensure
staff demonstrates a focus for learning that is
measurable and aligned to curriculum standards.
Interview protocol: Suppose it was my first
day as your new Assistant Principal. What
would you tell me about the school’s goals?
Self-Efficacy – School leaders need to believe
students in high-poverty schools can meet the
academic indicators.
Interview protocol: Some people would say
that everyone in public schools has an equal
opportunity for academic success. How
would you respond to that statement?
Cost Belief – School leaders need to create
professional development that is meaningful and
purposeful.
Document analysis.
Goal Orientation – School leaders, should want
to meet or exceed state proficiency standards.
Interview protocol: Please describe any
pressure you feel to meet state
improvement measures.
 Probe: Where does the pressure come
from?
 Probe: How meaningful are the state
accountability reports to you?

Organizational Influences
Organizational influences are operations, procedures, or resources that contribute to a gap
or organizational barrier (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) explain that it is not
enough for a worker to be knowledgeable and motivated, but they also need access to the right
materials to perform the tasks. Rueda (2011) explains that leaders in K-12 schools must
regularly evaluate the school’s culture, policies, and procedures to maximize academic
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 31
performance. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) assert that cultural models are the beliefs that
individuals within an organization hold as to how the organization should operate. Schein
(2010) asserts that all cultures change over time because shared learning is at the root of the
underlying assumptions held by a group of individuals within an organization.
Polarities exist when two or more right answers exist. Johnson (1998) claims polarities
are problematic because many issues that create polarities are ongoing and unresolvable (Rittel
& Webber, 1973). The choosing of sides happens because problems are often perceived as
having one right solution (Johnson, 1998). Organizations struggle to manage the polarity
because individuals are conditioned to treat problems as though there is a binary solution
(Johnson, 1998; Camillus, 2008).
Schools as organizations must engage with social problems that impact the school setting.
Many of the social issues include low SES, increases in childhood obesity, changes in
technology, access to healthcare systems, and many other similar problems that are complex and
pervasive (Murgatroyd, 2010; Rittel & Webber, 1973). Murgatroyd (2010) claims that wicked
problems call for actions from stakeholders both within schools and outside of school (e.g.,
individuals associated with companies and nonprofits that provide services to schools to allow
equitable access for vulnerable populations to achieve academic success). Camillus (2008)
assures organizations that, although no definitive solution is available to solve a wicked problem,
there exists strategies schools should consider for managing a wicked problem.
Every school has different resources and needs. One attribute of wicked problems is
that they are always changing and affecting multiple stakeholders in a variety of context
(Camillus, 2008; Rittel & Webber, 1973). Rueda (2011) connects the need for schools to
provide adequate resources to increase academic performance and goal attainment. The
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 32
conceptual framework for this study uses the assumptions of Rueda and Camillus (2008) to argue
that high-poverty schools require different resources to obtain the same achievement goals as
more affluent schools. This assumption is based on the notion that the needs of every school are
different. Resources for high-poverty schools often extend beyond the property of the school
building due to the underlying complexities of community needs. Lawson and Lawson (2013)
built on previous research that suggests the ecologies of the neighborhood and the influences of
friends and family contribute to school achievement. Holme and Rengel (2012) found that
organizational social capital is affected by accountability policies and the context or setting of
high-poverty schools can cause instability in goal attainment.
Continuous improvement in schools. Camillus’ (2008) conceptual framework for
responding to wicked problems includes continuously scanning the environment to modify
strategies and validate assumptions. However, Murgatroyd (2010) concludes that schools must
use design thinking to critically evaluate the learning process and focus on wicked problems as
real-life issues with knowledge and skills. Solutions should evolve to meet current needs within
a school. Schools can consider the social-emotional needs of students and work collaboratively
with community agencies to provide students and families with services that enable basic
physiological, safety, and love needs to be met (Maslow, 1943; Murgatroyd, 2010; Oved, 2017).
Another area of continuous improvement is the ongoing evaluation procedures school leaders use
to evaluate teachers. Marks and Nance (2007) claim that internal and external organizational
structures influence the quality of teacher performance. For example, internal structures that
influence teacher performance are the conditions of the school and the management of human
resources (Mark & Nance, 2007). Marshall (2012) explains that these internal levers for
traditional evaluation procedures rarely promote a change in teacher quality. However, external
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 33
controls in most states link teacher evaluation systems to accountability measures and have
specific rubrics that public school leaders are required to complete annually (Marks & Nance,
2007). However, empirical research has shown that the quality of instruction and the impact it
has on student achievement is essential to closing the gap in achievement for vulnerable
populations (Bracey, 2004; Marshall, 2012; Marzano & Toth, 2013).
Internal protocols for measuring teacher effectiveness. School leaders need to define
internal protocols for measuring teacher effectiveness. Bracey (2004) warns that value-added
measures have mostly confirmed that students with low SES mostly receive instruction from
teachers with low value-added scores. Organizational processes to improve the quality of
instruction include ongoing informal observation, common planning among teams, evaluation of
common lessons, all culminating as a part of an evaluation rubric (Marshall, 2012). Marzano
and Toth (2013) proclaim that teacher evaluations should support teacher growth and
recommend procedures that include instructional rounds, goal setting, teacher self-audits,
implementing or streamlining the use of PLC, and tracking progress to facilitate instructional
leadership and teacher coaching. School leaders can evaluate the quality of instruction within
their schools. However, the need for each school may be different and change over time.
Therefore, the process for continuously evolving and measuring teacher effectiveness and
student growth will have to be ongoing to engage with wicked problems within each school.
Table 3 lists the organizational influences that may contribute to wicked school problems.

Table 3
Organizational Influences and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
The organization seeks to enable every child to enroll in college, join the military, or obtain
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 34
employment through the provisions of a free and public education.
Organizational Global Goal
By September of 2018, the organization will identify public schools that have declining
student performance according to an A–F academic accountability system and help the schools
improve academic performance services.
Stakeholder Goal
The schools identified will meet at least 50 percent of the indicators evaluated and obtain the
targets for Academic Achievement components to exit the state-initiated monitoring and
supported plan.
Assumed Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1:
Schools have different resources for
delivering instruction and accessing
community resources
Interview protocol that asks school leaders to
rank order the importance of the following
activities and explain reasons:
● Focused resources on learning in early
grade levels (e.g., classroom materials,
additional staff, teacher retention,
compensation, training)
● Provide high-quality teacher training and
supports
● Highlight best practices that have
increased student outcomes
● More support and resources for low-
performing campuses
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
Process for continuous improvement.
Document analysis

Interactive Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework constructed for this study builds on past research and uses
demonstrates research-based practices that are common in schools. Figure 1 illustrates that each
component of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) model is aligned to address
the academic achievement goals of public schools that service low SES student populations.

WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 35

Figure 1. Presentation of the KMO conceptual framework.

The conceptual framework provides a graphic model of KMO influences that impact the
achievement of high-poverty schools. Maxwell (2013) claims that the purpose of a conceptual
framework is to create a model that explains the study and the relationship between variables.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) refer to the conceptual framework as a theoretical framework that
scaffolds previous understandings about research and provides a structure for advancing
knowledge of a topic. In the KMO model used in this study, school leaders work toward
common achievement goals set by the state accountability system. However, each school
operates in a different setting with different needs that must be managed in a different way by
different people. Poverty is one example of a wicked problem that schools must engage with to
achieve academic proficiency for all students (Clayton, 2011; Rittle & Webber, 1973).
In the KMO conceptual model presented in Figure 1, the knowledge influences are
represented by the different colored blue dots because each school has different people facing
different challenges using various skills to resolve the issues encountered. Clark and Estes
(2011) claim that knowledge and skill gaps exist because workers do not know how to perform a
task, or the work requires a different skill set. The knowledge influences are one dynamic
Knowledge
Influences
•Practitioner-led
Inquiry
•Reflection
Motivation
Influences
•Self-Efficacy
•Utility Value
Organizational
Influences
•Cultural Setting
•Cultural Models
Academic
Achievement
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 36
needed to implement a school improvement plan to help improve school achievement.
Therefore, knowledge influences must lead to the application of the right kind of motivation.
Merely knowing how to do something does not ensure success. The school
administrators must use their knowledge and skills to increase worker effort through
motivational influences (Clark & Estes, 2011). Ensuring that tasks are purposeful and perceived
as valuable is essential to improving academic achievement. Pajares (2006) suggests that self-
efficacy is itself a motivational influence. School administrators must believe that they can lead
the school and convince teachers that they, too, have the skills to teach all students.
Finally, schools must have an organizational structure that can support achievement
goals. The cultural settings are the observable elements like resources and the physical
environment of the school (Clark & Estes, 2008). However, cultural models are not visible or
concrete ideas, but they represent the beliefs and values of the school (Shein, 2004). Knowledge
and motivation along with the organizational resources and culture to support student
achievement are necessary to implement a systemic change effort to improve student outcomes.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Documents and Artifacts
The 2018 TEA Annual Report proclaims, “demographics are not destiny” (p. 14) in the
agencies accountability ratings for improving low-performing schools. This study uses the
publicly available data link in the citation of the 2018 TEA Annual Report to purposefully select
the administrators from the high-poverty campuses, where 75% or more of the students are
economically disadvantaged. The list of schools was used to purposefully select 10 schools from
one region of Texas to sample document. Documents were one of the primary methods for data
collection and analysis. Data included school improvement plans, state accountability data, and
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 37
the district performance reports, along with other documents from school websites, local
education agencies, and the TEA. Data were qualitatively coded using the principles of grounded
theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Interviews
Interview protocol. A semi-structured interview protocol was used to interview school
administrators who voluntarily agreed to a follow up after the document analysis. Each
interview started with a structured protocol, but additional clarifying questions based on data
collected during the preliminary documents analysis and the respondent's dialogue were also
considered (Patton, 2002). Member checking was used to minimize researcher bias and
misunderstanding of the participants’ responses (Maxwell, 2013). All transcripts were emailed
back to the school administrator with contact instructions if they did not think the transcription
accurately reflected what they intended on expressing during the interview.
The interview protocol asked questions that probed for knowledge, motivation, and
organizational barriers. The study assumed an awareness of the school’s rating and the state
compliance requirements for improving student achievement because the state and local
education agencies are required by law to post public notifications. Three knowledge questions
focused on the use of data to support administrative decision-making to improve the performance
rating of the school. Open-ended questions, devil’s advocate perspective, ideal situation lens,
and interpretive stems are probing strategies that were also used (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Interview procedures. Interviews took place in person and by phone. One respondent
emailed the responses instead of scheduling a time to talk. Interviews lasted for a minimum of
30 min. to a maximum of 60 min. The in-person meeting at the school was the preferred method
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 38
because it allowed participation in a natural setting (Weiss, 1994). Two of the school
administrators provided the opportunity to interview them within the school environment.
A total of six interviews occurred with school administrators who agreed to participate in
this study. Although multiple observations and interviews would strengthen the research (Weiss,
1994), those opportunities will need to be expanded on in future studies. The only time I
followed up with the school administrator was to request a school improvement plan and to
provide the respondents with the interview transcriptions. Caution was taken to respect the time
of the administrators. An audio recorder was used for recording each interview and generating
typed transcriptions of each interview. Memos were written in a notebook following the
interviews and additional notes were typed in NVivo. A thank you card and five-dollar
Starbuck’s card was mailed to each participant.
Data Analysis
The practice of annotating during documents and interview transcripts and writing
reflective memos was part of the data analysis process. Data were then coded. In the first phase
of analysis, open coding of the documents was completed using a computer-assisted qualitative
data analysis software tool called NVivo. Coding included the use of empirical codes and the
application of a priori codes from the conceptual framework. In the second phase of analysis,
empirical and a priori codes were aggregated into analytic or axial codes. In the third phase of
data analysis, pattern codes and themes emerged to support the conceptual framework and
address each research question. Internal validity and credibility of the analysis were reviewed to
ensure that multiple sources of data strengthened the trustworthiness of the conclusions.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 39
Findings
Findings of this study are based on the data analysis of interviews and documents
analyzed for the high-poverty elementary schools in one region of Texas. Six school
administrators from 10 of the high-poverty schools sampled participated in interviews.
Documents analysis included 10 school improvement plans, three district improvement plans, 10
campus accountability reports, three district accountability reports, and six interview
transcriptions. All data elements were analyzed to examine how school administrators were
improving gaps in student achievement for high-poverty schools. The researcher used a
qualitative, case study approach to examine the gap analysis framework for each school in the
study. This section describes the participating stakeholders, KMO framework of the findings,
and ends with a synthesis of all findings, according to the research questions.
Participating Stakeholders
There are approximately 21,000 campus administrators in the state of Texas (TEA,
file:///C:/Users/scarl/Downloads/2017-2018_Pocket_Edition_final.pdf). This study included 10
campus administrators in one city. The 10 school administrators targeted for this study work in
high-poverty schools that met performance standards on the most recent school accountability
assessment. The one exception is a school administrator who was assigned to turn around an
elementary school rated as Improvement Required. Most critical to the selection was the school
profile data. One participant is omitted from the sample after declining to provide school-
specific data. Table 4 outlines the demographic data for the nine schools included in this study,
and Table 5 shows the comparative state demographic data.

Table 4
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 40
Summary and Demographic Profile of Participating Schools
Race/Ethnicity
Black Hispanic White Special
Education
Economically
Disadvantaged
English
Learners
N
School #1 1 92 7 9 77 26 690
School #2 5 83 9 11 75 19 660
School #3 1 98 2 6 90 27 445
School #4 >1 97 2 8 91 28 465
School #5 >1 98 2 8 92 22 440
School #6 7 84 8 12 78 1 600
School #7 2 95 1 11 89 24 410
School #8 5 92 3 12 91 23 720
School #9 7 79 4 15 79 3 410

Table 5
Representation of Student Demographics in Texas
Demographics State Representation
African American/Black 12.6%
Hispanic 52.4%
White 27.9%
Special Education 9.2%
Economically Disadvantaged 58.7%
English Learners 18.8%

Knowledge Findings
The first research question asked what knowledge elements school administrators use to
improve accountability performance in high poverty schools. The overwhelming theme focused
attention on evaluating the quality of teachers. Findings suggest that 48% of coding from the
school improvement plans included strategies to improve gaps in knowledge. In 154 coded
references attributed to knowledge influences, 63% target procedural knowledge and 25%
aligned to factual knowledge. However, factual knowledge is a lower cognitive dimension that
must exist to plan a process for implementation. Therefore, this analysis will begin by framing
the essential knowledge that school administrators in Texas are expected to demonstrate.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 41
Factual knowledge. The Texas Administrative Code (19 TAC §129.2001) explicitly set
five principles for knowledge and skills expected of school administrators. Assumed factual
knowledge held by school administrators includes foundational knowledge aligned to (a)
instructional leadership, (b) human capital, (c) executive leadership, (d) school culture, (e)
strategic operations. Each principle has descriptions of an effective leader with aligned
indicators to measure performance. One source of evidence that many school leaders use to
demonstrate their effectiveness is through a SIP, also referred to as a Campus Improvement Plan
(CIP) in Texas. However, indicators not referenced in the SIP do not preclude that the school
administrator cannot demonstrate a cognitive process for demonstrating instructional leadership.
Meyers and Hitt (2018) claim that most school improvement plans contain similar
information despite a format that is common among school administrators. All of the SIPs
reviewed in this study referenced previous student achievement data and showed evidence that a
team of individuals participated in the development of goals and objectives. The first part of the
analysis consists of coding the SIP for each school represented and evidence that the school
administration demonstrated a plan to meet each indicator for principal effectiveness in Texas.
Instructional leadership in Texas is characterized by a school leader’s ability to align content
and curriculum across grade levels to improve student performance. The document analysis
showed that all except one school administrator cited evidence of data-driven instruction in the
SIP. However, the administrator for campus six provided some background on her limited goals
and strategies documented in the SIP. The school administrator explained that her perspective
on the SIP was very different from the preceding school administrator:
When we looked at school improvement when I got here, the one that was in places very
long and very lengthy with a lot of activities and a lot of goals and we really looked at
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 42
condensing that into what are the things that are most important. And so really looked at
quality over quantity and really going deep with those couple of items instead of having a
very broad 20 things that we're going to track. Because that's not reasonable in this job or
realistic time wise to kind of track those many things.
Similarly, the school administrator for campus one did not seem to put much emphasis on
the SIP. He associated the SIP with a Targeted Improvement Plan (TIP) that is required for
schools that must make Required Improvements due to performance on state assessments for
underrepresented populations of students:
Never done an improvement plan …We have been distinguished recognized under
STAAR. … My improvement plan is more about making sure we hire the right staff and
support them through the academic coach. Encourage them. I don't hire people. I have
teachers interview and I hold veto power ... [if there are problems, I tell them] ‘You guys
picked her, I didn't so they pick the right staff and help the duds through or find a
different’ [one].
There was a difference between the SIP for school administrator eight. Texas does not
have a formal SIP, but the TIP does have formal components and progress is monitored by the
state agency at three points in the year with ongoing monthly technical support. The school
administrator for campus eight is new to the school and has been administratively placed there
by the district to turn around the districts on the Required Improvement campus. Surprisingly,
the TIP was much less informative than the other SIPs reviewed in this study. When asked how
the school administrator describes a SIP, she stated:
I would begin by saying that it’s a plan that we look at where we’re going to be focusing
on some things campus-wide, based on data, where we look at some needs of the campus
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 43
that we can get better at. So, you know, we look at STAAR data, which is general
campus data. We see for example, reading, and levels of reading where our kids are
moving up, or not moving up enough. Then we make that improvement plan based on a
goal that we want to target within that school year.
However, other SIPs that were analyzed showed that the school administrator carefully
detailed the document to serve as a comprehensive action plan. The school administrator for
campus two described the SIP this way:
I would say that it's a model or a guide when leaders come together to look at areas of
weakness and pick out ways on how to improve those areas that may be suffering. It
varies from everything from the lead to fire drills. Whatever been recognized as an area
that not really where it should be. It’s in the school improvement plan and we have to
address it all year long and work diligently. If it’s on there, we have to address it.
Anything that we do must align up with what’s on that plan.
Analysis of each SIP by the principle required by the Texas Education Code for school
principals is shown in Tables 6. An X represents data identified in each campus’ SIP.

Table 6
Factual Knowledge Aligned to Principal Standards
Principal Standards
Campus SIP
Totals
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Instructional Leadership Indicators
Maximize Learning for All Students X X X X X X X X X 9
Data Driven Instruction X X X X X - X X X 8
Curriculum and Assessment Alignment X X X X X X X - X 8
Effective Instructional Practices X X X X X X X - X 8
Human Capital Indicators
Targeted Selection and Retention of Staff X X - - - - X - - 3
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 44
Staff Collaboration and Leadership X X X X X X X X X 9
Development, Feedback, and Coaching X X X X X X - - X 7
Systemic Evaluation and Supervision - - - - - - - - X 1
Executive Leadership
Change Management Planning - - - - - - - - - 0
Commitment to Ongoing Learning - X - - - - X - - 2
Communication and Interpersonal Skills - - X - - - - - X 2
Ethical Behavior - - - - - - - - - 0
School Culture
Shared Vision of High Achievement X X X X - X X - X 7
Culture of High Expectations - - X - X X X - - 4
Family and Community Engagement X X X X X - X - X 7
Safe School Environment X X X - X - X - - 5
Discipline - X - - X - X - - 3
Strategic Operations
Strategic Planning X X X X X - X X X 8
Maximized Learning Time - - X X X - - - X 4
Tactical Resource Management X X X X X X X - X 8
Policy Implementation and Advocacy X X X X X - X X X 8

Figure 2 shows a comparison between each campus’ SIP factual knowledge and the number of
indicators that aligned to the Texas principal standards.

WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 45

Figure 2. Evidence of factual knowledge by school campus.

Table 6 demonstrates that 11% of SIPs had evidence of executive leadership indicators.
A closer analysis of the human capital indicators showed that, although 100% of the SIPs had
references to PLCs and other activities that promote professional development, only three had a
specific plan to hire and retain teachers. However, a cross-analysis of the Needs Assessment
Plans showed that retention was high at some of the schools—one plan connected teacher
development to the systemic evaluation of teacher quality.
Procedural knowledge. School Administrators need to implement practitioner-led
inquiry as part of the learning process for public schools. Malloy (2011) recommends a 10 step
process for school administrators to research possible solutions based on the context of the
school needs. Evidence of practitioner-led inquiry was found in the objectives of the SIPs that
aligned to instructional leadership, but most of the evidence for practitioner-led inquiry came
from a synthesis of the SIP, Campus Needs Assessments (CNAs), and interviews.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 46
Krathwohl (2002) describes procedural knowledge as a cognitive dimension that requires
individuals to have the skills necessary to carry out a task. For example, one of the school
administrators stated:
We come together and look at the student data all the time. And we call it laser focus.
That’s what one of the doctors referred to it as. And I like that. We look at the data, we
see where we have our shortcomings and we focus on that. We go into the classrooms; I
go into the classroom. I do observations. And then we look at it real close. Let’s say it
was math that was suffering, and then we applied the instruction on the math, and then
we should see an improvement in that area…Whatever area that it is that’s weak, we
laser focus on that. We get to train for it, we ensure that the students are being taught in
that specific subject area, and we look for increases in that.
Two respondents answered the question about how they use data by referencing the use
of PLCs. PLCs are a collaborative planning time when teachers look at student work samples
and strategize on next steps for instruction. Marsh and Ferrell (2015) contend that, although
PLCs do make good inquiry teams, the school leaders must continue to build teacher capacity for
investigating data and support in making data-driven decisions. The words professional
development, training, and other synonyms were coded 1,136 times in the data analysis.
The TEA adopted the new principal standards in 2016 and implemented the Texas
Principal Evaluation System (TESS) in 2018. Means, Padilla, and Gallagher (2010) recommend
that state agencies ensure policies that require teachers and school administrators to complete
data literacy coursework as part of the required preparation programs. A review of the TESS
pilot data showed that, although every region of Texas was represented, none of the schools
sampled were part of an Independent School Districts that participated in the pilot or had
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 47
representation on the Principal Steering Committee that made the recommendations for the
appraisal system. There was also limited data to support how principal preparedness programs
changed in response to the newly adopted principal standards.
The adoption of the new principal standards impacts procedural knowledge for school
administrators because many of the descriptions of Executive Leadership indicators were new to
the school administrators when the SIPs for 2018 were developed. Therefore, it is not surprising
that procedural knowledge is mostly representative of teacher training. However, 11% of coding
demonstrates how school administrators would carry out tasks to facilitate organizational change.
Motivational Findings
School accountability ratings were found to be marginally valuable to school
administrators. Analysis of the SIPs found that 78% of motivational factors were task value
influences (Clark & Estes, 2008; Pintrich, 2003). Utility value represented the most
implemented strategy revealed by analyzing the SIPs and the interview data together. Interviews
allowed for a deeper understanding of how much a school administrator values accountability
ratings and their efficacy in leading a high poverty school. School administrators demonstrated a
belief that parent compacts and similar strategies would lead to better academic outcomes.
Document analysis and interviews reveal some of the strategies school administrators use for
motivation to improve accountability performance for their high-poverty schools.
Utility value. School leaders need to ensure staff demonstrates a focus on learning that is
measurable and aligned to the state curriculum standards. Eccles (2006) found that task value
positively influences learning and motivation. One of the interview protocols asked school
administrators to talk about their thoughts of the value of school accountability ratings.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 48
Respondents were reluctant to describe school accountability ratings as either good or bad. For
example, the school administrators for campus two responded:
They’re partly valuable. My thing is, you could teach them to pass a test or, my thing is
teaching them to learn so that they could do it on their own. The test isn’t everything.
Unfortunately, everything is geared around that, you know, you being a good school to
not being a good school. There’s a lot of push there. B ut I think I’m more or less, I’m a
special ed. teacher as well. It’s making sure that the children or students are given the
right tools because they gonna eventually walk away. They gonna pass a test. But can
they do that on their own and not be trained to pass a test. Not that that’s what we are
saying what we’re doing, but that’s part of it. That's a big part of it. That they must be
successful on the STAAR tests.
Similarly, an administrator from campus seven stated,
School accountability ratings are valuable in the sense that it is important for campus
leadership to be able to compare the progress their campus is making to other campuses
of similar demographics. Ratings like the new proposed A-F ratings in Texas, in my
opinion, give little insight into how well a campus is actually doing.
These responses demonstrate that the new accountability system does hold some valuable to the
school administrators.
One intriguing response was how campus eight internalized the interview question to be a
reflection of the school’s administration. This description is interesting because the school
administrator is the only one to represent a campus rated as Improvement Required:
Well, it’s kind of like a report card for us as administrators, to kind of see where we’re at.
Of course, me, personally, that’s not entirely what I weigh the work on. I weigh the work
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 49
on looking at exactly what’s going on, on campus and the progress the students are
making in the gains. But the accountability, our report card per se, is something that we
look at where we’re wanting to meet those standards and those levels that we should be
meeting for the campus.
The respondent for campus six described the accountability report as one piece of a puzzle. In
her full account, she responded to the prompt this way:
We can sit here and agree or disagree with state accountability …, but I tell my teacher’s
that whether we agree or disagree, it is what's presently being used. And so it can be a
really good tool to use … For me, it is one piece of the puzzle, not the whole puzzle. So
yes, I think there is a place for it and again, it’s what lens we look at it with and we don’t
just solely look at school accountability.
However, the question that guided the analysis of the SIPs was less about the value of state
assessments, but it was rather about the type of motivation the school planned to use that year.

Table 7
Descriptions of Motivational Strategy SIP Findings
Motivational Evidence Motivational Type Frequency
Incentives and rewards Utility Value 42%
Parent compact or similar action to communicate
academic importance
Expectance Outcome 22%
Preferred activity Intrinsic Value 36%

Table 7 lists motivational elements related to action strategies that target a specific goal.
Thirty-seven motivational strategies were identified and further broken down by motivational
category. The most frequent codes for incentives and rewards were actions to recognize a
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 50
student for behaviors and/or their attendance. Preferred activities like field trips and student
clubs were strategies found in the SIPs to promote intrinsic value for academic activities.
Self-efficacy. School leaders must believe students in high poverty schools can meet the
academic indicators for state mandated standardized testing. Pajares (2006) defines two
principles for self-motivation applicable to this study’s findings. First, high self-efficacy has
been found to increase motivation. Secondly, an expectation of success often leads to increases
in learning and motivation for students. The word mentor frequently appeared in the context of
increasing teacher capacity through opportunities for teachers to observe other staff behaviors
with the intent of increasing performance value. Figure 3 represents a word tree of where the
word mentor appears in the context of the interviews and SIPs examined.

Figure 3. Word tree denoting the context when using the word mentor.
Holloway, Nielsen, and Saltmarsh, (2018) caution school administrators in distributing
leadership responsibilities without carefully considering its impact on the motivation of the
mentor teacher. Research from studies that included focus groups with mentor teachers revealed
that, although the practice of mentorship is beneficial, they do not consistently increase
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 51
leadership skills for the mentor because there is usually no kind of authority that comes with the
additional work (Bolden, 2011; Hatcher, 2005; Lumby, 2013). Many of the teachers interviewed
by Holloway et al., (2018) found that time and resources were not always included when
planning to assign mentors.
Hatcher (2005) claims that distributed leadership is often a strategy related to
transformational leadership. Although school administrators were not directly asked about their
use of mentor teachers, evidence of distributed leadership appears in 67% of documents analyzed
from respondents. Table 8 shows the campus that use distributed leadership to build efficacy.

Table 8
Evidence of Distributed Leadership by Administrator Campus
Campus
No.
Evidence Data Source
1 Assignment of a mentor teacher, guidance, and modeling of
lessons by instructional coach and mentor coach will be given
to each new teacher.
School
Improvement Plan
2 Continue training on curriculum, adding rigor, using data, and
progress monitoring, new teachers will be assigned a mentor,
consumables and other necessary supplies will be provided.
School
Improvement Plan
3 Hire Retired Teachers to tutor/mentor At-Risk students for
small group instruction.
School
Improvement Plan
5 New teachers need more time to collaborate with their mentor
teacher to discuss relevant issues.
Campus Needs
Assessment
7 Provide ongoing support to teachers by assigning a mentor
teacher.
School
Improvement Plan
8 Implement high-quality reading (using mentor teachers) Targeted
Improvement Plan

An interview was used to capture the self-efficacy of each school administrator.
Respondents were asked to describe their level of confidence in their abilities to be an
instructional leader to their staff. School administers’ answers varied. Two of the four school
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 52
administers talked about themselves in the role of an instructional leader. Table 9 shows the
responses from the school administrators pertaining to self-efficacy.

Table 9
Self-Efficacy Probe
Administrator
Campus No.
Can you describe how confident you are about your ability to meet staff and
student needs as an instructional leader?
1 “I don’t put up with foolishness. Talk to the child. Talk to the parent. Then
talk to me. This is not a daycare. I’m getting them ready for high school. I
am 67 days away from retirement. 43 years at it. The state and my district is
driving me crazy. Too top heavy and giving us too much to do. I told the
super and curriculum director to leave us alone.”
6 "In order to be an instructional leader, you have to dig deep into what good
instruction is and stay knowledgeable about the instructional programs
teachers are expected to engage with. Having experience in a leadership
position gives you access to see great teachers in action and the ability to
compare their student achievement to others.”
7 “I feel confident that I support my academic coach and reading interventionist
to receive the proper professional development to continue to grow and
prepare the teacher. As my first year, I do believe there are areas for growth as
we adapt to each other and understand the expectations for all.”
8 “I really think with my confident level, I always think, in my head, I pose the
question as, “How am I going to leave a legacy?” If I were ever to leave the
campus, what would my legacy be? And so that's kind of where my mindset is
doing the work, and what am I going to leave the campus and the students to
keep with them and to move forward with? And even if it's with those teachers
who may decide this upcoming year, or the years to come, to ever go to a
different campus. I want them to take something that I shared with them, or
that we've shared together, and it's always had that piece. Again, it's kind of
like students, as a classroom teacher, who wouldn't want to give your students,
and it's not just for that moment in time that you want them to have it 'til they
graduate, or even become adults in the work force that they decide to go in.
Having those doors open and the possibilities being just endless.”

Organizational Findings
Cultural models. Annually meeting school achievement goals for a different set of
students with different needs means that high poverty schools must adopt a culture of continuous
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 53
improvement. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) define cultural models as a common belief
about how an organization works or should work or operate. For example, one school
administrator described how the staff adapts to change, stating:
We struggle. My campus has had many administrators in the past five years. I think they
lack consistency in what they do and they are quite resistant to change especially those
who have been teaching at the same school for a very long time (e.g., 10 or more years).
I have a group of go-getters and a group of teachers who are set in their ways.
In just these few lines, there is evidence that the school culture is fragmented. In an
ethnographic study of a high poverty elementary schools, Bower and Parsons (2016) categorized
teachers by three different composite identities: (a) the believer, (b) the hopeful, and (c) the
opposer. However, the opposer is also an identity represented by school administrators.
The school administrator for campus one showed opposition to the district when he said,
“The state and my district is driving me crazy. Too top heavy and giving us too much to do. I
told the super and curriculum director to leave us alone.” The school administrator for campus
two also revealed some personal opposition when he shared:
Recently we had a high turnover for some reason. I get kind of worried. And so, the new
one’s that’s in, don’t have no choice but to go with the change. But, when you have them
old heads up in there, that know and been through the education system, as me, there’s
some resistant to it. Because you got knuckleheads making decisions for the classroom
that just going with it and don't know the ins and outs of good teaching. You and I have
seen so many different programs come through. You know, try this. Try that. Try this.
Try that. And then if you stand still, it’s gonna come around to where you were anyway.
And it’s all the same. It’s just the names have changed. Some of them, like I said, the
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 54
new ones don’t know any better ‘cus they have nothing to gauge it against. But those
ladies that been in there, doing this thing day in, day out, been successful with their
children for several years, are the ones that like to say, ‘Yeah, that’s nice, but, when I
close my door, I'm a teach my children what they need to know.’ So, it goes both ways.
Other school administrators reframed the question to talk about the change efforts they
were leading. Wigfield and Eccles (2000) affirm the principle that the more leadership value a
task is associated with a goal, the more likely the goal is to be achieved. Campus seven eluded
to this through the following response to the same question about teacher resistance to change:
We will only embark on new strategies if there is research to show that it is good for kids. When
working with teachers to adopt new teaching strategies we always start with why we are doing
this. Once people understand the why behind something, they are much more likely to be on
board with it. The school administrator for campus eight came across as a hopeful reformer
(Bower & Parsons, 2016). In her response, she described the staff’s willingness to change in a
more measured tone, stating:
They’re willing. I need time to introduce it to them, they’re not ... they don’t know how
to manage the time, because it is different work for them. Because the transformation
that we're doing here at Martin is a lot of hard work, and so there’s a lot of planning, a lot
of meetings, and so that's different for them. So, I feel that them doing a different type of
work in their teaching practices, is challenging for some of them, but I think for the most
part, they’re all willing to give it a try.
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) are clear that cultural models intersect with cultural settings.
The variability in the schools and the individuals make an analysis almost impossible without
considering both cultural models and cultural settings.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 55
Cultural setting. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) ruled, “Separate
educational facilities are inherently unequal” (p. 495). However, the impact of re-segregation in
high poverty areas has researchers continuing to debate the impact of equitable access to
resources on school achievement (Gamoran & An, 2016; Hanushek, 1997) . Therefore, interview
respondents were asked how they ensure adequate resources to meet student needs. Table 10
highlights key data points from the interviews with the school administrators.

Table 10
Resources Needed to Produce Student Results
Administrator
Campus No.
Can you describe how confident you are about your ability to meet staff and
student needs as an instructional leader?
1 “I don't know what materials they need, so I go to my staff. I tell them how
much we have and as long as it is within reason and it won't sit on a shelf, I
get it. I'm not a budget expert. I depend on my secretary and she finds it. I
tell her I need $2000, find how I get it. I surround myself with smart people.
Surround yourself with sharp people, give them autonomy, but monitor them.”
2 “We go straight to the source and try to get the money for it as best as we can.
If not, we find ways around and a lot of teachers purchase out of their own
pocketbook to get the things that they need.”
7 “I follow the Campus Improvement Plan and ensure I connect the needs and
provide them resources as reviewed and identified.”
8 “Me, kind of having conversations with teachers and what their needs may be.
Looking at students, and so just to ensure that we have those resources is a lot
of the conversations and meeting, and just reassessing and evaluating where
we're at with the campus, and what we're needing.”
9 “We listen to teachers and students and only spend money on things that we
feel will benefit our students the most.”

None of the school administrators described a data-driven process for determining needs
or how the allocations of funds get determined. Hanushek (1997) found that one complication to
policymaking on resources is the inability to predict how a given resource will improve student
performance. Therefore, I probed more in-depth with a few respondents to see how they
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 56
advocate for needs that may be unique to their campus. Portions from two transcripts show that
school administrators confirm this finding as a gap in administrator knowledge (see Table 11).

Table 11
Gap in Administrator Knowledge
Speaker
No.
Gap in Administrator Knowledge
1 “So now, curriculum resources, is that something that your district decides on?
The Board adopts a curriculum and then it's just everybody has the same
curriculum across the district?”
2 “Across the board. But the good thing about it is, they're letting seasoned
teachers get together now and look at the adoption of the books and then being
able to pick and choose what books they want the teachers to teach out of.”
1 “How does it work if you're looking at your data, you're looking at what students
need, and you guys realize that you need a new reading intervention plan? And
maybe that's a need for your campus, but it's not necessarily one that another
campus needs. How does that process work?”
2 “That's a good question. We just scramble. I'm a be honest with you. Yeah. If it's
not there, like one teacher we had come in and she used a reading intervention
called “Unravel.” And I seen that it worked. I was a teacher at the time in a
classroom and I used it. It worked. But unfortunately, there was no buy and then
it worked for a while in the school, and then it died off. I don't know how to
answer that question. It's a struggle. It really is.”

Table 12 illustrates how I probed a little differently with another administrator:

Table 12
A Different Gap in Administrator Knowledge
Speaker
No.
A Different Gap in Administrator Knowledge
1 “I think that the curriculum is Board adopted, so curriculum resources are the
same across.”
2 “Usually the district sends a survey out to me and then I'll kind of just designate
that to the staff, and they'll kind of tell me if they're utilizing the consumables, or
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 57
what texts they think that they need. But a lot of our textbooks, our teachers
don't use, and so those are the ones that we kind of send back to the district, the
warehouse when they're not using them.”

The interviews were surprising because the coding in the SIPs showed allocations of funds for
instructional materials. Figure 4 shows curricular references to support reading more than
doubled the frequency of references to math, science, and social studies.

Figure 4. Curriculum resources by subject area.

Figure 5 shows that reading is prioritized over the other three subjects areas combined.

WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 58

Figure 5. Prioritization of reading over the other three academic subjects combined.

Goldhaber, Quince, and Theobald (2018) contend that a teacher quality gap is more pervasive in
high poverty schools than equity in school resources. Table 13 details the frequency with which
school administrators referenced professional development for teachers.

Table 13
Professional Development for Teachers
Administrator
Campus No.
Frequency Funding Amount Funding Source
1 21 $811 General fund,
McKinney Vento
2 29 $0 NA
3 36 $16,562 General fund, Title
4 5 $0 NA
5 22 $0 NA
6 1 $0 NA
7 36 $0 NA
8 19 $0 NA
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 59
9 14 $0 NA

Synthesis of Findings
The conceptual framework for this study starts with the various, knowledge and cognitive
process dimensions that school leaders bring into each school (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2002).
The purpose of this study was to examine how school leaders in high poverty elementary schools
use knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences to improve student achievement.
Evidence from the data collection provides several findings that answer the research questions.
The first research question asked: What are the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational elements that school administrators use to improve accountability performance
indicators for high-poverty schools? Evidence from the analysis revealed that teacher quality is a
primary focus across all nine schools that participated in this study. Deliberate strategies to
improve teacher knowledge included modeling from mentor teachers and instructional coaches.
The use of PLC occured in all nine schools examined. DuFour (2004) notes that PLCs reflect a
subtle shift from an emphasis on teaching to a focus on student learning. The use of PLCs is not
new in education, but their implementation has become a structure for analyzing data, building
collective agency, and ensuring that resources are purposeful to the desired outcome.
The second research question asked: What is the relationship between the school culture
and the school administrator's knowledge and motivation? Evidence from the interviews
demonstrated that school leaders empathize with the teaching staff and struggle with them on
issues of efficacy. Evidence from SIPs also demonstrated that family and community
involvement are highly encouraged through numerous school events and opportunities to work
collaboratively with families through partnerships and compacts.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 60
The third question asked: What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and
organizational solutions for high-poverty elementary schools in Texas? Executive leadership
skills appeared to be developing for the school leaders that were interviewed. Although the SIP
plans are themselves evidence of a plan for continuous improvement, the purpose of change
management is to challenge status quo and improve the collective capacity of the school culture
to respond to the changing dynamics. School leaders can improve effective leadership by
evaluating the efficiency of the organizational structure. School leaders must be the drivers of
initiatives to promote change by modeling of expectations. Just as PLCs are a process for
teachers to learn from each other and analyze student data, school leaders must also use a
practitioner-led inquiry process to meet the changing needs of each school.
Solutions and Recommendations
Knowledge Recommendations
The Texas Administrative Code (19 TAC §129.2001) explicitly establishing five
principles for the knowledge and skills expected for school administrators. Assumed factual
knowledge held by school administrators includes foundational knowledge aligned to (a)
instructional leadership, (b) human capital, (c) executive leadership, (d) school culture, and (e)
strategic operations. Each principle has descriptions of effective leadership with aligned
indicators to measure performance. One source of evidence that many school leaders use to
demonstrate their effectiveness is through a SIP, also referred to as a CIP in Texas. However,
indicators not referenced in the SIP do not necessarily suggest the school administrator cannot
demonstrate a cognitive process for demonstrating instructional leadership.
Krathwohl (2002) revised Bloom’s taxonomy to show the knowledge dimensions as
moving from concrete, factual knowledge to abstract, metacognitive thoughts. The assumed
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 61
knowledge and influences to make recommendations for school administrators to promote the
professional development of their teaching staff. Table 12 describes each assumed knowledge
influence and the principle citation that will support the priority of the TEA to enable school
administrators to make informed, professional development decisions.

Table 12
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Validated as
a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability or
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
(Yes,
No)

Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
School
Administrators
need to identify
needs for
improving student
achievement. (D)
V Yes Conceptual
knowledge of
principles and
theories are
necessary to be
instructional
leaders
(Krathwohl,
2002)
Provide information on
School Improvement
Plans (SIP) that align
actions with measures for
the adequacy of progress
towards long term goals
that meet a variety of
student and stakeholder
needs.
School
Administrators
need to implement
practitioner-led
inquiry is part of
the learning
process for
schools. (P)
V Yes Procedural
knowledge is
essential to the
implementation
of techniques,
methods, and
completion of
tasks related to
prescribed skills
(Krathwohl,
2002).
Provide School leaders
steps in the form of a job
aid to implement
practitioner-led inquiry

School
administrators
need to engage in
reflection that
evaluates the use
of data and inquiry
V Yes Reflection is a
meaning-
making process
(Rodgers,
2002).
Provide school
administrators education
on reflective practices
related to evaluating the
use of data and inquiry
led process.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 62
led process (M)

School improvement plans. Results from this study suggest that, although all school
administrators that were interviewed completed an annual SIP, 75% of the responses were coded
as compliance driven and did not mention monitoring for progress. A recommendation that
focuses on the importance of the school leader’s ability to build capacity for change is based on
cognitive load theory. School leaders must have a conceptual knowledge of performance
indicators to design a plan for improvement and control for the increased effort and knowledge
acquisition required of stakeholders (Krathwohl, 2002). Fulfilling student needs requires the
school administrator to consider a variety of factors that contribute to equitable access. The
recommendation is that school administrators engage with a range of stakeholders and discuss
actions that will lead to the attainment of long-term goals that may change in scope over time.
The purpose of the SIP is to continuously improve the quality of education for students
(Broadhead et al., 1996; Strunk et al., 2016). Fernandez (2011) asserts that SIPs increase
efficiency and promote organizational learning. However, regression analytics have shown that
the quality of the SIP substantially impacts student achievement (Strunk et al., 2016). Meyers
and Hitt (2018) propose a reframing of the SIP to leverage support for school leadership to
trigger organizational change through some quick, clearly defined goals that are easy to
implement. Systemic change can be slow, so momentum hinges on the school leaders ability to
determine the school’s most critical and urgent needs to that must be addressed.
Practitioner-led inquiry. PLCs were referenced in 70% of administrators’ responses,
particularly in their description of how teachers use student data. However, although most
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 63
schools had procedures in place for teachers to collaborate in PLC’s, there was less careful
planning for resolving issues unrelated to academic assignments and tests. One recommendation
is for school leaders provide staff with the steps to participate in practitioner-led inquiry to
improve procedural knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). Practitioners need a system for collecting the
right data, by the right people, and interpreting the data in the right way for it to be useful
information (Malloy, 2011). Purposeful data collection by teachers suggests that, although PLCs
are an essential process for teacher collaboration, there must also be a protocol for how school
leaders and teachers participate in action research to resolve different issues and challenges.
Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) found that the school leaders’ ability to stimulate
staff intellectually had an impact on student achievement. Inquiry frameworks that most
commonly apply to school leadership include gap analysis, benchmarking, and data-driven
decision-making (Malloy, 2011; McEwan & McEwan, 2003). However, school leaders must use
inquiry frameworks in a manner that helps school address their unique needs. For example,
program evaluation involves careful consideration of inputs, activities, and outcomes, and it
should be applied when choosing new curriculum resources and understanding unintended
consequences of fidelity requirements (Weiss, 1997; Wholey, 1994). Malloy (2011)
recommends a 10-step process for finding data that can produce beneficial information. Figure 6
describes a method of inquiry recommended by Malloy (2011).

WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 64

Figure 6. Ten steps to practitioner-led inquiry.

Reflective practice. Reflection is documented in 67% of interviews with school
administrators. The word data was coded 343 times during the document analysis of school
improvement plans, CNAs, and interviews. However, by contrast the word reflection was only
coded 69 times. The metacognitive process of reflection is recommended to improve leadership
knowledge gaps. Rodgers (2002) defines reflection as a process for creating meaning. This
definition suggests that school leaders should use data to create meaning for application.
Therefore, school leaders should engage in reflective practices as part of the inquiry-led process.
Mayer (2011) suggests that metacognition involves self-regulated activities that allow the
individual to monitor their progress towards goal attainment. Some empirical studies focus on
what school leaders can do to improve student outcomes, but fewer studies elaborate on how
school leaders make decisions and problem solve school-related issues (Shone, 1987). The
difference between what to do and how to do it varies with the context of each school.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 65
Therefore, the reflective process cannot be an occasional exercise, but it should be a purposeful
one with continuous activity to create sustainable change (Wright, 2009).
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. Efficacy and feedback are the principles that support the assumed
motivational influences for school administrators. The school administrators who participated in
this study will be evaluated by the Texas Principal Evaluation Support System (T-PESS) in
2018-2019. 19 TAC §129.2001 statutorily mandates indicators to align with the principles of the
evaluation rubric. However, the mandate does not implicitly mean that school administrators
will value the administrative duties that are evaluated by the T-PESS.
Table 13 is a summary of the assumed motivational influences that school administrators
can demonstrate as instructional leaders. Each assumed research and context-specific
recommendation support different motivational influences. These actions are expected to
support an accomplished performance rating on the T-PESS.

Table 13
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence

Validated
as a Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
(Yes,
No)

Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
School administrators
need to believe in the
integrity of their staff
to improve school
proficiency rates.
(M-EO)
V Yes Self-Efficacy - High
self-efficacy can
positively impact
motivation (Pagarez,
2006)
School
Administrators must
actively and
enthusiastically
engage in activities
that demonstrate
value in staff
development and
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 66
the learning
process.
School
Administrators need
to create professional
development that is
meaningful and
purposeful. (M-EO)
V Yes Expectancy
Outcome-
Discussions about
importance and
utility value of the
work promotes
positive values
(Pintrich, 2003,
Eccles, 2006)
School
administrators
should be
purposeful in
connecting tasks
and materials that
are applicable and
relevant to staff
priority needs.
School administrators
need to provide
instructional related
feedback. (M-SE)
V Yes Self-Efficacy -
School
administrators should
make it clear that
teachers are capable
of meeting student
learning needs.

School
administrators
should provide staff
with goal-directed
practice and
frequent, private
feedback.

Prioritize staff development. Eighty percent of responses coded for motivation showed
a relationship between the school administrators’ value in school rating and their level of
involvement with the coaching staff. Principles rooted in expectancy outcome theory confirm
the findings of this study. Eccles (2006) associates high expectations and task value as positive
influencers on motivation. For example, one respondent stated, “Whether the results are good or
bad, they are an opportunity to reflect and adjust as needed,” when asked how much he values
the school accountability ratings. Later, he added, “I work with teachers to better their craft so as
they can better educate students” while sharing an example of how he demonstrates being an
instructional leader. Therefore, the recommendation is that school administrators must actively
engage in activities that demonstrate value for staff development and the learning process.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 67
Research does not conclusively support the idea that a teacher’s years of service improve
the quality of lesson delivery (Fullan, 1993; Rubie-Davies et al., 2012). Darling-Hammond and
Bransford (2005) developed a theoretical framework for teacher learning as an ongoing cycle
throughout the years of teaching service in learning communities. Although PLCs are standard
in North America, many principals persistently acknowledge teacher development as a primary
function of their role and the one that they feel the least comfortable fulfilling (Leithwood,
1992). The interviews with school administrators support this finding.
An interview probe was used to measure the self-efficacy of the school administrator.
Respondents were asked to describe their confidence in their abilities to be an instructional
leader to their staff and their answers varied. Two of the four respondents talked about
themselves as an instructional leader. Table 14 shows the responses to the self-efficacy probe.

Table 14
Administrator Responses to the Self-Efficacy Probe
Administrator
Campus No.
Can you describe how confident you are about your ability to meet staff and
student needs as an instructional leader?
1 “I don't put up with foolishness. Talk to the child. Talk to the parent. Then
talk to me. This is not a daycare. I'm getting them ready for high school. I am
67 days away from retirement. 43 years at it. The state and my district is
driving me crazy. Too top heavy and giving us too much to do. I told the super
and curriculum director to leave us alone.”
2 “I feel confident that I support my academic coach and reading interventionist
to receive the proper professional development to continue to grow and prepare
the teacher. As my first year, I do believe there are areas for growth as we adapt
to each other and understand the expectations for all.”
7 “In order to be an instructional leader, you really have to dig deep into what
good instruction is and stay knowledgeable about the instructional programs
teachers are expected to engage with. Having experience in a leadership
position gives you access to see great teachers in action and the ability to
compare their student achievement to others.”
8 “I really think with my confidence level, I always think, in my head, I pose the
question as, “How am I going to leave a legacy?” If I were ever to leave the
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 68
campus, what would my legacy be? And so that's kind of where my mindset is
doing the work, and what am I going to leave the campus and the students to
keep with them and to move forward with? And even if it's with those teachers
who may decide this upcoming year, or the years to come, to ever go to a
different campus. I want them to take something that I shared with them, or that
we've shared together, and it's always had that piece. Again, it's kind of like
students, as a classroom teacher, who wouldn't want to give your students, and
it's not just for that moment in time that you want them to have it 'til they
graduate, or even become adults in the workforce that they decide to go in.
Having those doors open and the possibilities being just endless.”

Provide instructional feedback. Evidence in this study suggests that school
administrators rely heavily on mentor teachers and instructional coaches to provide teachers with
strategies to improve instruction. School leaders must believe students in high poverty schools
can meet the academic indicators for state testing and that the teaching staff is capable of
providing the necessary instruction to achieve such results.
Pajares (2006) defines two principles for self-motivation that apply to the finding in this
study. First, high self-efficacy has been found to increase motivation. Second, an expectation
for success often leads to an increase in learning and motivation for students. As previously
illustrated by Figure 2, the word mentor appeared in the context of increasing teacher capacity
through opportunities for teachers to observe staff behaviors. The observations of teacher
behaviors tended to be directed toward increasing academic performance.
Organization Recommendations
Strategic operations. T-PESS requires school administrators to maintain strategic
operations. Two different strategic operations include strategic planning and tactical resource
management. Figure 7 shows a word cloud of the most frequently used words to describe
organizational strategies that school administrators use to meet the expectations of strategic
management. Memos and annotations from the interviews with school administrators suggested
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 69
a gap in how instructional materials get acquired when a Texas public school district does not
address what teachers’ need to improve instruction in their classroom.

Figure 7. Words used by school administrators to describe organizational strategies.

Allocation of school resources. Determining cost-effectiveness in the field of education
is a growing issue as illustrated by recent empirical research (Fielding, 2002; Fullan, 2005; Ross,
2012). Snow and Williamson (2015) studied decentralized budgeting for schools in
Massachusetts to understand the budgetary control and influence on school principals. In a
sample of 179 school districts, 23% respondents agreed that the school principal has complete
control of the budget and 34% respondents agreed that the school principal had a great deal of
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 70
influence on the budget. This research suggests that school administrators have limited control
in the selection of school resources. Therefore, it is essential to build capacity for school leaders
to request resources from administrators at the district level.
Time, goal, and resources are all necessary for implementing systemic change. Lidow
(2019) argues these things are important because an organization’s goals cannot be achieved
without enabling resources. Research on the allocation of school funds spotlight the inequity in
the district to school appropriations (Grissom & Loeb, a2011; Lidow, 2019). Cobb-Clark and
Jha (2016) found a correlation between resources and student achievement. However, school
leaders must use the resources adopted by the local district or school board. Therefore, much of
the research on the allocation of school funding is interesting but possibly irrelevant to school
administrators. Grissom and Loeb (2011) found that school principals in high-poverty schools
are more likely to feel confident in their instructional leadership skills than in the effectiveness of
their organizational management skills as compared to other school administrators. Lidow
recommends that leaders start with listing resources rather than goals. This procedural change
encourages leaders to prioritize initiatives according to resources needed to support the measures
of success.
Progress monitoring. Results from this study show that 100% of the school
improvement plans analyzed have formative checkpoints to monitor progress, but only 20%
showed evidence-tracking progress on the documents available for review. Although Jones
(2013) examined benchmark testing in Texas public schools and found a “negative relationship
between the number of benchmark tests a district required and the percent of students passing the
state tests” (p. xi), organizational change theory suggests that progress monitoring can help
improve student outcomes. Evaluating productivity increases when progressing toward a goal.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 71
Research suggests that formative evaluations supports goal attainment (Bogue & Hall, 2003), but
too many benchmarks may have a reverse effect on student achievement (Jones, 2013). This
suggests the need for school administrators to communicate benchmark progress to staff
throughout the school year while also trying to minimize the frequency of benchmarking testing.
The recommendation then is to review the checkpoints of school improvement plans with
responsible staff to make formative adjustments to meet the goals of the school improvement
plan. For example, school administrators should review the impact of an initiative concerning
the measure of success throughout the life of the school improvement plan.
Kotter (1995) suggests that planning for visible performance improvements are only one
part of transforming an organization. It is also necessary to consider the effectiveness of
progress in monitoring school improvement plans. Fernandez (2011) found that, although 97%
of schools in Texas complete a school improvement plan, only high-quality school improvement
plans can be attributed to improving results for student achievement. Dunaway, Kim, and Szad
(2012) found that in a survey of 403 certified staff, 90% of the participants who identified as
school administrators valued school improvement plan and attributed their plan to improvements,
whereas only 26% of the staff that identify as teachers agreed that school improvement plans
were valued and helped improve student outcomes. Childs and Russells (2017) put the burden of
responsibility on state education agencies to build capacity for change in low-performing public
schools. They found that technical assistance provided by the state education agency at five
states was the catalyst for expanding resources that enabled systemic change more so than the
local education agencies could provide directly to the schools. Taking these perspectives into
account, the most brilliant of school improvement plans are likely to be ineffective if the school
does not have resources, buy-in from staff, and responsible practices for plan implementation.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 72

Limitations and Delimitations
There are several limitations to this study that open opportunities for future research.
There are limitations to the sample size and ability to generalize findings. The primary
methodology relies on multiple sources of documents analysis and interviews. Although the
school administrators are responsible for the public postings required by the TEA, it is unknown
to what extent the school administrator participated in the development of the SIP plan.
Additionally, because of response bias, the researcher cannot verify that everything a
respondent shares in an interview is entirely truthful. Most of the documents are limited to those
that are accessible to the public. The interviews were used to strengthen the validity of the study.
The sample was purposefully selected based on state accountability ratings with a student
population that represents a high number of students identified as low-SES. But, the school
administrators’ influence on the level of school achievement was not assessed in this study.
Another limitation is the scope of the research. Time and money limited the researcher’s
opportunity to expand the study beyond one region in Texas. There were also three schools that
chose not to participate in the interviews. It is assumed that this was due to a lack of support
from the district administration. However, part of the analysis also revealed that all three of the
schools were at risk for failure to identify students with disabilities. Respondents may have
feared that participation would expose them to future investigations by the state agency.
Lastly, is the limitation of reflexivity and positionality. The researcher is a former school
administrator of a high poverty elementary school, which may have influenced the interpretation
of findings. The researcher is also an employee of the state agency. Although rigorous selection
criteria were used to ensure that there was not a conflict of interest, it is unknown if the status of
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 73
the researcher contributed to the limitations of what respondents were willing to share in
interviews, which may also have deterred some school administrators from participating.
Conclusions
The TEA reported that 163,437 students attended a public school that was low
performing in 2017-2018. This field study investigated strategies currently used by school
administrators who had been identified as high achievers while working in high-poverty schools
in one region of Texas. Using Clark and Estes (2008) KMO framework, a comprehensive gap
analysis from multiple sources of data and interviews revealed that school administrators in this
study tend to rely on distributed leadership to improve the teaching quality of reading instruction
through mentorships from instructional coaches and other teaching staff. Although there is value
in distributed leadership, there was less evidence to support executive leadership.
The demographics of public schools in Texas are changing with 58% of students
representing a special population of students that are economically disadvantaged (TEA, 2017).
Research suggests that low performing schools tend to be disproportionately represented by
high-poverty districts (Allen, 2010; Clayton, 2011). Selection of study participants was
purposeful to synthesize how nine different schools are implementing change initiatives to
improve student achievement. Eight of the nine schools are currently meeting the state
expectations for gap closure and academic progress. Implications from this study suggest that
there is a need for the state agency to continue supporting low-performing schools through
specialized grants and technical assistance based on the diverse needs of each school.
The conclusions from this study suggest a need for on-going research related to wicked
problems in public schools. For example, the agency should examine the turnover rate and re-
assignment rate of school administrators who serve in high poverty, public schools. Future
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 74
research should consider differences in, for example, the allocation of resources and budget
practices or school leadership styles that exist between the gender and age of school
administrators (Xu, Wubbena, & Stewart, 2016). While gender and age were not part of this
study, field notes suggest that principal preparation programs may need to consider those
elements for developing executive leadership skills in future school administrators.
Lastly, the importance of addressing school achievement for high poverty schools is not
limited to state accountability ratings. The rate of students identified as economically
disadvantaged is growing and interest in the profession of teaching appears to be declining
(TEA, 2018). Students who are economically disadvantaged are at risk for repeating a
generational cycle of poverty that impacts other wicked problems like physical health, mental
health, food and shelter (Duncan, Ziol-Guest, & Kalil, 2010). Relative performance measures to
measure school progress in relation to similar schools are not a substitute for creating equitable
access to a high-quality instruction. Such high-quality instruction can leverage culturally
proficient teaching for economically diverse student populations to improve student outcomes,
but such culturally proficient teaching may be affected by continual policy changes that create
high-stakes testing environments (Guerra & Wubbena, 2017).

WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 75
Appendix A: Stakeholders and Sampling Criteria

Stakeholders

Sampling
Strategy
Number in Stakeholder
population)
Number of
Proposed
participants
from
stakeholder
population
Start and
End Date
for Data
Collection
Interviews: Purposeful There were 84 high-poverty
elementary schools that met
the criteria for academic
achievement in one region of
Texas.
Five of Nine
stakeholders
are represented
in by an
interview
10/2018-
3/2019

Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion #1: School administrator. The first criterion for the interview participants is
that they are a school principal or administrator of a high-poverty elementary school. The
second criteria is that multiple sources of data that include the School Improvement Plan, state
assessment data, CNAs, and district performance data is available for analysis to support
findings (Creswell, 2014; Johnson & Christenson, 2014).
Criterion #2: High-poverty schools. Participants are actively leading a school in one
region of Texas where 75% or more students identified as economically disadvantaged. This
purposeful sample aligns to the conceptual framework because the purpose of the study is to
determine if poverty affects high-poverty schools differently and can be considered a wicked
problem for education (Rittel & Webber, 1973).
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 76
The purposeful sampling of the school administrators is to determine if schools in the
same region will identify the same or different knowledge, motivation, and organizational
barriers because of serving a high concentration of students with low SES. The researcher chose
specific interview candidates through document analysis to allow for the maximum variation of
participants in high-poverty schools within the region (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), maximum variation is aligned to grounded
theory to capture similarities and differences between a wide range of participants in one context
to understand the phenomena of wicked problems in education.
Interviews were offered at the administrator’s school at a time of their choosing to allow for the
interviews to take place in a natural setting (Creswell, 2014). However, only two administrators
accepted an in person interview. The other three participants scheduled a phone conference. The
initial target was to sample ten school leaders in high-poverty schools, but saturation for the area
was established after five interviews. The emergent design is consistent with qualitative design
methods and data findings support decision to conclude the study (Creswell, 2014).
Explanation for Choices
Alkin and Vo (2011) explain that evaluations are at the root of decisions. Therefore,
document analysis has been chosen to better understand the decision making of school leaders in
high-poverty schools and code evidence of implanted actions. Public records were the primary
documents used in the qualitative analysis and interviews with school administrators were used
to build on a better understanding of the findings (Creswell, 2014). The use of an interview as
the choice for validating results from the document analysis is supported by a grounded theory
methodology because the data collected in the interviews will support the coded findings from
multiple sources of data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 77
Another consideration was the use of focus groups to interview 6-8 participants from
multiple districts. Although this method would strengthen the number of participants, it is more
relevant to the spirit of the research to use the natural setting that each administrator works in to
manage issues associated with high-poverty schools (Creswell. 2014). Lastly, the design
element to conduct interviews in one region of Texas is to allow for the researcher to act as a key
instrument and allow for convenient access to the participants in the interview.

WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 78
Appendix B: Protocols
KMO Influences
Knowledge (K)
 K – Factual (K-F) - School leaders need to identify needs for improving student
achievement.
 K – Conceptual (K-C) - School Administrators need to implement practitioner-led
inquiry is part of the learning process for schools.
 K - Conceptual (K-C) - School administrators need to engage in reflection that evaluates
the use of data and the inquiry led process based on Malloy (2011) 10 steps for
practitioner-led inquiry.
Motivation (M)
 M - Utility value (K-UV) – School leaders need to ensure staff demonstrates a focus for
learning that is measurable and aligned to curriculum standards.
 M - Self-Efficacy (M-SE) – School leaders need to believe students in high-poverty
schools can meet the academic indicators.
 M - Cost belief (M-CB) – School leaders need to create professional development that is
meaningful and purposeful.
 M - Goal Orientation (M-GO) School leaders, should want to meet or exceed state
proficiency standards.
Organization (O)
 - Cultural Models (O-CM) - Schools have different resources for delivering instruction
and accessing community resources
 - Cultural Setting (O-CS) - Process for continuous improvement.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 79
Protocol Questions
 K-F: What percent of students are eligible for free/reduced lunch at your school?
 K-C: If you had to explain what a school improvement plan is to someone, what would
you say?
 K-C: How do you know that staff is using student data to drive instructional decisions?
 K-M: Tell me about the last time you reflected on what you know about meeting student
needs.
 M-GO: Some might say that school accountability ratings are not valuable to school
leaders and staff. What are your thoughts?
 M-SE: What do you believe are some of the reasons for your school's current
accountability rating?
 M-CB: Can you describe how confident you are about your ability to meet staff and
student needs as an instructional leader?
 O-CM: What is the water cooler talk at your school as it relates to student performance?
 O-CM: Some schools are resistant to change. How do you describe your school staff's
willingness to try new teaching strategies?
 O-CS: How do you ensure your school has the resources it needs to produce student
results each year?

WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 80
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness
This study used three specific strategies to ensure that the data collected is credible and
trustworthy. To ensure that the schools researched reflect the reality of the schools (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016), the researcher reflected on bias and reactivity throughout the data collection
process (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher also confronted known bias that can be implicit in the
conclusions drawn and share those perceptions of the study (Maxwell, 2013). Therefore, the
collection of rich data, triangulation, and member checks were used to increase credibility and
the trustworthiness of the study.
Rich data as described by Maxwell (2013) allows the researcher to capture what is
observed and directly stated while in the field. This collection of data allowed the researcher to
interpret from a holistic view (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Therefore, this strategy was used to
script and document information during the data collection and through intense reflection
immediately following the collection of data and during the analysis of data.
Multiple sources of data collection allow for the triangulation of analyzed data.
Methodological approaches to the study include the use of documents and interviews from
different settings and sources to provide a diverse range of data collection for analysis (Maxwell,
2013). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) note that triangulation is one of the best-known strategies to
ensure credibility in a qualitative study. The use of triangulation was applied during the analysis
process of the data collection.
Lastly, the researcher employed respondent validation (Maxwell, 2013) through member
checks (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to obtain feedback from the school administrators who are
interviewed. This validation came in the form of validating and clarifying statements during the
interview. For example, the researcher used the phrasing stem, “What I hear you saying is …” to
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 81
clarify how information is being interpreted. The interviewer also check against document
analysis through the prompt, “Tell me about …” The strategy was used both during the data
collection and as needed in the analysis phase of the study.

WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 82
Appendix D: Validity and Reliability
This study used an emergent qualitative design approach (Creswell, 2014) to better
understand the needs of school administrators for high-poverty schools that are rated as low
achieving in Texas. Therefore, the sample and data collection methods are purposeful (Creswell,
2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Data triangulated (Maxwell, 2013) between the collection of
interviews with school administrators, documents and artifacts (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), and
observations of the schools in which school leaders are sampled. These methodological
approaches were chosen to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements that
school administrators believe compromise the schools ability to meet the state accountability
performance indicators and recommend potential solutions.
For example, interviews focused primarily on knowledge and motivation influences
while document analysis was used to assess organizational barriers. Documents and artifacts
were used to verify knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers that are observed, and
determine the schools that meet the criteria for the selection of observations and interviews.
Therefore, documents and artifacts will start the data collection process and be utilized
throughout the study. An interview protocol will be developed, but a combination strategy to
incorporate both a standardized-interview format and more informal conversations will be
utilized validate and clarify document analysis and observations (Patton, 2002).
Documents and Artifacts
The first document collected was the state accountability data for the 2018 accountability
rating system. The list of schools meeting that criteria for participation was obtained from a
public website made available by the Division of Performance Rating for the Department of
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 83
Assessment and Accountability at the TEA. The list of schools was used to purposefully select
nine schools from one region of Texas to sample for document analysis and interviews.
Other documents used for data collection included the Campus Needs Assessment and
School Improvement Plan. These artifacts were examined for each school selected to research
and attempt an interview. The interview questions emerged from the synthesize of data collected
from the documents of the schools selected for the study.
Interview protocol. This study used a semi-structured protocol. The interview started
with a structured protocol, but the researcher occasionally had to add additional clarifying
questions based on data collected during the preliminary documents analysis (Patton, 2002).
Maxwell (2013) refers to this strategy as member checking and claims that it is one of the most
effective ways to rule out researcher bias or misunderstandings of data collected.
The interview protocol was developed with questions that focus on knowledge,
motivation, and organizational barriers. It was assumed that school administrator were aware of
the schools rating and the state compliance requirements for improving student achievement.
Rather, the few knowledge questions developed in the protocol addressed the use of data to
support administrative decisions to improve the school’s rating. Open-ended questions that use
hypothetical, devil’s advocate perspective, ideal situation lens, and interpretive stems were used
in the interview protocol (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Interview procedures. Interviews were scheduled for a maximum of sixty minutes at a
time of the respondents choosing. A phone interview and email were optional alternative when
respondents needed to reschedule an in-person interview or simply requests the alternative for
personal choice. The in-person interview at the school was the preferred method for the study
because it allowed the respondent to be interviewed in their natural setting to provide the
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 84
researcher the opportunity to observe how the school administrators interacts in the school
environment (Weiss, 1994). Time of day was at the discretion of the respondent to be respectful
of their time and minimize distractions.
Only one interview was scheduled with each school administrator. Although multiple
observations and interviews will strengthen the research (Weiss, 1994), those opportunities will
need to be expanded on in future studies. None of the participating school administrators were
interviewed for more than one hour. All documents were collected by the researcher from public
resources.

WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 85
Appendix E: Ethics
Researchers have an ethical responsibility to keep participants safe and informed about
the potential consequences of their support in any study. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are
required for all universities receiving federal funding (Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The
purpose of the IRB is to consider the wellbeing of any person that will be studied or used in the
research (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The ethics section of this study will use the five components of
the federal guidelines for IRB to frame how this proposed research will use participants. Glesne
(2011) explains that the components should include (a) intentions to inform participants about
the study, (b) the ability of the participant to withdraw at any time, (c) risks to the participants
well-being, (d) capacity of the research to benefit the participant or society, and (e) the
researcher is qualified to conduct the study.
I used a qualitative design to obtain information from school administrators in a Texas.
A purposeful sample of school administrators in high-poverty schools that are within one region
of Texas were interviewed. During the interview, the researcher verbally explained the purpose
of the research and how the research seeks to benefit vulnerable populations of students and help
determine future streams of research for equitable accountability measures for high poverty
schools.
Although I work with the state agency, I am not in a supervisory role of any participants.
However, I did create a document of informed consent that binds me to provide participants
anonymity. I believe this helped to build a trusting relationship with participants (Glesne, 2011).
Rubin and Rubin (2012) warn that my experience as a school administrator in a high poverty
school may also influence my interpretation of the data collected in the interviews. Therefore, I
was conscious to withhold my opinions and use a written plan (Patton, 2002) that allowed
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 86
participants to preview the interview questions to limit the potential bias effects of my role as
researcher and colleague (Glesne, 2011). The written plan was a standardized open-ended
interview (Weiss, 1994). Although Weiss (1994) warns that this design can limit the scope of
the qualitative research, I feel that the strength of comparability in the analysis outweighed the
weaknesses that can be followed up on in future research opportunities.
I safeguarded all digital audio recordings of the research by saving them on a personal
account that is not linked to the organization and schedule the interviews outside of working
hours to limit any rights of the state agency to the recordings. Taking the precautions will also
helped the administrators to separate my role as researcher rather than a representative of the
TEA.

WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 87
References
Alkin, M. C., & Vo, A. T. (2011). Evaluation essentials: From A to Z. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Allen, R. (2010). ASCD Info brief: Turnaround schools place hope in new leadership. ASCD,
16(2). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/newsletters/policy-
priorities/vol16/issue2/summary/toc.aspx
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/education.aspx
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Pearson.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bardach, E., & Patashnik, E. (2016). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to
more effective problem solving (5
th
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Barley, M. (2012). Learning from reflective practice and metacognition: An anaesthetist’s
perspective. Reflective Practice, 13(2), 271–280. doi:10.1080/14623943.2012.657792
Beach, R. H., & Lindahl, R. (2004). Identifying the knowledge base for school improvement.
Planning and Changing, 35(1), 2–32. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com/docview/218770581?accountid=14749
Bogue, E. G., & Hall, K. B. (2003). Quality and accountability in higher education: Improving
policy, enhancing performance. London: Praeger.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 88
Bolden, R (2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), 251–269.
Bower, H., & Parsons, E. (2016). Teacher identity and reform: Intersections within school
culture. Urban Review, 48(5), 743–765. doi:10.1007/s11256-016-0376-7
Bracey, G. W. (2004). Assessment. Assessment, 86(4), 331–333.
doi:10.1177/003172170408600421
Bracey, G. W. (2011). Getting the word out: Challenges and opportunities in explaining
educational research to the world. In The SAGE handbook for research in education:
Pursuing ideas as the keystone of exemplary inquiry (pp. 381–394). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Brewer, C., Knoeppel, R. C., & Lindle, J. C. (2015). Consequential validity of accountability
policy. Educational Policy, 29(5), 711–745. doi:10.1177/0895904813518099
Broadhead, P., Cuckle, P., Hodgson, J., & Dunford, J. (1996). Improving primary schools
through school development planning. Building a vision, exploring the reality.
Educational Management & Administration, 24(3), 277–290.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Butler, R. (2007). Teachers’ achievement goal orientations and associations with teachers' help
seeking: Examination of a novel approach to teacher motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99(2), 241–252. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.241
Camillus, J. C. (2008). Strategy as a wicked problem. Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/2008/05/strategy-as-a-wicked-problem
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 89
Childs, J., & Russell, J. L. (2017). Improving low-achieving schools: Building state capacity to
support school improvement through race to the top. Urban Education, 52(2), 236–266.
doi:10.1177/0042085916656899
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Clark, T. A., & McCarthy, D. P. (1983). School improvement in New York City: The evolution
of a project. Educational Researcher, 12(4), 17–24.
Clayton, J. (2011). Changing diversity in U.S. schools: The impact on elementary student
performance and achievement. Education and Urban Society, 43(6), 671–695.
doi:10.1177/0013124510380909
Cobb-Clark, D. A., & Jha, N. (2016). Educational achievement and the allocation of school
resources. Australian Economic Review, 49(3), 251–271.
Conley, D. T. (1993). Roadmap to restructuring: Policies, practices and the emerging visions of
schooling. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. University of
Oregon.
Cohen-Vogel, L., Tichnor-Wagner, A., Allen, D., Harrison, C., Kainz, K., Socol, A. R., & Wang,
Q. (2015). Implementing educational innovations at scale: Transforming researchers into
continuous improvement scientists. Educational Policy, 29(1), 257–277.
doi:10.1177/0895904814560886
Cosner, S., & Jones, M. F. (2016). Leading school-wide improvement in low-performing schools
facing conditions of accountability: Key actions and considerations. Journal of
Educational Administration, 54(1), 41–57. doi:10.1108/JEA-08-2014-0098
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 90
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of “No
Child Left Behind.” Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 245–260.
doi:10.1080/13613320701503207
Darling-Hammond, L, & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: what
teachers should learn and be able to do. Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., Bae, S., Cook-Harvey, C. M., Lam, L., Mercer, C., Podolsky, A., &
Stosich, E. L. (2016). Pathways to new accountability through the every student succeeds
act. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from
https://Learningpolicyinstitute.Org/Wp-Content/Uploads/2016/04/Pathways_New-
Accountability_Through_Every_Student_Succeeds_Act_04202016.Pdf
Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418–446. doi:10.1002/pam.20586
Deeds, V., & Pattillo, M. (2015). Organizational “failure” and institutional pluralism. Urban
Education, 50(4), 474–504. doi:10.1177/0042085913519337
Dennis, R. J. (2009). Building a new law school: A story from the trenches. Rutgers Law Review,
61(4), 1079–1097.
Dubnick, M. (2014). Accountability as cultural keyword. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T.
Schillemans (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 23–38). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”?. Educational leadership,
61(8), 6–11.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 91
Dunaway, D. M., Kim, D., & Szad, E. R. (2012). Perceptions of the purpose and value of the
school improvement plan process. The Educational Forum, 76(2), 158–173.
doi:10.1080/00131725.2011.652490
Duncan, G. J., Ziol-Guest, K., & Kalil, A. (2010). Early-childhood poverty and adult attainment,
behavior, and health. Child Development, 81(1), 306–325.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Education Code Chapter 39. Public School System Accountability. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.39.htm
Egalite, A. J., Fusarelli, L. D., & Fusarelli, B. C. (2017). Will decentralization affect educational
inequity? The Every Student Succeeds Act. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5),
757–781. doi:10.1177/0013161X17735869
Every Child Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, Public Law No. 114-95, S.1177, 114th Congress.
(2015). Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-
114publ95.pdf
Fernandez, K. E. (2011). Evaluating school improvement plans and their affect on academic
performance. Educational Policy, 25(2), 338–367. doi:10.1177/0895904809351693
Fielding, A. (2002) Teaching groups as foci for evaluating performance in cost-effectiveness of
GCE advanced level provision: Some practical methodological innovations. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(2), 225–246. doi:10.1076/sesi.13.2.225.3435
Finnigan, K. S., & Gross, B. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher
motivation? lessons from Chicago's low-performing schools. American Educational
Research Journal, 44(3), 594–629.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 92
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces. London: Routledge.
Fullan, M. G. (2005). Turnaround leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 174–181.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56.
Gamoran, A., & An, B. (2016). Effects of school segregation and school resources in a changing
policy context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(1), 43–64.
doi:10.3102/0162373715585604
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gokce, F. (2010). Assessment of teacher motivation. School Leadership & Management, 30(5),
487–499.
Goldhaber, D., Quince, V., & Theobald, R. (2018). Has it always been this way? Tracing the
evolution of teacher quality gaps in U.S. public schools. American Educational Research
Journal, 55(1), 171–201. doi:10.3102/0002831217733445
Grissom, J., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of
parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial
skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1091–123.
Guerra, P., & Wubbena, Z. C. (2017). Teacher beliefs and classroom practices cognitive
dissonance in high stakes test-influenced environments. Issues in Teacher Education,
26(1), 35–51.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2011). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (3rd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 93
Hanushek, E. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An
update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141–164.
Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved
student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 297–327.
Hatcher, R. (2005). The distribution of leadership and power in schools. British Journal of
Sociology of Education 26(2), 253–267.
Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711–739.
doi:10.1177/0095399713481601
Hiebert, J., & Morris, A. K. (2012). Teaching, rather than teachers, as a path toward improving
classroom instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(2), 92–102.
Hochbein, C., Mitchell, A. M., & Pollio, M. (2013). Gamed by the system. NASSP Bulletin,
97(3), 270–289. doi:10.1177/0192636513479139
Holloway, J., Nielsen, A., & Saltmarsh, S. (2018). Prescribed distributed leadership in the era of
accountability: The experiences of mentor teachers. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 46(4), 538–555. doi:10.1177/1741143216688469
Holme, J. J., & Rangel, V. S. (2012). Putting school reform in its place: Social geography,
organizational social capital, and school performance. American Educational Research
Journal, 49(2), 257–283.
Huber, D. J., & Conway, J. M. (2015). The effect of school improvement planning on student
achievement. Planning and Changing, 46(1/2), 56–70. Retrieved from
https://education.illinoisstate.edu/planning/articles/vol46.php
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 94
Hubers, M. D., Schildkamp, K., Poortman, C. J., & Pieters, J. M. (2017). The quest for sustained
data use: Developing organizational routines. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 509–
521. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.07.007
Johnson, B. (1998). Polarity management: A summary introduction. Polarity Management
Associates, 1–16. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000003846
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Jones, K. D. (2013). The myth of benchmark testing: Isomorphic practices in Texas public school
districts’ use of benchmark testing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas State
University, San Marcos, TX.
Kahlenberg, R. D. (2010). Socioeconomic school integration. In M. Shinn & H. Yoshikawa
(Eds.), Toward positive youth development: Transforming schools and community
programs (pp. 255–270). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kena, G., Hussar, W., McFarland, J., de Brey, C., Musu-Gillette, L., Wang, X., … Dunlop
Velez, E. (2016). The condition of education. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED565888.pdf
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review.
Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1995/05/leading-change-why-transformation-efforts-fail-2
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(2), 212–218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 95
Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement
research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432–479.
doi:10.3102/0034654313480891
Leithwood, K., & Strauss, T. (2009). Turnaround schools: Leadership lessons. Education
Canada, 49(2), 26–29.
Lenarduzzi, G. P. (2015). Critical incident effects on principals. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 43(2), 253–268. doi:10.1177/1741143213513190
Levine, D. U., & Leibert, R. E. (1987). Improving school improvement plans. The Elementary
School Journal, 87(4), 397–412.
Leithwood, K. A. (1992). The principal’s role in teacher development. In M. Fullan & A.
Hargreaves (Eds.), Teacher development and educational change (pp. 86–103), London:
Falmer Press.
Liebman, J. S., & Mbikiwa, M. (2016). Every dollar counts: In defense of the education
department's ‘supplement not supplant' proposal. Columbia Law Review, 117(2), 1–13.
Lidow, D. (2019). A better way to set strategic priorities. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved
from https://hbr.org/2017/02/a-better-way-to-set-strategic-
priorities?referral=03759&cm_vc=rr_item_page.bottom
Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of
requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6),
3–16.
Logan, J. R., Minca, E., & Adar, S. (2012). The geography of inequality: Why separate means
unequal in American public schools. Sociology of Education, 85(3), 287–301.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 96
Lumby, J. (2013). Distributed leadership: The uses and abuses of power. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 581–597.
doi:10.1177/1741143213489288
Malloy, C. (2011). Moving beyond data: Practitioner-led inquiry fosters change. Phi Delta
Kappa International, 6(4), 1–20.
Marks, H. M., & Nance, J. P. (2007). Contexts of accountability under systemic reform:
Implications for principal influence on instruction and supervision. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 3–37. doi:10.1177/0013161X06291414
Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps.
Teachers College Record, 114, 1–48.
Marsh, J., & Farrell, C. (2015). How leaders can support teachers with data-driven decision
making: A framework for understanding capacity building. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 43(2), 269–289. doi:10.1177/1741143214537229
Marshall, K. (2012). Fine-tuning teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 50–54.
Marzano, R. J., & Toth, M. D. (2013). Teacher evaluation that makes a difference: A new model
for teacher growth and student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASED.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
doi:10.1037/h0054346
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 97
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What's good, what's not,
and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Means, B., Padilla, C., Gallagher, L. (2010). Use of educational data at the local level: From
accountability to instructional improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4
th
ed.). San Franscisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Meyers, C. V., & Hatt, D-H. (2018). Planning for school turnaround in the United States: An
analysis of the quality of principal-developed quick wins. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 29(3), 362–382. doi:10.1080/09243453.2018.1428202
Morrell, E. (2017). Toward equity and diversity in literacy research, policy, and practice: A
critical, global approach. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(3), 454–463.
doi:10.1177/1086296X17720963
Murgatroyd, S. (2010). ‘Wicked problems’ and the work of the school. European Journal of
Education, 45(2), 259–279.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Educational attainment differences by students’
socioeconomic status. Author.
National Center for Children in Poverty. (2016). Child poverty. Retrieved from
http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. Washington, DC: National Commission on Excellence in Education.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 107 U.S.C. § 110 (2002).
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 98
Oved, O. (2017). Rethinking the place of love needs in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Society,
54(6), 537–538. doi:10.1007/s12115-017-0186-x
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal,
experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261–283.
Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as drivers of learning and cognitive development. In R. A. Calvo &
S. K. D’Mello (Eds.), New perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 23–39).
New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-9625-1_3
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Rebell, M. A. (2007). Poverty meaningful educational opportunity, and the necessary role of the
courts. North Carolina Law Review, 85, 1467–1542.
Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school leaders can take
charge. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4531523
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and Reflective thinking.
Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866.
Ross, J. (2012). Cost-effectiveness of comprehensive school reform in low achieving schools.
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 58(1), 139–159.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 99
Rubie-Davies, C., Flint, A., & McDonald, L. (2012). Teacher beliefs, teacher characteristics, and
school contextual factors: What are the relationships? British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(2), 270–288.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Rumberger, R. (2007). Parsing the data on student achievement in high-poverty schools. North
Carolina Law Review, 85, 1293–1314.
Schein, E. H. (2010). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother? In E. H. Schein (Ed.),
Organizational culture and leadership (3
rd
ed., pp. 3–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
Simpson, R. L., Lacava, P. G., & Patricia, S. G. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act:
Challenges and implications for educators. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(2), 67–
75. doi:10.1177/10534512040400020101
Snow, D., & Williamson, A. (2015). Accountability and micromanagement: Decentralized
budgeting in Massachusetts school districts. Public Administration Quarterly, 39(2),
220–258.
Strunk, K. O., Marsh, J. A., Bush-Mecenas, S. C., & Duque, M. R. (2016). The best laid plans:
An examination of school plan quality and implementation in a school improvement
initiative. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 259–309.
doi:10.1177/0013161X15616864

WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 100
Texas Administrative Code, 19 TAC §129.2001.
Texas Education Agency (2016). Customer Satisfaction Surveys. Retrieved from
https://tea.texas.gov/About_TEA/Welcome_and_Overview/Previous_Strategic_Plans_an
d_Customer_Satisfaction_Surveys/
Texas Education Agency. (2017). TEA strategic plan. Retrieved from
https://tea.texas.gov/About_TEA/Welcome_and_Overview/TEA_Strategic_Plan/
Texas Education Agency (2018). Annual Report. Retrieved from
https://tea.texas.gov/AnnualReport/
Texas Education Agency. (n.d.). Charting a course for the professional growth and development
of principals. Retrieved from https://tpess.org/
Thoonen, E. E. J., Sleegers, P. J. C., Oort, F. J., Peetsma, T. T. D., & Geijsel, F. (2011). How to
improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and
leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 496–536.
doi:10.1177/0013161X11400185
Tichnor-Wagner, A., Wachen, J., Cannata, M., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2017). Continuous
improvement in the public school context: Understanding how educators respond to
plan–do–study–act cycles. Journal of Educational Change, 18(4), 465–494.
doi:10.1007/s10833-017-9301-4
Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Thomas Shanks, S. J., & Meyer, M. J. (2011). Thinking ethically: A
framework for moral decision-making. Retrieved from
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/thinking.html
Vinovskis, M. (2015). From A Nation at Risk to No Child Left Behind: National education goals
and the creation of federal education policy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
WICKED PROBLEMS FOR HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS 101
Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and
collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review, 68(2),
334–349. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00866.x
Weiner, L. (2007). A lethal threat to U.S. teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,
58(4), 274–286. doi:10.1177/0022487107305603
Weiss, R. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
Wholey, J. S. (1994). Assessing the feasibility and likely usefulness of evaluation. In J. S.
Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program
evaluation (pp. 15-39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publisher.
Xu, L., Wubbena, Z., & Stewart, T. (2016). Measurement invariance of second-order factor
model of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) across K-12 principal gender.
Journal of Educational Administration, 54(6), 727–748. doi:10.1108/JEA-01-2015-0001
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Texas implemented an A-F accountability system in 2018. This qualitative study examined how elementary school administrators in nine high-poverty elementary schools plan to meet annual accountability measures. Data were based on documents and interviews with school administrators. An analysis of knowledge influences, motivational influences, and organizational barriers reveal that school leaders must implement a practitioner-led inquiry model to meet the unique needs of that impact each campus serving a low SES population.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Challenging stigmas and perceptions in alternative high schools through mentorship: an innovation study

PDF

Effects of mentoring on public school administrators: an evaluation study

PDF

Reforming student discipline policies in elementary schools: an improvement study

PDF

Role of college program administrators in addressing gender gap in computer science

PDF

Utilizing a continuous improvement process to improve student outcomes

PDF

Trending upward: an evaluation study of teacher practices in serving special needs students in a public high school

PDF

K-12 college and career readiness guidance: an improvement study

PDF

School-based interventions for chronically absent students in poverty

PDF

Implementing effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level in the Air Force: an innovation study

PDF

Understanding barriers in consumer health advocacy: an improvement study

PDF

The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

Relationship between employee disengagement and employee performance among facilities employees in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Influencing teacher retention: an evaluation study

PDF

Equitable schooling for African American students: an evaluation study

PDF

K-12 dress codes and gender equity: an examination of policy and practice of dress code implementation

PDF

Satisfactory academic progress for doctoral students: an improvement study

PDF

Sense of belonging in an online high school: looking to connect

PDF

Managing successful organizational change for faculty in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Practicable principal leadership in low socioeconomic elementary schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Papas, Scarlett (author)

Core Title Wicked problems for high poverty schools: an improvement study in Texas

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 06/27/2019

Defense Date 05/10/2019

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

Tag accountability,Education,high poverty schools,OAI-PMH Harvest,school administrators,Schools,wicked problems

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Freking, Frederick (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Maddox, Anthony (committee member)

Creator Email scarlett.papas@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-179516

Unique identifier UC11660207

Identifier etd-PapasScarl-7517.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-179516 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PapasScarl-7517.pdf

Dmrecord 179516

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Papas, Scarlett

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA