Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
High performing schools in high risk environments: a study on leadership, school safety, and student achievement at two urban middle schools in Los Angeles County
(USC Thesis Other)
High performing schools in high risk environments: a study on leadership, school safety, and student achievement at two urban middle schools in Los Angeles County
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
HIGH PERFORMING SCHOOLS IN HIGH RISK ENVIRONMENTS:
A STUDY ON LEADERSHIP, SCHOOL SAFETY,
AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AT TWO URBAN MIDDLE SCHOOLS
IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
by
Gus Frias
_____________________________________________________________________
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
May 2010
Copyright 2010 Gus Frias
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to Almighty God for granting me the
blessings of life, family, and higher education. Specifically, I thank God for
teaching me to confront and transform human weakness with the moral strengths
of the heart, the mind, and the spirit. As I continue my journey in this world, I
pray that He will persist in teaching my peers and I that the purpose of His
blessings is to help the most needy humans amongst us.
I also dedicate this dissertation to all the students and educators killed or
wounded on America’s school grounds. May this work serve to communicate to
them, and their surviving families, that my peers and I are committed to honor
their memories by dedicating our existence to serve and protect the lives of all
American children.
This dissertation is also dedicated to all the leading educators at the Office
of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, which is part of the United States Department of
Education, and all the excellent educators at the Los Angeles County Office of
Education. Similarly, I dedicate this academic work to all school board members,
superintendents, principals, teachers, counselors, support staff, parents, and police
officers working diligently in local schools across America. May this work serve
to honor their selfless dedication to help make America’s public schools safe and
successful learning environments.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First, from the depths of my heart, I want to thank my parents and all my
family members for their prayers, love, and support that assisted me to complete
doctoral studies at the University of Southern California. Thank you for teaching
me that families that pray and struggle together, ultimately succeed together.
I also want to thank Sheriff Lee Baca of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
Department, and Superintendent Darline Robles of the Los Angeles County
Office of Education for sponsoring me in this academic journey. Special thanks
also go to Drs. Ron Astor, Dennis Hocevar, and David Long, former California
Secretary of Education, for agreeing to be part of my dissertation committee. My
gratitude also extends to all of my professors at USC’s Rossier School of
Education for enriching my personal and professional life with their teachings.
Special thanks also go to Dr. Sue Kaiser, Dr. Marie L. LeBrucherie, Ms.
Maria Ceja, and Mrs. Lynn Bulgin for their total support of this research study. I
also thank all of the educators, support staff, parents, and police officers at the
selected middle schools for selflessly participating in this study. I am forever
gratedul to each of them.
I also thank LAPD Commander Robert Taylor (ret.), USC Professor
Margaret Chidester, Mr. Rudy Beserra, Mr. Phil Kauble, Mr. David Perez, Mr.
Sam Gonzales, Ms. Nadine Singh, Dr. Ilda Jimenez y West, and all the Concerned
Mothers of East Los Angeles for being present and helpful during my moments of
challenge and change. May Almighty God bless all of them always.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables v
Abstract vii
Chapter I: Introduction 1
Chapter II: Review of Literature 27
Chapter III: Research Design and Methodology 89
Chapter IV: Research Findings 110
Chapter V: Discussion 193
References 250
Appendices 262
A. Indicators of school crime and safety 262
B. Adult/Educator Questionnaire 263
C. Focus Group Protocol 266
D. Interview Protocol 267
E. Observation Form: On Classroom Management 269
And Instruction
F. Observation Form: On School Leadership 270
G. Faculty Surveys at Benchmark and Program 271
Improvement Schools: Responses to Research
Question 1, People and Programs
H. Faculty Surveys at Benchmark and Program 272
Improvement Schools: Responses to Research
Question 1, Places
I. Faculty Surveys at Benchmark and Program 273
Improvement Schools: Responses to
Research Question 2
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Theoretical frameworks on risk and protective factors. 23
Table 2: Research methods for two research questions at 98
Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools.
Table 3: California Standards Test results for the Benchmark and 108
Program Improvement middle schools.
Table 4: Strategy to engage the disengaged teachers, EL students, 132
and EL parents to improve student achievement at the
Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools.
Table 5: Comprehensive plan for keeping students on the 134
graduation track at the Program Improvement
middle school.
Table 6: Use of multiple frames of leadership to address a day in 137
the life of educators at the Program Improvement
middle school.
Table 7: Strategies to address the needs of failing students at 139
the Program Improvement middle school.
Table 8: Faculty surveys at the Benchmark and Program 144
Improvement middle schools’ most prominent Fully
Developed responses to component 2: Places.
Table 9: Use of multiple frames of leadership to address student 152
bullying and harassment at the Benchmark middle school.
Table 10: Use of multiple frames of leadership to address hate 154
against an African-American teacher at the Program
Improvement middle school.
Table 11: Review of comprehensive school safety plans at the 162
Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools.
Table 12: Faculty surveys at Benchmark and Program Improvement 164
middle schools’ most prominent Fully Developed
responses to component 1: People and Programs.
vi
Table 13: Comparison of attendance, behavior, and achievement 173
data at the Benchmark and Program Improvement
middle schools.
Table 14: Classroom realities at the Benchmark and Program 179
Improvement middle schools.
Table 15: Effective instructional strategies for special education 180
students at the Benchmark and Program Improvement
middle schools.
Table 16: Instructional strategies being implemented in classrooms 182
at the Benchmark middle school.
Table 17: Instructional strategies being implemented in English 183
Language Development classes at the Program
Improvement middle school.
Table 18: Study themes’ variables that differentiate the Benchmark 195
and Program Improvement middle school.
vii
ABSTRACT
In the United States of America, all students and staff have a constitutional
right to attend schools that are safe, secure, and successful. Despite this right, at
many public schools, education leaders have failed to ensure the safety and high
academic achievement of all students. The purpose of this research study is to
expand knowledge about the impact of violence on schools, and the leadership
strategies that can help improve school safety and student achievement.
This study compares a high performing Benchmark middle school to a
Program Improvement middle school. This study specifically examines two
research questions: One explores how a middle school that is located in a high
risk environment achieves high academic performance; while the other examines
the leadership factors that contribute to improve school safety and student
achievement.
This research study is composed of the following five chapters: An
introduction that addresses a background of the problem; a literature review that
includes pertinent theoretical frameworks; the methodology that specifies related
qualitative methods; the findings for three identified themes; and a discussion on
the variables that differentiate the Benchmark middle School from the one in
Program Improvement, theoretical and practical implications, future research, and
conclusions. This study shows that principal leadership is vital in working with
teachers, support staff, and other stakeholders to improve school safety and
student achievement at middle schools located in high risk environments
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In America, all children have the right to a high-quality public education
(United Nations, 1948; No Child Left Behind Act, 2002). This right includes
equal access to high quality schools that have competent administrators, teachers,
and support resources. All children also have a right to attend schools that are
safe, secure and peaceful (California Constitution, 2008). Despite these rights, at
many public schools across America, education leaders have failed to ensure
school safety and high academic achievement for all students. Instead, these
education limitations have resulted in the growth of a preponderant achievement
gap between poor, minority students and those that are classified as affluent and
white (Orfield et al., 2004; Darling-Hammond & Wood, 2008). This study
advances a hypothesis that school leadership and safety are significant factors that
impact the development of student achievement (Mayer et al., 2000).
This study focuses on exercising school leadership to maximize student
safety and academic achievement. Burns (2003) believes that leadership is
mobilizing personal and group resources to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. In education, leadership requires school personnel to maintain a
healthy existence and take decisive action to protect the lives of students and staff
(Bolman & Deal, 2006; Heifetz, 1994). School leaders are specifically required
to put themselves on the line, respond effectively to risks, and work with students
and others to ensure a safe and secure learning environment (Heifetz & Linsky,
2
2002; California Constitution, 2008). The ultimate goal of this leadership work
is to empower students with the knowledge and skills necessary to achieve
educational success in America and throughout the world (Heifetz, 1994).
School safety addresses the social, cultural, and physical aspects of
schools, as well as the personal needs of students, parents and educators
(California Education Code, Section 32282, 2008). Research shows that work in
this field is essential to the realization of a safe and productive learning
environment (Chubb & Moe, 1990; Mayer et al., 2000; Astor & Benbenishty,
2005).
Student achievement addresses the social and cognitive aspects of
learning. The realization of student achievement includes understanding a
school’s organizational culture, which manifests its shared values, attitudes,
beliefs, and behaviors among all of its stakeholders (Marzano, 2003). These
aspects also include understanding the role of the teacher in aligning standards,
instruction, and assessments, and the responsibility of parents to help improve
their children’s education. Lastly, these aspects are ultimately dependent on the
personal motivation, commitment, and effort of students. Thus, if students are
highly motivated to set high education goals, and manifest the commitment and
effort to realize them, then their degree of academic achievement is likely to
improve (Marzano, 2003).
This study explores the inter-connectedness of school leadership, safety,
and student achievement. In particular, it asserts that these specializations are
3
inter-dependent. This means that those schools whose leaders manage to foster a
safe school climate are more likely to show corresponding levels of student
academic achievement (Marzano, 2003; Wei & Williams, 2004). Accordingly,
this study analyzes the role of school leadership and safety in the development of
student achievement.
In general, education leaders are expected to address both school safety
and student achievement in a timely, consistent, and appropriate manner (No
Child Left Behind Act, 2002). In many schools, however, this is not happening.
Instead, at these schools, their leaders are focusing solely on student achievement,
believing that school safety is not essential to its realization (Cornell, 2006).
Although it is possible that an unsafe school can also be stellar academically,
school violence left unattended can substantially impact student safety and
achievement (Marzano, 2003). For example, in a high performance school, if
there are negative human forces threatening to harm or kill students, then
education leaders are compelled to address them to prevent legal liability, and
maximize student safety. If this is done effectively, then students are more likely
to continue thriving at school (Marzano, 2003; Dwyer et al., 1998). Conversely,
if education leaders fail to address these forces, then they can be held liable for
not complying with existing school safety laws (California Education Code,
Section 32282, 2008). This failure can also result in making students feel unsafe
at school, and this experience can have a negative impact on their academic
achievement (Marzano, 2003; Wei & Williams, 2004). This study claims that
4
school leadership and safety are important factors in the realization of student
achievement.
The above relationship will be explored in depth at the selected
Benchmark middle school of the National School District, and the Program
Improvement middle school of the Inner City School District. Both of these
schools are located amid high poverty, crime and violence; yet, the Benchmark
middle school has managed to excel and become a high performance institution,
while the Program Improvement middle school has not. This study focuses on
understanding the differences between both schools and, based on their respective
findings, forwards recommendations to strengthen educational leadership, ensure
school safety, and maximize student achievement.
This study is composed of five chapters. Chapter one presents the
introduction, which includes a focus on the problem of school violence, purpose
of this study, its research questions, its significance, its theoretical approaches, its
assumptions, its limitations, and its operational definitions. Chapter two provides
a literature review, which documents the laws, policies and best practices that can
be used to enhance school leadership, safety and student achievement. Chapter
three focuses on the research design and methodology, which identify the study’s
setting, targets, design, procedures and methods. Chapter four addresses the
implementation of the research design and methodology, which documents the
collection and analysis of data, and presents this study’s findings. Finally, chapter
five forwards a discussion of noted findings, recommendations, and conclusions.
5
The following narrative addresses each of the abovementioned areas under
chapter one.
Background of the Problem
Throughout the past two decades, the problem of school violence received
wide coverage by the news media. This coverage reinforced a perception that all
schools were plagued by school crime and violence. However, contrary to this
perception, during this time period most categories of safety, violence, and
victimization either remained constant or declined (DeVoe et al., 2004). Despite
this decline, school violence continued to be a fact of life at numerous schools
across America.
According to Cornell (2006), based on his research studies on school
violence, virtually all American schools are safe places. Although he agrees that
there are some dangerous schools, he claims that the severity and pervasiveness of
school violence are exaggerated by self-centered news reporters and academic
researchers. In his view, these schools are dangerous because they are under-
funded and under-staffed, and are located in high-risk communities (Cornell,
2006).
Former U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley also claims that schools
are the safest places for young people. Yet, he warns that even one incident of
violent crime in a school is one too many (Dwyer et al., 1998). This warning was
particularly pertinent to school shootings that occurred in the 1990s, in which
several school shooters were responsible for injuring and killing numerous
6
innocent students and staff. A study of these shootings was conducted by the
United States Secret Service, as part of a national Safe Schools Initiative that
documented lessons learned and focused on making schools safer learning
environments (Vossekuil et al., 2002).
Based on the Secret Service’s study, all of the identified school shootings
were found to be serious tragedies, yet none proved to be as harmful as the
student killings experienced by Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado.
This case involved two Columbine high school seniors, Dylan Klebold and Eric
Harris, who were responsible for killing thirteen people (twelve students and one
teacher) and wounding 22 others. In the end, after Klebold and Harris had
committed the above atrocities, they went inside the school’s library and ended
their lives by committing suicide (Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, 2002;
Columbine Grand Jury Report, 2004). Because of the scope and severity of this
attack, as well as due to international media coverage, this incident became a
watershed on the issue of school violence. In turn, it changed the way Americans
understood school violence quantitatively and qualitatively, which led to the
development of new social and scientific approaches.
Scope of the Problem
National statistics on a wide array of school violence are documented by
the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the United States
Department of Education (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007). NCES
publishes annual reports on the current national scope of school violence. These
7
reports include related data from the federal Departments of Justice (DOJ), Health
and Human Services (HHS), and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). Each report is divided into six sections that cover violent
deaths; nonfatal student and teacher victimization; school environment; fights,
weapons and illegal substances; fear and avoidance; and discipline, safety and
security measures. Each section contains a set of indicators that address unique
aspects of school crime and safety (see Appendix A). The following 2005-2006
statistics correspond with each of these sections.
Violent Deaths. NCES reported that, from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006,
there were 35 school-associated violent deaths in elementary and secondary
schools in the United States of America (National Center for Education Statistics,
2007, p. 6). Significant findings from this report show that most of these deaths
resulted from gunshot wounds, stabbings, and beatings. These incidents were
significantly higher for males, students in secondary schools, and students in
central cities. In addition, many of the perpetrators gave some type of warning
signal (e.g., a threat or a note) before the event. Among perpetrators, many of
them were known to have been victims of bullying and engaged in suicidal
thinking and behavior. Finally, most of these incidents occurred at the start or end
of the school day (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007, p. 7; U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008).
According to the National School Safety Center (2005), in the 1992-93
school year, 57 deaths on school grounds were recorded. This number was 22
8
deaths above the number of killings during 2005-06. This change suggests that
currently there is a substantial decrease in violent deaths that occurred on the
school grounds.
Cornell (2006) identifies 20 myths about school violence that he believes
need to be clarified to improve understanding and action in the field of school
safety. Among these myths, he lists the myth that student homicides are
increasing. The truth is that based on the above information, they are not. He
also lists the myth that student homicides are likely to occur at any school. This
myth is particularly based on the pervasive media coverage of rare school shooter
incidents, which touched the emotions of parents, students, and educators. In
truth, the likelihood of a violent death occurring on the school grounds is rare
(Cornell, 2006).
Non-Fatal Student Victimization. NCES also reported that students, ages
12-18, were victims of 1.5 million thefts and violent crimes while they were at
school, and 1.2 million of these crimes while they were away from school
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2007, p. 10). Eight percent of students
in grades 9-12 also reported being threatened or injured with a weapon - such as a
gun, knife, or club - on school property, and males were more likely than females
to report this type of threat or injury (National Center for Education Statistics,
2007, p. 16).
The above information shows that non-fatal student victimization is a
pervasive problem impacting over one million students at school. An
9
understanding of this reality is very important to help heal the physical and
emotional wounds of impacted students. If these wounds are left unattended, then
this study claims that they can have an adverse effect on student achievement.
Non-Fatal Teacher Victimization. According to NCES, in 2003-2004,
seven percent of the nation’s 3.7 million teachers reported that they were
threatened with injury by students in the previous 12 months. Ten percent of
teachers in city schools reported being threatened with injury by students, while
five percent of teachers in suburban schools did the same (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2007, p. 18). Beyond threats, five percent of teachers in city
schools were also physically attacked by students, compared to three percent of
teachers in suburban schools (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007, p.
18).
Teacher victimization was also impacted by classroom disruptions that
were created by student misbehaviors. Thirty-five percent of teachers agreed that
student misbehavior interfered with their teaching (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2007, p. 36). Research shows that these disruptions are associated with
lower student achievement for the offending students, as well as for their
classmates (Lannie & McCurdy, 2007). Teacher victimization is thus a reality
that also must be addressed to prevent school violence and improve student
achievement (Marzano, 2003).
School Environment, Bullying, and Discipline. According to NCES, 86
percent of public schools reported that approximately 2.2 million crimes had
10
taken place on their premises (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007, p.
22). Twenty-eight percent of students at these schools also reported being bullied
at school during the last six months (National Center for Education Statistics,
2007, p. 24). And 18 percent of these schools also noted that student acts of
disrespect for teachers took effect daily or weekly (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2007, p. 26).
A similar study on bullying by the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development concluded that 29.9 percent of students in the United States
– three of every ten students – were either victims or perpetrators of bullying.
Approximately one of every five students – 19.3 percent – were identified as
bullies, and nearly one of every six – 16.9 percent – were classified as victims of
bullying. (Nansel et al., 2001). Although the above statistics are slightly higher
than the ones reported by NCES, both substantiate the problem of bullying. The
above study noted harmfulness, peer status, and frequency as criteria that defined
bullying behavior (Olweus, 1993).
Fights, Weapons and Illegal Substances at School. NCES also stated that
36 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported being in a physical fight anywhere,
and 14 percent said that they were in a physical fight on school property; males
were more likely than females to have been in a fight on school property
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2007, p. 40). According to NCES, 19
percent of student in grades 9-12 also reported that they had carried a weapon
(gun, knife or club) anywhere, and six percent reported that they had carried a
11
weapon on school property; and males were more than two times more likely than
females to carry these weapons (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007, p.
42). The following information elaborates further on the role of physical fights,
guns, and drugs at school.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
physical fights on school grounds are the most common form of violence that
students witness and experience (CDC, 2002; DeVoe et al., 2004). Education
leaders need to understand the causes of these fights and use this knowledge to
develop effective conflict management initiatives. For example, the Program for
Young Negotiators is a promising initiative that teaches middle school students
how to practice effective conflict resolution by identifying the parties involved in
the conflict, their positions, interests, options, consequences per option, selection
of best option, and commitment to win, win outcomes (Curham, 1998).
In the 1990s, news media organizations also published stories about the
prevalence of students bringing guns to school. These stories included a report
stating that students brought nearly 135,000 guns into schools every day (National
School Boards Association, 1993, p. 3). This information, which proved to be
false, increased the public’s fear of armed students attending local public schools
(Cornell, 2006). Despite the above exaggeration, guns are a persistent problem at
school that are particularly responsible for a substantial number of student threats
and injuries on the school grounds (Wilkinson & Fagan, 2001).
12
NCES also noted that four percent of students in grades 9-12 reported
consuming at least one beer on school property; males were more likely to report
consuming alcohol on school property (National Center for Education Statistics,
2007, p. 44). Similarly, five percent of students in grades 9-12 reported using
marihuana during the past 30 days on school property; males were more likely
than females to have reported using marihuana on school property (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2007, p. 46). Notably, the percent of students
who reported using marihuana on school property increased from six to nine
percent between 1993 and 1995 and then declined to five percent in 2001 where it
remained through 2005 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007, p. 44).
Fear and Avoidance. NCES further noted that six percent of students, ages
12-18, reported that they were afraid of being attacked or harmed at school; Black
and Hispanic students were more likely than White students to fear for their safety
at school. Six percent of these students also reported that they had avoided school
activities at one of more places in school because they were fearful that someone
might attack or harm them; Black and Hispanic students were more likely than
White students to report avoiding one or more places in school because they were
afraid that someone might attack or harm them (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2007, p. 50). Hill (2000) believes that fear is the main source of failure
for unsuccessful people. Hence, he urges educators to teach students how to
cultivate their inner powers and use organized knowledge to defeat their fears
13
(Hill, 2000). This study explores student fears related to safety and uses related
knowledge to improve achievement.
Discipline, Safety and Security Measures. NCES also stated that 48
percent of public schools (approximately 39,600 schools) reported taking at least
one serious disciplinary action against a student for insubordination, physical
fights, use of alcohol, possession of drugs or firearms (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2007, p. 56). Schools also reported 830,700 serious
disciplinary actions, which included 75 percent suspensions for five days or more,
five percent expulsions, and 20 percent transfers to specialized schools (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2007, p. 56). More schools also reported taking
greater disciplinary actions against students for fighting (32%), insubordination
(21%), use of illegal drugs (21%), and possession of firearms (19%) (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2007, p. 56).
NCES also reported that 85 percent of public schools controlled access to
school buildings by locking or monitoring doors during school hours, and 41
percent controlled access to school grounds with locked or monitored gates.
Fourteen percent of public schools also required students to wear school
uniforms; and 43 percent of these schools used one or more security cameras to
monitor the school. In addition, 93 percent of students, ages 12-18, reported that
their schools require visitors to sign in, 90 percent of these students also reported
observing adult supervision in the hallways of their schools, and 68 percent
14
reported the presence of security guards or assigned police officers. (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2007, p. 58).
The above statistics paint a national picture of the impact of school
violence on public schools. This picture includes statistics collected at the state
and local levels. The following information addresses these areas respectively.
State Level Statistics. In California, state law mandates all public schools
to report school crimes occurring on or around the school grounds (California
Penal Code, Section 628, 2007; California Education Code, Section 48900, 2007).
In 2000, all schools in California reported four homicides; 2,098 assaults with a
deadly weapon; 23,093 batteries; 6,755 possessions of a weapon; 1,543 sex
offenses; 23,943 drug/alcohol offenses; and 25,430 property crimes (California
Safe Schools Assessment Report, 2000). These statistics are the last ones
published by the California Department of Education. Recent statistics are not as
comprehensive, nor as reliable as the ones listed above.
Local Level Statistics. Locally, Los Angeles County’s schools reported
three homicides; 556 assaults with a deadly weapon; 3,713 batteries; 1,509
possession of a weapon; 445 sex offenses; 4,673 drug/alcohol offenses; and 8,608
property crimes (California Safe Schools Assessment Report, 2000). These
statistics were part of formal reports generated by Los Angeles County’s 80
school districts, which are comprised of 1,700 K-12 schools. These statistics only
reflect the number of school crimes formally reported by respective school
personnel. Compared to the total number of school crimes reported by other
15
counties across California, Los Angeles County’s statistics are ranked as the
highest in California (California Safe Schools Assessment Report, 2000).
In 2002, due to financial constraints, officials at the California Department
of Education decided to discontinue collecting statewide statistics and stopped
publishing its annual Safe Schools Assessment Reports. Although this put CDE
out of compliance with related state and federal laws, to meet related legal
requirements, its executives still required respective school districts to collect
these school crime reports and make them available on a per district basis. They
also decided that CDE’s collection of school safety data on student truancies,
suspensions, and expulsions by the California Uniform Management Information
Reports System (UMIRS), along with student survey data collected by the
California Healthy Kids Survey, were sufficient to comply with related federal
and state education laws.
The federal, state, and local statistics mentioned in this section show the
severity and pervasiveness of school violence impacting students and staff
throughout America’s school campuses. These statistics prove that school
violence is indeed a major problem confronting local public schools. This
compelling reality thus challenges educators to exercise a bold and effective
leadership against school violence. This study exemplifies a commitment to
expand knowledge in the field of school safety and help make schools better
learning environments.
16
Statement of the Problem
The reality of many schools across America is that many of their students
are not performing well academically, because they are not healthy and feel
unsafe on or around the school grounds (Elliott et al., 1998; Cross et al., 2002;
Marzano, 2003; Astor et al., 2005). Unfortunately, existing research is limited in
the prevention and intervention strategies that can help address their safety needs.
Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory posits that all students have
physiological, safety, affiliation, self-esteem, and self-actualization needs that
must be addressed in order to maximize their survival and success in life
(Maslow, 1943). Other theoretical approaches, such as those advocated by the
public health, criminal justice and behavioral sciences focus on the individual or
the social environment to identify risk factors and develop corresponding
protective interventions. Looking at the problem through non-school lenses can
help improve safety. However, if the focus of school violence is the school, then
a school-centered approach can be more effective in addressing its diverse
manifestations (Astor & Benbenishty, 2005).
Education leaders thus need to support research on high performing
schools that are located amid high poverty, crime, and violence. This research
must include identifying the leadership strategies that high performance schools
use to address school violence challenges effectively. Education leaders also need
to identify and understand the factors that contribute to the development of low
performing schools, which are also impacted by high poverty, crime and violence.
17
This study addresses the problem of school violence and leadership approaches to
ensure school safety and improve student achievement.
In light of current federal education regulations, educators need to know
how to prevent schools from manifesting a poor performance that can lead to their
classification as Program Improvement (No Child Left Behind Act, 2002). In
accordance with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of
2001, many schools need help in meeting adequate yearly progress (AYP) in
exams that are measured by a school’s Academic Performance Index (API). They
also need help in meeting federal mandates that require them to address school
safety needs (No Child Left Behind Act, 2002). For example, schools need
assistance to address the needs of students who attend a persistently dangerous
school, as defined by state policy, which authorizes them to transfer to a safer
school within the same district. This assistance includes meeting the related
transportation costs of these transfer students. Schools also need help in meeting
the needs of students who are victims of serious violence on the school grounds.
All schools that receive federal education funds are also subject to related
regulations (No Child Left Behind Act, 2002).
NCLB also increases school accountability as it reflects on violence
prevention (No Child Left Behind Act, 2002). This newly legislated emphasis
contributes to the need to identify the impact of violence in schools. In addition
to the increased federal documentation of violence, the public and media have
also developed an increased concern and awareness of violence in the schools.
18
Based on this increased scrutiny, schools are required to respond with increased
deliberation to episodes of violence (Barton et al., 1998; Furlong et al., 2004).
In concurrence with NCLB’s requirements, to address the problem of
school violence better, there is a need to develop an effective school-centered
framework. Astor’s model on school safety offers an exceptional approach that is
centered on the school, rather than on the community or the individual student
(Astor & Benbenishty, 2005). This model addresses types of victimization
occurring on or around the school grounds; school level factors; individual
factors; and factors outside the school.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to expand knowledge about the impact of
violence on schools, and the leadership strategies that can be used to improve
school safety and student achievement. This study’s expected outcomes include
the expansion of corresponding theories and practices, as developed by Hawkins
& Catalano (1996), Bolman & Deal (2003), Astor (2005), and Marzano (2003)
respectively. The ultimate desired result, however, is to use the best knowledge
generated by the above researchers to help education leaders ensure a safe and
successful learning environment, where teachers help students to maximize their
learning and achievement.
Research Questions
Using a comprehensive literature review on school reform and school
safety, the following research questions were developed to guide this study:
19
Question 1: How does a Middle School that is located amid high-risk
environments achieve high academic performance? Question 2: What are the
leadership factors that contribute to improve school safety and student
achievement at respective Middle Schools?
These questions are addressed through a mixed methods approach that
uses quantitative and qualitative research methods. Question one uses primarily
quantitative research methods that focus on reviewing student achievement data
from the identified middle schools’ Academic Performance Index and their
Adequate Yearly Progress. These data are used to identify and analyze the
differences between the selected Benchmark and Program Improvement middle
schools. Question two uses mainly qualitative research methods that include
student and staff questionnaires, focus groups of respective school safety teams,
interviews of key school leaders, school observations, and a review of related
school documents. Specifically, these methods include a review of both middle
schools’ comprehensive school safety plans, their 2008 School Accountability
Report Cards, their 2008 reports of the California Uniform Management
Information Reporting System, and their 2008 California Healthy Kids Surveys.
Significance of the Study
This study identifies best practices in leadership, education reform and
school safety. In particular, it identifies exemplary leadership qualities and
strategies that can contribute to the development of high performing middle
schools, which are located amid high poverty, crime and violence. Accordingly,
20
the real significance of this study is its advocacy for fully-funded education
reforms that direct school administrators to exercise effective leadership to
improve school safety and student achievement. These reforms include
strengthening the instructional leadership of teachers by helping them to develop
appropriate assessments, curriculum design, classroom management, and
instruction.
Theoretical Approaches to Understanding School Violence
In education today, school leaders need to understand the roles of
leadership and safety in maximizing student achievement. Specifically, they need
to understand the multiple theoretical approaches to address school violence.
These approaches include the Social Development model developed by Hawkins
and Catalano (1996), and Astor’s (2005) model on school safety. The following
section presents a narrative that highlights each of these models.
In the 1990s, Hawkins and Catalano (1996) were credited for creating the
Social Development model. This model identifies multiple risk factors that
impact children and youth, and it prescribes corresponding protective factors that
can assist them to live a healthy, safe and successful life. Risk factors are
conditions that increase the likelihood of a young person becoming involved in
delinquency or violence; while protective factors are those that buffer them from
exposure to risk by either reducing the impact of the risks, or changing the way
that young people respond to risks (Hawkins & Catalano, 1990). These factors
are categorized into the following four domains: (1) The individual/peer domain;
21
(2) the family domain; (3) the school domain; and (4) the community domain. A
list of risk factors for each of these domains is noted in the following narrative.
The individual/peer domain addresses a person’s lack of personal power
and integrity; failure to be respectful, honest, and responsible; no empathy for
others; rebelliousness against authority; reckless sexual behavior; lack of
appreciation for self; a propensity to associate with criminals; engagement in
drug/alcohol abuse; and a dislike of school. The family domain addresses a
person’s poor family management; family conflict; parental attitudes favorable
toward violent behavior and drug abuse; family history of anti-social behavior;
lack of family rules and discipline; and family fails to provide love and affection.
The school domain addresses a person’s poor academic performance; low
commitment to school; no motivation to excel in doing school work; no respect
for school; personal future is seen as hopeless. The community domain addresses
a person’s low neighborhood attachment; community disorganization; community
norms are perceived to be favorable to drug abuse, firearms, and violence;
community is indifferent toward youth; unemployment; negative adult role
models; poverty; illegal drugs; and gangs. All of these factors can occur
separately or simultaneously; however, all of them are inter-related. This means
that a person’s interactions at home, at school and in the community increase the
likelihood that he or she will also be impacted by multiple risk factors.
To counter the above risk factors, Hawkins & Catalano (1996) advocate
for the development of effective protective factors. These protective factors
22
include the following: (1) Pro-social standards that are consistently reinforced at
home, at school, and in the community; (2) bonding with role models who hold
these beliefs, such as parents, teachers and police officers; (3) opportunities for
students to be responsible at home, at school, and in the community; (4) skills in
problem-solving, reading, and communication; and (5) recognition for individual
efforts (Hawkins & Catalano, 1996). These protective factors correspond with
each of the above domains.
This study analyzes the role that the above risk factors play in the
development of school violence. Conversely, it examines Astor’s best school
safety practices against school violence that correspond with respective risk
factors (see chart below). Astor’s (2005) model focuses on the school and the
socio-ecological influences impacting student victimization. This model
specifically examines types of victimization; school level factors; individual
factors; and factors outside the school. These areas correspond with state
mandates that require all K-12 schools to establish comprehensive school safety
plans (California Education Code, Section 32282, 2008). These mandates require
all K-12 schools to establish school safety teams composed of school
administrators, teachers, counselors, parents, students, police officers and
community leaders to assess the problem of school violence and forward
solutions. Specifically, each team is required to address the needs of students and
staff, as well as the social, cultural, and physical aspect of the school setting
(California Education Code, Section 32282, 2008).
23
In addition to the above two models, this study uses Marzano’s model on
school improvement and student achievement. This model identifies school,
teacher, and student level factors that he believes are responsible for school
success and student achievement (Marzano, 2005). Lastly, this study uses
Bolman & Deal’s (2003) leadership framework to address the diverse challenges
confronting public schools. This framework is composed of structural, human
resource, political, and symbolic frames of reference that educators can use to
improve school organizations, including student safety and education outcomes
(Bolman & Deal, 2003).
The following Table 1 describes the risk and protective factors covered by
this study. Column one lists Hawkins and Catalano’s risk factors for the
individual/peers, family, school, and community domains. Column two lists
Astor’s best practices against school violence, which address individual, external
and school level factors. Column three lists Marzano’s best practices on student
achievement. These practices cover student, family, school, teacher, and external
factors. Finally, column four lists Bolman & Deal’s leadership framework, which
addresses human resources, structural, political, and symbolic frames of
reference. All of the above best practices, which correspond with the identified
risk factor domains, are covered in the literature review of this study.
24
Table 1
Theoretical Frameworks on Risk and Protective Factors
Risk Factors
by Hawkins &
Catalano
Astor’s Best Practices
Against School Violence
Marzano’s Best
Practices on Student
Achievement
Leadership
Initiatives
by Bolman & Deal
1. Individual/Peers
• No personal power
• No Integrity
• No empathy for
others
• Criminal friends
• Poor self-esteem
• Favorable attitudes
toward antisocial
behavior
• Favorable attitudes
toward illegal drugs
and alcohol
• Poor motivation to
excel at school
Individual Factors
• Gender
• Age
• Physical characteristics
• Personal values
• Beliefs
• Attitudes
• Behaviors
Student Factors
• Positive home
environment
• Learned intelligence
• Motivation
• Drive, attribution,
self-worth, emotions,
and self-actualization
Individual
Level
• Human
Resource
Frame
• Political
Frame
• Symbolic
Frame
2. Family
• Poor family
management
• Family conflict
• Parental attitudes
favorable toward
antisocial behavior
• Family history of
antisocial behavior
• Family fails to
provide love
External Factors
• Positive parenting
• Family employment
• Education
opportunities
• Leadership by example
• Family shares love
with siblings
Family Factors
• Parent involvement in
community service
• Parent training and
support
• Positive parent
expectations at home
• Family support of
sibling’s education
Family Level
• Human
Resource
Frame
• Political
Frame
• Symbolic
Frame
3. School
• Poor academic
performance
• Low school
commitment
• No motivation to
excel in school
• No respect for
school rules and
education authorities
School Factors
• School-wide awareness
• Comprehensive School
Safety Plan
• Positive school climate
• Classroom
management
• Constructive discipline
• Positive behavior
support
• Constructive school
safety policies and
procedures
School Factors
• Viable !curriculum
• Challenging goals and
effective feedback
• Safe environment
• Collegiality and
professionalism
Teacher Factors
• Instructional
strategies
• Classroom mngmnt
• Classroom curriculum
design
School Level
• Human
Resource
Frame
• Structural
Frame
• Political
Frame
• Symbolic
Frame
4. Community
• Community
indifference toward
children and youth
• Community
disorganization
• Norms favorable to
drug use & violence
• Poverty
• Unemployment
External Factors
• Strong neighborhood
attachment
• Norms are not
favorable to drug use,
firearms and violence
• Community support for
youth
• Employment
• Multi-agency
collaboration
External
• Collaboration with
other education
stakeholders to share
ownership,
responsibility, and
accountability in
helping students and
educators to succeed
at the highest levels
Community
Level
• Human
Resource
Frame
• Political
Frame
• Symbolic
Frame
25
Assumptions
This study is based on seven assumptions, as formulated by the California
Commission On Teacher Credentialing (1995). These assumptions are listed as
follows: (1) School violence is not normal for the human condition; rather, it is
learned behavior that is preventable; (2) school violence has negative
consequences on its perpetrators, victims, and witnesses, as well as on the entire
school climate; (3) effective school leadership and safety practices are important
factors that have a positive impact on student achievement; (4) leadership, school
safety, and student achievement are inter-connected and thus, as one fails or
succeeds, the others are similarly impacted; (5) students should be educated to
understand that they have choices in the way they behave and express their
feelings, and that ultimately they are responsible for the consequences of their
actions; (6) effective resolution of violence requires early intervention that
respects the integrity and dignity of all concerned; (7) to maximize school safety,
school personnel need to be increasingly aware of the nature and implications of
violence in their schools, and should be trained in ways to deal effectively with it
(California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 1995, p. 5). These
assumptions are clarified and referenced throughout this study.
Limitations
This study has numerous limitations. The first one is time. Because this
study is due by April 2010, time constraints prevent it from being much more
broader and longitudinal. Future studies should cover more schools and allow
26
more time to plan, implement and evaluate a longitudinal study that generates
more reliable results. Second, this study is limited to two middle schools.
Although its findings could be used to impact other middle schools, their
application to local elementary and high schools is limited.
Operational Definitions
This study uses Astor’s (2005) theory on school safety to address the
manifestations of violence on the school grounds. According to Astor (2005),
“school victimization is a unique context-bound form of inter-personal violence
that should be addressed separately from victimization in other social-
developmental contexts” (p. 142). This study also uses a leadership framework
that integrates structural, political, human resource, and symbolic action to
address school violence challenges (Bolman & Deal, 2003). School safety is thus
defined as individual and collective work that addresses the needs of students and
staff, as well as the social, cultural, and physical aspects of a school setting
(California Department of Education, 2002). Student achievement is defined by
the school, teacher, family, and student factors that impact its development
(Marzano, 2003). These definitions that are used throughout this study.
This introduction expanded on the problem of school violence, purpose of
this study, its research questions, significance, assumptions, limitations, and
operational definitions. This information is part of the foundation of this study.
The next chapter presents a literature review of laws, policies, practices, and
programs that can be used to improve school safety and student achievement.
27
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The following literature review identifies laws, policies, theories,
practices, and programs that address this study’s research questions. As
introduced in Chapter I, these questions explore education approaches to
maximize leadership, school safety, and student achievement at needy middle
schools across America. This review begins with a brief analysis of relevant
federal education reform laws. This analysis is followed by an examination of
California’s school reform initiatives, and the school safety laws and policies that
were developed along with them. This review then describes Marzano’s
education model on student achievement, and Astor’s theory on school violence.
Next, a summary of best practices, and a list of exemplary and promising school
safety programs are provided. Lastly, this chapter concludes by analyzing the role
of exemplary school leadership in the development of effective education and
safety-related initiatives.
Federal Education Reform Laws
Throughout the 20
th
century, the federal government enacted a variety of
laws to address the challenges of poverty, violence, and academics confronting
America’s public schools. These legislative initiatives included the establishment
of the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, which
provided federal assistance to states to improve the education of poor and low-
achieving students; the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) of 1994 that
28
required states to connect federal funding with state reforms and programs that
addressed educational equity for students with special needs; the Educate America
Act of 1994, also known as Goals 2000, that established a set of national
education and safety goals; the Safe Schools Act of 1994 that funded state-
sponsored school safety initiatives; and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 that
established more rigorous education and accountability standards for K-12
schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). All of these laws were designed
to advance the teaching and learning of K-12 students. However, only the last
three laws succeeded in requiring states to address school safety in a more
realistic, research-based, and comprehensive manner. This review focuses on
these three laws and addresses them separately in the following narrative.
Goals 2000
In 1994, the Congress and President of the United States established the
Educate America Act, which became known as Goals 2000. Like ESEA and
IASA, the purpose of Goals 2000 was to improve teaching and learning by
providing a national framework for education reform. Unlike these education
laws, however, Goals 2000 identified school safety as a legitimate national
concern and included it as one of its major education goals. In general, Goals
2000 was composed of the following eight national goals: 1) School readiness; 2)
school completion; 3) student achievement and citizenship; 4) teacher education
and professional development; 5) mathematics and science; 6) adult literacy and
lifelong learning; 7) safe, disciplined and drug-free schools; and 8) parent
29
participation (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). All of these goals were
important to a child’s education, yet the main focus of this study corresponds
more appropriately with goals Three and Seven.
Goal Three stated that by the year 2000, all students would leave grades 4,
8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter
including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and
government, economics, arts, history, and geography, and every school in
America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be
prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment
in our nation's modern economy. To realize this goal, this legislation established
objectives that required states to set high education standards, better instruction,
and stronger accountability systems. These requirements resulted in the
development of different responses and achievements. For example, California’s
legislators set high academic standards and accountability systems, while other
states, such as South Carolina, established lower education responses (U.S.
Department of Education, 2008).
Goal Seven stated that by the year 2000, every school in the United States
would be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence of firearms and
alcohol, and would offer a safe environment conducive to learning. The
objectives under this goal required school leaders to develop comprehensive
education approaches that involved teachers, parents and community leaders in
ensuring safe and secure learning environments. For example, every school was
30
required to implement firm and fair policies on use, possession, and distribution
of drugs and alcohol, as well as on violence prevention, and the unauthorized
presence of weapons on school campuses. Schools were also required to develop
sequential, comprehensive K-12 grade drug and violence prevention education
programs. In addition, schools were mandated to eliminate sexual harassment on
their campuses (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). The development of this
goal and its corresponding objectives thus assisted to legitimize school safety as
an important factor that ultimately contributed to improve student learning and
achievement at K-12 school settings (Marzano, 2003; Murray et al., 2007).
The Safe Schools Act of 1994
In concurrence with Goal Seven, in 1994 the United States Congress also
authorized the Safe Schools Act. This Act allocated 20 million dollars to the
United States Department of Education to further the work of its Office of Safe
and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (SDFSC). This Office was originally
established in the 1980s to help address the school safety needs of America’s K-
12 schools. The Safe Schools Act thus allowed this Office to fund numerous
school safety programs at schools located across the United States of America
(U.S. Department of Education, 2008).
In 1998, after experiencing years of difficulty trying to determine the
effectiveness of funded school safety programs, the Office of Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities established Principles of Effectiveness and made them
mandatory for all recipients of SDFSC grants. These principles required all
31
grantees to conduct a comprehensive needs assessment; establish measurable
goals and objectives; implement research-based programming; and evaluate all
related activities (U.S. Department of Education, 2008).
Despite the good will behind Goals 2000 and the Safe Schools Act, the
year 2000 came and departed and, among their shortcomings, all related goals
were left unfinished and unrealized. For instance, America’s schools continued to
suffer shortcomings in leading, teaching and learning. In fact, in an increasing
number of urban schools the achievement gap between minority and non-minority
students grew wider; the number of student dropouts continued to reflect related
academic disparities among impacted minority students; segregation among poor,
urban minority students surged; and violence, drugs and alcohol at schools
continued to victimize students and educators (Darling-Hammond & Wood, 2008;
National Center for Education Statistics, 2007). Consequently, the new
leadership of the United States Department of Education was compelled to
identify related lessons learned and used them to develop the new Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, which became known as the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act of 2001. This study references this Act’s current frameworks to
analyze its role in improving school leadership, safety, and student achievement at
local middle schools. The main components of this Act are addressed below.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
In 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was approved by the
United States Congress, and signed into law by President George W. Bush. This
32
Act changed the federal role in education by requiring that all schools meet
rigorous academic standards that would ensure that, by 2013-14, all K-12 students
would be academically proficient. To show progress toward that goal, districts
are required to publicize school report cards and test 95% of third through eighth
grade students in reading and math against state standards. All student data are
required to be disaggregated per gender, race, economic and ability status. States
are also required to show that all teachers in core academic subjects are “highly
qualified,” as defined by state standards. NCLB also includes a strong parental
choice component that gives parents the right to transfer their children out of
chronically low-performing, or dangerous schools.
The Act contains four basic education reform principles: (1) Stronger
accountability for results; (2) local control and flexibility; (3) expanded options
for parents; and (4) an emphasis on effective and proven teaching methods. These
principles are addressed by the Act’s ten sections, knows as Titles. Each Title
establishes the requirements of a program or set of programs. Title I provides
extra support to improve the academic achievement of poor and disadvantaged
students; Title II addresses the preparation, training and recruitment of high
quality teachers and principals; Title III addresses language instruction for limited
English proficient and immigrant students; Title IV provides grants to foster safe
and drug-free schools and communities; Title V promotes informed parental
choice and innovative programs; Title VI provides funds to improve the quality,
validity and reliability of state testing and accountability systems; Title VII
33
supports Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native education; Title VIII
focuses on impact aid programs; Title IX addresses general provisions; and Title
X focuses on repeals, re-designations, and amendments to other statutes. The
main focus of this study corresponds with NCLB’s Title IV.
Under NCLB’s Title IV, all states are required to establish policies,
procedures and practices to prevent violence on or around schools; to prevent
illegal use of drugs and alcohol; to involve parents and communities in related
undertakings; and to foster safe and drug-free learning environments that support
student achievement. In this light, states were required to establish a Uniform
Management Information and Reporting System (UMIRS) to collect truancy,
suspension and expulsions data related to school safety and drug abuse among
students. This information must include incidents reported by school officials and
data from teacher and student surveys. In turn, these findings must be used to
identify problems and develop solutions.
Title IV also provides an Unsafe School Option for all campuses
designated as Persistently Dangerous Schools. Through this option, states are
required to develop standards for a persistently dangerous school and abide by
them. For instance, in California, a persistently dangerous school is one where,
for three consecutive years, students are caught in possession of a gun, or are
detained for committing a violent act on school property. As a consequence of
these detentions, schools must also expel more than one percent of its students
(California Department of Education, 2008). This means that if a school has a
34
population of 1,000 students, then ten or more of these students must be expelled
for either being in possession of a gun, or for committing a violent act on school
property, and these expulsions must occur for three consecutive years. If this
occurs, then all students at this school – particularly the victims of crime - can
request a transfer to a safer school, and the former school is required to
accommodate these students and, if necessary, cover their transportation
expenses.
In summary, NCLB establishes higher standards, assessments, and
accountability systems to identify the needs of all students and help them improve
their education outcomes. NCLB also requires excellence in instruction and
demands that all teachers be certified to teach respective academic subjects. For
those schools whose students do not meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP),
NCLB provides them with state and local assistance that includes supplementary
educational services. NCLB – in partnership with parents, communities, school
administrators and classroom teachers – strengthens school accountability and
thus ensures that every student in America receives a great education so that
indeed no child is left behind.
California’s Education Reforms
In concurrence with NCLB mandates, California instituted accountability
systems that test students, in third through eighth grades, in math and reading that
covers English/Language Arts. All test scores are disaggregated per gender, race,
economic, and ability status. All test scores are also tabulated to determine their
35
rank in the Academic Performance Index (API) and to see if they meet Adequate
Yearly Progress. Those schools that do not meet AYP are given opportunities to
improve. If they do not meet AYP for three consecutive years, then they are
designated as Program Improvement and this qualifies them for special assistance
and supplemental education services. California also requires all local school
districts to establish District Assistance Intervention Teams (DAIT) to assist all
Program Improvement schools respectively. This state also mandates all 12
th
grade students to take the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) in order
for them to graduate from high school and obtain their diplomas.
Along with academics, all California schools are also expected to help
meet the diverse emotional and social needs of students. According to Maslow
(1988), all students have physiological, safety, affiliation, self-esteem, and self-
actualization needs. Maslow further claims that these needs are interdependent
and that meeting them improves the human development of students (Maslow,
1988). In concurrence with Maslow, recent research has also proven that healthy
and safe students are more apt to maximize their learning and academic
achievement (Marzano, 2003; Murray et al., 2007). The following section
documents the school safety initiatives that were established by the people and
legislature of California.
California’s School Safety Initiatives
In 1982, the California Constitution was amended to include Article I,
Section 28 (c), which states that “all students and staff have the inalienable right
36
to attend schools that are safe, secure and peaceful.” The intent of this legal
precedent was to prioritize the health and safety of students and staff and persuade
school authorities to comply with it. Because the California legislature did not
provide any financial resources to implement this Constitutional Amendment, it
became one many other unfunded legislative mandates impacting local K-12
schools. The actual implementation of this Amendment was therefore left up to
the respective school administrator’s discretion. Despite the good intention
behind this Amendment, many school leaders chose to ignore its implementation
and justified this inaction by denying that violence existed on their school
grounds. In the late 1990s, after numerous acts of violence had occurred on the
school grounds, the California legislature decided to address the shortcomings of
school leaders and approved the establishment of a new comprehensive school
safety law.
Comprehensive School Safety Plans
In 1997, the California legislature and Governor Pete Wilson approved
Senate Bill 187, which mandated all K-12 schools in this state to establish
comprehensive school safety plans (California Education Code, Section 32280,
2008). The intent of this legislation requires each public school to establish a
school safety team that would share ownership, responsibility and accountability
for developing a comprehensive school safety plan that addressed safety concerns
through a systematic planning process. Each team must be composed of
educators, parents, law enforcement representatives and community leaders
37
(California Education Code, Section 32281, 2008). Each plan is specifically
required to address the following components: (1) Assess the current status of
school crime; (2) identify appropriate strategies and programs; (3) establish
policies and regulations that address child abuse reporting, disaster procedures
that integrate the Standardized Emergency Management System, suspension and
expulsion guidelines, procedures to notify teachers of dangerous pupils, a sexual
harassment policy, provisions on a school-wide dress code, procedures for safe
ingress and egress, guidelines for a safe and orderly school climate, and rules and
procedures on school discipline; and (4) develop and action plan to foster a safe
school climate (California Education Code, Section 32282, 2008).
Under the California Education Code, Section 32282 (2008), each plan is
also required to be reviewed and approved by the respective school principal, a
representative from the local police department, and the respective school
district’s board of education. Prior to full approval, each school is also required to
sponsor a community meeting to present the school safety plan to its stakeholders
and seek their input. Each plan must also be up-dated by March 1 of every year,
and posted as part of the respective school’s annual accountability report card.
Failure to comply with this law could result in a $500 fine by the California
Superintendent of Public Instruction.
To comply with the above work, the California Department of Education
recommended integrating the school safety plan within a school’s mission
statement, operational goals, and the broader school culture. Thus, the mission
38
statement of an exemplary school included provisions that established high
education standards, fostering educational excellence, and ensuring the health,
safety and success of students and staff-free of violence, drugs, and fear. An
exemplary school culture was also refined to reflect a continuous commitment to
create and enforce policies promoting a safe, caring and disciplined school
climate (California Department of Education, 2002).
The Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS)
As part of the above California mandates on comprehensive school safety
plans, this state also requires public schools to be prepared to respond to
emergencies, using the Standardized Emergency Management System (California
Education Code, Section 8607, 1998). SEMS must also be used in school
planning, training and exercising (California Code of Regulation, Section 2400-
2450, 1998). In order to be in compliance with SEMS, each school must organize
and manage its emergency response using the Incident Command System (ICS).
To facilitate this work, each school must assign Chief staff responsibilities
according to the following ICS functions: Command/management; operations;
planning and intelligence; logistics; and finance/administration. The following
narrative addresses each of these functions.
Under command/management, an Incident Commander must be
designated by the respective school authorities. The Incident Commander is the
decision-maker for the impacted school. This function provides a centralized
point for direction and coordination of the emergency response. This function
39
also includes activities regarding the overall management of the emergency
response. This position, which is usually held by the school principal, is
responsible for ensuring the safety of students, staff, and others who are on the
school campus.
The operations chief is similarly responsible for coordinating activities
that are needed to respond to immediate needs, such as search and rescue, medical
aid, and student release. He or she is responsible for managing and directing
emergency response activities on campus. Individuals assigned to this function
are the doers.
The planning and intelligence chief is responsible for the continuous
assessment and gathering of information. Individuals assigned to this function are
the thinkers. They are responsible for preparing situation reports and providing
them to staff, organizing periodic briefings, and developing action plans.
The logistics chief is responsible for coordinating resources that are
needed to respond to the emergency. Individual assigned to this function are the
getters. They are especially responsible for securing supplies, personnel and
equipment, and arranging for transportation and lodging of resources.
The finance and administration chief is responsible for keeping track of
the cost of the disaster. Persons assigned to this function are the payers. They are
particularly responsible for tracking all costs and staff time redirected to the
emergency.
40
SEMS also requires school districts to establish an Emergency Operations
Center, or an Incident Command Post at the school site level, whenever an
emergency occurs. Each school district is also required to coordinate related
activities with the respective city’s and county’s emergency operations. Each
school is similarly required to incorporate SEMS into its emergency crisis training
and exercises, and document all related work (Los Angeles County Office of
Education, 2007).
SEMS is designed to address multi-disasters that vary from earthquakes
and fires to school shootings and acts of terrorism. For example, the 2007
California wild fires impacted many local schools, and this led respective school
authorities to activate SEMS, and coordinate its functions to minimize harm to
students and reduce damage to school property. California’s positive experience
in using SEMS persuaded federal authorities at the United States Department of
Education to make it a requirement, as part of its School Emergency Response
and Crisis Management Project. Since 2002, through a request for application
process, this project has provided up to $30 million in annual grants to local
education agencies to use SEMS in strengthening the emergency operations of
their schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). In 2006, the federal
Department of Education replaced SEMS with the National Incident Management
System (NIMS), which still requires all local education agencies receiving federal
funds to use SEMS’ Incident Command System (U.S. Department of Educations,
2008).
41
The Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000
In addition to school emergencies, California’s school safety initiatives
also address discrimination on the schools grounds. California law prohibits
discrimination against any person on the basis of sex, ethnic, group identification,
race, national origin, religion, color, mental or physical disability, or on any basis
that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes. In particular, it prohibits
discrimination in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution
that received, or benefits from state financial assistance, or enrolls pupils who
receive state student financial aid (California Penal Code, Section 422.55, 2007).
This means that any act of hate based on race, sex, or other protected
classifications, is illegal in California (California Penal Code, Section 422.75,
2008).
The California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 added
sexual orientation and gender to the above list of non-discriminatory provisions
(California Education Code, Section 220, 2008). The intent of this latter law is to
reduce or eliminate incidents of harassment, discrimination, and hate-motivated
behavior specifically directed at students who are or may be perceived to be gay,
lesbian, bi-sexual, or trans-gender. This study focuses on exercising leadership to
maximize student safety and achievement at local middle schools. This includes
preventing hate-motivated behaviors on the school grounds.
According to the 2007 Hate Crime Report of Los Angeles County, hate
crimes rose 28 percent, from 594 to 763, the highest in five years. Seventy-six of
42
these crimes occurred on the school grounds. These crimes included assaults,
batteries, and attempted murders committed by middle school students against
each other (Los Angeles Commission On Human Relations, 2007). To address
these challenges and comply with the abovementioned laws, schools are required
to establish school board policies and regulations on hate-motivated behaviors at
school, train staff on how to address these behaviors effectively, and develop
programs to prevent hate among students and staff on the school grounds
(Assembly Bill 557, 1999). These actions can help students feel much safer at
school, and ultimately contribute to improve their learning and academic
achievement (Marzano, 2003).
The above laws focused on developing comprehensive school safety
initiatives that included implementing related training for certificated teachers and
administrators. Although this was an exemplary step, it was not enough to
address the pre-service training needs of future educators. Thus, the California
legislature directed the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC)
to identify related gaps and develop new approaches to address them. The
following narrative covers this new CTC initiative.
CTC Legislation
In the early 1990s, the California legislature and Governor approved new
legislation that directed the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing to
design, implement and evaluate new specialized violence-prevention training
initiatives for students participating in teacher-preparation programs at this state's
43
colleges and universities (Senate Bill 2460, 1990; and Senate Bill 2264, 1993).
Specifically, this legislation directed the CTC to integrate violence prevention and
school safety into the certification of counselors and administrators. As part of
meeting these mandates, the CTC created an Advisory Committee on School
Violence and directed its members to assess the violence-prevention insights of
school personnel, parents, students, law enforcement officers, and community
leaders. This Committee's members selected a random sample of schools
composed of personnel from eleven County Offices of Education in California
and conducted focus groups with them. Members of each focus group were asked
to comment on (1) their personal experience in addressing violence; (2) their
perceived causes of violence; (3) approaches used by their respective schools to
address violence prevention; and (4) their recommendations regarding the training
needed to enhance violence prevention at their schools.
The following is a summary of the focus groups’ findings that correspond
with the above questions. The most violent activities personally experienced by
focus group participants in their schools were student fights, gang-related activity,
bullying, the brandishing of weapons, and racism. The main causes of school
violence mentioned by focus group participants were lack of information about
ethnic and cultural groups, gangs and gang activity, media influences, poor self-
concept, and dysfunctional families. Recommendations to address school
violence included implementation of a multi-cultural curriculum, establishment of
school-community-law enforcement partnerships, fair and consistent enforcement
44
of discipline policies, and development of anti-bullying and character education
programs at K-12 schools. Recommendations to address staff training needs
included multicultural education, conflict management, classroom management,
student discipline, and human relations (California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing, 2007).
Based on the results of these focus groups, the CTC developed a set of
school safety principles that were integrated into the preparatory programs of K-
12 teachers, counselors and administrators (California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing, 2007). These principles are currently being used at many state
universities, as part of related pre-service education training. However, this
training lacks a comprehensive formative evaluation. Therefore, there is a need to
evaluate the short and long term effects of this training on impacted university
students.
In addition to complying with the above federal and state laws, schools are
required to develop sound practices that can help them improve school safety and
education outcomes. At Program Improvement schools, the need to develop these
practices is particularly urgent. The next section of this chapter addresses this
study’s research question one, which focuses on identifying effective education
approaches that can be used to cultivate high performance schools in high-risk
environments. The following model forwards a synthesis of best practices in
student achievement.
45
Marzano’s Model On Student Achievement
Marzano (2003) identifies school, teacher, and student level factors that he
believes are responsible for school success and student achievement. These
factors are addressed in sequential order. Subsequently, a summary of all these
factors is provided.
School-Level Factors
Marzano (2003) presents five school level factors that he believes are
essential for student achievement. In order of importance, these factors are (1) a
guaranteed and viable curriculum; (2) challenging goals and effective feedback;
(3) parental and community involvement; (4) a safe and orderly environment; and
(5) collegiality and professionalism. This section addresses each of these five
school level factors.
Marzano (2003) believes that a viable curriculum, which is a combination
of opportunity to learn and instruction time, has the strongest relationship to
student achievement. Opportunity to learn is defined as the difference between the
intended curriculum -- which is specified by state mandates -- and the
implemented curriculum, which is the content actually delivered by the teacher.
(Brewer & Stacz, 1996; Herman, Klein & Abedi, 2000; Robitaille, 1993). The
product of this difference ultimately concludes with the students’ attained
curriculum. Marzano adds that “the content that teachers are expected to address
must be adequately covered by the instructional time they have available” (p. 29).
46
Regarding classroom curriculum design, Marzano (2003) believes that
teachers are the ultimate decision makers about related sequencing and
presentation of content. This includes developing clear learning goals,
communicating these goals to students, and planning of respective learning
experiences. A key aspect of this work is to teach students procedural fluency and
conceptual understanding through problem solving, reasoning, and argumentation
(Principles and Standards of Mathematics, 2000). Learning in this context is
maximized when knowledge is exposed multiple times, using stories, along with
the use of visual representations, in complex interactions (Marzano, 2003).
Challenging goals are described by Marzano (2003) as those that require
students to have high expectations and experience the pressure to achieve good
academic work. He further breaks high expectations into establishing high
academic goals for all students and recommends that teachers and administrators
should develop them together. He also believes that teachers should give all
students specific, continuous feedback. Timely feedback, also known as
formative assessment, is one that is provided throughout the student’s learning
experience.
Parent and community involvement is also essential to improve student
achievement. Marzano’s research shows that when parents and community
leaders become involved at school constructively, their children improve their
academic achievement (Marzano, 2003). Constructive school involvement
requires parents to work with educators to maximize their children’s education.
47
Marzano specifically believes that communication, participation, and
governance are three defining features of effective parent and community
involvement. Schools are particularly encouraged to initiate communication with
parents and share relevant school information in a clear, timely and concise
manner. Communication can be through newsletters, bulletins, flyers, e-mails, or
phone calls. Parents are also encouraged to communicate with their children’s
schools and get to know their administrators, counselors and teachers. This
includes securing information that can verify students’ strengths and weaknesses
and ways to maximize the former and minimize the latter.
Parents and community leaders are further encouraged to participate in the
day to day running of the school. This participation can be as observers of
classroom work, aides at school in providing, clerical, supervision, or counseling
services to students. Schools that involve parents in their daily activities have
reported lower student absenteeism, truancy and dropouts (Bucknam, 1976).
Parents and community leaders are also encouraged to get involved in the
decision-making and governance of their children’s schools. Tangri and Moles
(1987) believe that parent involvement in school governance is part of exercising
their democratic rights to strengthen the planning, implementation and evaluation
of education initiatives that ultimately impact all students and the educators that
work with them. Parents are similarly encouraged to get involved in school board
elections and become elected school board members.
48
Another vital requirement to school improvement and student achievement
is a safe and orderly environment (Chubb & Moe, 1990; Mayer et al., 2000).
According to Marzano (2003), “If teachers and students do not feel safe, they will
not have the necessary psychological energy for teaching and learning” (p.53).
Federal and state laws thus require schools to ensure the health and safety of
students and staff by taking precautionary measures to prevent their victimization.
To create a safe and orderly environment, Marzano (2003) recommends
taking the following five action steps: (1) Establish rules and procedures for
behavior problems that might be caused by the school’s physical characteristics or
school’s routines; (2) develop clear school-wide rules and procedures for general
behavior; (3) set and enforce appropriate consequences for violations of
established rules and procedures; (4) create programs that teach self-discipline
and responsibility to students; and (5) implement a system that allows for the
early detection of students that have a high potential for violence and provide
them with positive behavior support. These actions are exemplary steps that can
be implemented collectively, or separately. This information will be revisited in
the subsequent classroom management section of this literature review.
Collegiality and professionalism address the way in which school staff
members interact and the extent to which they approach their work as
professionals (Marzano, 2003). Collegiality is characterized by tacit norms of
professional behavior (Deal & Peterson, 1990; Lortie, 1975). These norms are
based on authentic, professional interactions, which include openly sharing
49
failures and successes, demonstrating respect for each other, constructively
analyzing and criticizing practices and procedures, and developing solutions to
problems.
Professionalism is a sense of efficacy experienced by teachers (Marzano,
2003). This means that teachers have a need to believe that their voices and
talents are significant contributors to the policy-making, implementation and
evaluation of leadership, school safety, and student achievement initiatives
impacting their schools. The more this belief is true, the more their self-efficacy
increases. Conversely, the more this belief proves to be false, the more their self-
efficacy decreases. This belief is consequently very important to their
professional development, and their impact on students and staff. In addition to
efficacy, teacher certification and subject matter knowledge are also important
factors that contribute to the professionalism of teachers.
Marzano (2003) forwards the following three steps that can enhance
collegiality and professionalism among educators: (1) Establish norms of conduct
that engender collegiality and professionalism; (2) create governance structures
that allow for teacher involvement in developing policies for the school; and (3)
engage teachers in meaningful staff development activities. These three steps are
at the heart of Small Learning Communities, which require schools to establish a
professional culture of collaboration to address education barriers and ensure
school improvement (Dufour et al., 2006). If these steps are implemented
50
correctly, then the results would lead to higher teacher self-efficacy, and longer
teacher tenure (Marzano, 2003).
The above school level factors are important to school improvement;
however, they are not complete or conclusive. These factors are clearly
reinforced by the role of the teacher. In fact, education research shows that,
beyond school factors, the teacher factors have a more vital role in helping
students to achieve at higher levels in their academic work (Wright et al., 1997;
Marzano, 2003). The following section addresses teacher level factors that are
indispensable to instructional leadership, student achievement, and school safety.
Teacher Level Factors
A teacher’s role in a K-12 student’s education is of utmost importance to
the latter’s academic success. In many ways, the teacher is expected to fulfill the
caring obligations of a surrogate parent, in loco parentis. Studies on public
education have thus shown that the most important factor that impacts student
learning at school is the teacher (Wright et al., 1997; Sanders, 1994).
This section addresses the following three teacher level factors:
Instructional strategies; classroom management; and classroom curriculum
design. Although these factors are mentioned separately, they are by no means
expected to work alone. Similarly, one is not more important than the others.
According to Marzano (2003): “The act of teaching is a holistic endeavor.
Effective teachers thus employ effective instructional strategies, classroom
51
management techniques, and classroom curriculum design in a fluent, seamless
fashion” (p.77).
Instructional Strategies
Effective teachers tend to use more effective instructional strategies than
their peers who are ineffective. The former also have more effective strategies at
their disposal than the latter. The use of effective instructional strategies to
address the needs of students can be the difference between ultimate success or
educational failure.
Marzano (2003) identified nine instructional strategies that have a proven
record of being effective in raising student achievement. In order of importance,
they are (1) identifying similarities and differences; (2) summarizing and note-
taking; (3) reinforcing effort and providing recognition; (4) homework and
practice; (5) nonlinguistic representations; (6) cooperative learning; (7) setting
objectives and providing feedback; (8) generating and testing hypotheses; and (9)
questions, cues, and advance organizers. These strategies are curriculum sensitive
in that teachers use them as part of addressing curriculum standards and
assessments. Marzano adds that all of these strategies are broken down into more
specific behaviors. The following are examples of these strategies and behaviors:
Identifying similarities and differences includes assigning in-class and homework
tasks that involve comparison and classification, and metaphors and analogies;
cooperative learning includes organizing students in cooperative groups, or ability
groups when appropriate; and generating and testing hypotheses includes
52
engaging students in projects that involve problem-solving, decision-making,
investigation, experimental inquiry, systems analysis, and invention tasks
(Marzano, 2003, pp. 82-83).
To address the students’ 15 learning units that they are required to take per
semester, Marzano (2003) recommends providing teachers with an instructional
framework for units that employ research-based strategies. This framework
should be user friendly and allow teachers the flexibility to cover related material.
He further recommends organizing this framework based on the following three
strategies: Those used at regular intervals in a unit; those focusing on input
experiences; and those dealing with reviewing, practicing, and applying content.
As an alternative, Marzano also recommends using the elements of a
lesson design to organize respective instructional strategies. According to Hunter
(1984), the elements of a lesson design are: Anticipatory set, which is a mental
set that cause students to focus on what will be learned; objective and purpose,
which assist students to learn more effectively when they know what they are
supposed to be learning and why related learning is important to them; input,
which helps students to acquire new information about the knowledge, process, or
skill they are to achieve; modeling, which helps students to see examples of the
process or products that they are expected to acquire or produce; checking for
understanding, which helps the teacher verify that students understand what they
are supposed to do and that they have the minimum skills required; guided
practice, which assists students to practice their new knowledge or skill under
53
direct teacher supervision; and independent practice, which is assigned only after
the teacher is reasonably sure that students will not make a serious error.
The implementation of effective instructional strategies is important;
however, they can be rendered ineffective if teachers do not have proper control
of classroom management. For example, one disrespectful and irresponsible
student can defy a teacher’s authority and be extremely disruptive in a classroom
full of students. In this case scenario, a teacher is expected to know how to
exercise constructive discipline and transform a negative challenge into a positive
outcome. The next section introduces information on this topic.
Classroom Management
Marzano (2003) defines classroom management as the confluence of
teacher actions in four distinct areas: (1) Establishing and enforcing rules and
procedures; (2) carrying out disciplinary actions; (3) maintaining effective teacher
and student relationships; and (4) sustaining an appropriate mental set for
management. All of these areas are important and interdependent. This means
that all of them are vital requirements to effective classroom management.
Rules and procedures involve establishing expectations regarding student
behavior. Where a rule identifies general expectations or standards, a procedure
communicates expectations for specific behaviors (Evertson et al, 1984). For
example, a teacher might establish a rule directing students to respect each other’s
person and property; while a procedure will direct them to participate respectfully
in team exercises, which may include listening to each other while each student
54
speaks in the group and in front of class. Classroom rules and procedures are
usually established to address general expectations for behavior; beginning and
ending of class; transitions and interruptions; material and equipment; group
work; and seatwork and teacher-led activities (Marzano, 2003). Teachers are
encouraged to develop these rules in collaboration with students. Teachers are
also urged to share with students the consequences that impact those who obey or
violate these rules.
Regarding the carrying out of disciplinary actions, research by Stage &
Quiroz (1997) identified four disciplinary techniques that have proven to show
degrees of effectiveness: Reinforcement, punishment, no immediate
consequences, and combined punishment and reinforcement. Reinforcement
involves a recognition or reward for positive behavior, or timely cessation of
negative behavior. Punishment involves loss of privileges or time out for student
offenders. No immediate consequences involve warning or reminding a student
offender of potential future consequences. Combined punishment and
reinforcement involve recognition or reward of appropriate behavior, in
conjunction with consequences for inappropriate behavior.
Research by Stage & Quiroz (1997) shows that a combination of
punishment and reinforcement work best in disciplining students and reducing
student disruptive behaviors. These interventions are followed in order of
effectiveness by reinforcement alone, punishment alone, and no immediate
consequences. This research proves that, if these interventions are widely used in
55
our schools, then they can reduce students’ disruptive behaviors (Stage & Quiroz,
2007).
Effective teacher and student relationships are also indispensable to
classroom management. Relationships that show mutual respect, trust,
responsibility and understanding are more effective than those that do not have
these attributes. Wubbels (1999) articulated two continuums whose interactions
define the relationship between teachers and students: High dominance versus
high submission, and high cooperation versus high opposition. High dominance
is characterized by a clarity of purpose and strong guidance. Conversely, high
submission lacks a clarity of purpose and direction. High cooperation is noted for
its concern for the needs of others and a desire to be a team player. On the other
extreme, high opposition is an active antagonism toward others and a desire to
defeat their goals and desires. Wubbels discovered that none of the above
extremes is conducive to effective teacher and student relationships. Instead, he
concluded that optimal teacher and student relationships are the result of the right
combination of moderate dominance and moderate cooperation between them
(Wubbels, 1999).
Marzano (2003) also believes that the appropriate mental set for a
classroom teacher reflects alertness and emotional objectivity. Alertness is the
disposition of the teacher to quickly and accurately identify problem behavior and
act on it (Kounin, 1983). Emotional objectivity is being able to carry out the
various aspects of classroom management without becoming involved or
56
personalizing students’ actions (Marzano, 2003). Both of these qualities can
assist a teacher to be more effective in preventing student disruption that can lead
to violence, and in maximizing student achievement.
Exemplary instructional leaders are thus expected to excel in classroom
management. Whether it is enforcing classroom rules, carrying out disciplinary
actions, maintaining sound relationships, or being alert to the micro-behaviors of
students, their success in these areas will impact their effectiveness in addressing
curriculum challenges. The next section focuses on these challenges.
Classroom Curriculum Design
Marzano (2003) defines classroom curriculum design as “the sequencing and
pacing of content along with the experiences that students have with that
content”(p.106). He emphasizes that the sequence and pacing of content is under
the purview of the classroom teacher. Hence, he forwards the following three
principles, based in cognitive psychology, that he believes are the action steps to
develop an effective curriculum design.
Principle 1: Learning is enhanced when a teacher identifies specific types
of knowledge that are the focus of a unit or lesson. Under this principle, Marzano
recommends that teachers identify the important declarative and procedural
knowledge in the topics that are to be the focus of instruction. Declarative
knowledge is more information based, whereas procedural knowledge is more
skill and process based. For example, knowledge of the characteristics of a
computer is declarative because it involves information. Knowledge about how a
57
computer functions is procedural because it involves understanding related
complex processes.
Principle 2: Learning requires engagement in tasks that are structured or
are sufficiently similar to allow for effective transfer of knowledge. Marzano
references research that proves that structure is necessary and sameness is an
essential aspect to the effective transfer of learning (James, 1890; Campbell,
1986; Carnine, 1992; Kameenui, 1992). To maximize effectiveness in student
learning, teachers are encouraged to build on the existing knowledge base and
previous experiences of students.
Principle 3: Learning requires multiple exposure to and complex
interactions with knowledge. Piaget (1971) introduces assimilation and
accommodation as new knowledge that impacts the learner’s existing knowledge
base. However, whereas the assimilation is accumulated gradually and integrated
into the learner’s knowledge base, accommodation restructures and reorganizes it.
Piaget also notes that multiple exposures to knowledge over time are necessary
for assimilation, whereas complex interaction with knowledge over time allows
for accommodation.
These learning principles are important to understand the ways in which
students learn and accumulate knowledge (Marzano, 2003). To maximize
learning, teachers also need to understand the diverse backgrounds and multiple
risk factors impacting students at home, among peers, at school, and in the
community (Hawkins & Catalano, (1996). These risk factors include poverty,
58
family dysfunction, and violence. This understanding can help identify
corresponding protective factors at each of these areas and help ensure student
safety and academic achievement (Marzano, 2003; Hawkins & Catalano, 1996).
Marzano (2003) further believes that multiple exposures to new
knowledge are required to integrate it with existing knowledge, and retain it in
permanent memory. He also believes that complex interaction with new
knowledge is required to change our basic understanding (Marzano, 2003).
Researchers have further found that dramatic instruction, which engages students
directly in a dramatic presentation of content, leads to more effective learning
than visual and verbal instruction (Nuthall, 1999). For example, instruction that
uses case analysis of problems can be made more effective by requiring students
to work in teams to design solutions that use their verbal, visual, and kinesthetic
abilities.
The above teacher level factors are very important to the development of a
student’s education. In K-12 schools, teachers thus play a vital role that either
fosters or hinders the realization of student achievement. Despite this reality,
students are the most-important decision-makers that ultimately determine the
success or failure of their education outcomes. The next section addresses student
level factors regarding student safety and academic achievement.
Student Level Factors
Research and theory show that schools account for only 20 percent of the
variance in student achievement, while student background characteristics
59
account for the other 80 percent (Marzano, 2003). Understanding students’
background characteristics is therefore very important to help improve their
achievement levels. Some researchers conclude, however, that students’
characteristics are genetically based and hence they cannot be changed through
education (Jensen, 1980; Heurnstein and Murray, 1994). Contrary to this
conclusion, Marzano believes that school-based interventions can help shape the
characteristics of student backgrounds, even those deemed to be difficult and
negative (Marzano, 2003). This section concurs with Marzano’s view.
Marzano (2003) specifically identifies the following three student level
background characteristics that he believes can help improve student
achievement: Home environment, learned intelligence, and motivation. Although
Marzano (2003) claims that the home environment is the most important factor
impacting student achievement, learned intelligence and motivation also have a
substantial impact on the formal education of students. The following narrative
addresses each of them and emphasizes their influence on fostering student safety
and achievement.
Home Environment
Under home environment, the socio-economic status of a student’s family
is deemed to be one of the best predictors of student achievement (Charters,
1963). In particular, researchers have found that higher than parents’ income,
education, and occupation, the student’s home atmosphere has the greatest
influence on his or her academic achievement (White, 1982). In priority order,
60
home environment is composed of three basic elements: (1) parent expectations
and parenting styles; (2) communication about school; and (3) supervision.
Under parent expectations, parents are expected to have high academic
expectations about the academic aspirations for their children. When these
expectations are communicated to them, they are associated with enhanced
achievement (Cohen, 1987; Boersma & Chapman, 1982). Notably, researchers
have found that student perceptions of their parents’ expectations may be more
important than the expectations themselves (Christenson et al., 1992). Regarding
parenting styles, the authoritative style is deemed to be more effective in
communicating expectations to students. This style is known for setting
reasonable expectations and helping students to achieve them in a strict, fair, and
timely manner. The permissive parenting style, which has proven to be less
effective, is characterized by parental warmth, inductive discipline, non-punitive
behavior practices, and inconsistency in child-rearing (Rosenau, 1998).
Regarding communication about school, parents are expected to take the
initiative to discuss school progress with their children. Parents are also expected
to restructure the environment at home to make it more supportive of their
children’s academic learning. This latter action can include setting a special study
place at home that has a table and chair, is quiet, well lit, and has a dictionary and
other literature that can be used to facilitate learning.
Effective parent supervision involves monitoring children’s behavior to
optimize academic achievement (Marzano, 2003). Monitoring includes verifying
61
the time a student spends doing homework, the time that a student spends
engaging in after-school activities, and the time the student spends watching
television. This monitoring needs to be consistent and non-intrusive in order to
maximize its effectiveness.
In summary, exemplary parents are expected to develop an academic
friendly home environment, communicate with their children about school, and
monitor their academic activities. Similarly, schools need to integrate parent
education and involvement into their academic plans and organizational culture.
To maximize student achievement, parents need to see themselves as partners in
the education of their children.
Learned Intelligence
The second student level background characteristic that has proven to
improve student achievement is learned intelligence (Marzano, 2003). According
to Rulfhus & Ackerman (1999), crystallized intelligence (intelligence as
knowledge) is more strongly related to academic achievement than fluid
intelligence (cognitive processes). This conclusion is based on their finding that
student learning is easier to quantify and measure than abstract, cognitive
processes (Rulfhus & Ackerman, 1999).
To enhance crystallized knowledge directly, and strengthen the
experiential base of students, Marzano (2003) recommends using mentorship
programs that foster healthy, relationships between students and exemplary adult
role models. Marzano also recommends vocabulary building among students and
62
teachers to enhance crystallized intelligence indirectly. He adds that this latter
action should involve students in a reading program that emphasizes vocabulary
development. He also recommends providing students with direct instruction in
vocabulary terms that are important to the specific subject covered by the related
lesson plan. The above recommendations are especially important to address the
diverse education needs of at—risk students. If educators truly believe that all
students can learn, then they need to teach them how to develop crystallized
intelligence to help them ensure their safety and success at school.
Motivation
Like intelligence, motivation also has a tremendous impact on student
achievement (Steinkemp & Maher, 1983). If students are motivated to achieve
success at school, then they are more likely to realize related aspirations.
Conversely, if students are not motivated to succeed at school, then they are prone
to academic failure. Unmotivated students are also more likely to seek other
interests that can lead to depression, drug addiction, crime, and violence on the
school grounds. Marzano (2003) addresses the nature of motivation by focusing
on the following five theories: drive; attribution; self-worth; emotions; and self-
system. These theories are important to help students take affirmative steps to
ensure their health, safety and success throughout their formal education. These
theories are explained in sequential order below.
Drive theory states that motivation is driven by the will to succeed, or the
fear of failure. Students who are success oriented thus tend to be motivated to set
63
and achieve personal and professional goals, whereas students who are failure
avoidant tend to be less motivated to set and achieve academic goals. Similarly,
the former tend to be motivated by challenges, whereas the latter are evasive and
self-handicap themselves by not willing to confront them. Although the latter
may possess the abilities to address challenges effectively, they make excuses to
fail (Covington, 1992).
Attribution theory states that students’ perceptions about previous success
or failure determine their level of motivation. Covington (1992) believes that
there are four main causes students attribute to their success: ability, effort, luck,
and task difficulty. Of these, effort is the most useful because this can lead
students to persist in doing the work necessary to improve their academic
achievement. Seligman (1975) also believes that the way students justify their
success can help them to replace negative thinking with a more optimistic
outlook. For example, optimistic students tend to see a glass of water as half full,
rather than half empty.
Self worth theory states that students have a natural need for self-
acceptance. This means that they must learn to like and accept themselves as
precious human beings that have the unlimited potential to improve themselves
and the world, regardless of the opinions of others. In a world full of social
hierarchies that show degrees of acceptance based on personal and professional
achievement, many needy students find self-acceptance difficult to realize. This
belief can lead to an imbalance that can sway many of these students to join
64
delinquent groups that are ready to accept them as they are. If this occurs,
students can jeopardize their safety and success at school. Educators thus need to
develop education approaches that teach all students how to appreciate their self-
worth, and motivate them to ensure their safety and academic achievement.
Motivation can also be influenced by the theory of emotions (Gazzaniga,
1992). According to Ledoux (1996), the cognitive abilities of students are
influenced by their emotions, which in turn impact their academic achievement.
He also claims that mental health is maintained by emotional hygiene (Ledoux,
1996). This means that mental failures or successes reflect the emotional status
of humans. Accordingly, educators need to understand and validate the emotions
of students and help nurture them with respect, love and integrity, as well as with
sound, ethical direction.
Self-system theory states that human needs and aspirations are part of a
self-regulatory system that can be used to motivate human behavior. Based on
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, in priority order, humans have physiological,
safety, affiliation, self-esteem and self-actualization needs (Maslow, 1943). All of
these needs are inter-dependent and are part of a self-regulatory system that
impacts all humans. Self-actualization particularly influences the self-efficacy of
humans. This influence means that students who set and achieve meaningful
goals have a stronger self-efficacy than those who experience failure
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).
65
As actions steps to maximize student motivation, educators are
encouraged to provide students with constant, constructive feedback regarding
their personal academic growth. Educators are also urged to engage students in
dynamic educational activities that stimulate their interests, and direct students to
design personal projects that manifest their creativity and enjoyment. Effective
education leaders are thus required to teach students the dynamics of motivation
to enhance their self-regulatory learning (Marzano, 2003).
The above narrative presented insights regarding Marzano’s education
model on student achievement. This model introduced school, teacher, and
student level factors that are particularly instrumental in improving the academic
achievement level of students. If implemented appropriately, these factors can
also help improve the school’s climate and ensure a safe, and robust learning
environment.
The next section refocuses on school safety. As mentioned previously in
this chapter, school violence can lead to a disruptive and threatening environment,
which can cause emotional distress and physical injury to students and staff, and
ultimately impact student achievement (Elliott et al., 1998). The next section
also addresses this study’s research question one on school safety and student
achievement. This section introduces a promising theoretical school safety model
that can be used to prevent or reduce the victimization of students and staff at
respective middle schools across America.
66
New Theoretical Model On School Violence
In an era of new expectations in education, the conceptualization of a
multi-disciplinary, school-centered, violence-prevention model is an idea whose
time has come (Astor & Benbenishty, 2005). If schools are to play a significant,
central role in addressing the challenges of violence, then educators need to be
equipped to lead. Other non-school stakeholders can help in this undertaking, but
on the school grounds educators must be prepared to maximize the use of
personal and collective talents and exercise exemplary school leadership (Burns,
2003).
In the late 1990s, Astor & Benbenishty (2005) developed a model that
focuses on the school and the socio-ecological influences impacting student
victimization. Compared to behaviorist and cognitive learning theories that focus
on the individual student, this theoretical model is unique because it centers on the
school setting (Astor & Benbenishty, 2005). This model examines types of
victimization; school level factors; individual factors; and factors outside the
school. These areas correspond with state mandates that require all K-12 schools
to establish comprehensive school safety plans that address the physical, social,
and cultural environments, along with the individual needs of students (California
Education Code, Sections 32280-32282, 2009). The following information
concurs with each of the abovementioned areas.
67
Types of Victimization
Under types of victimization, this model addresses-separately and in groupings-
physical violence, threats, verbal-emotional victimization, sexual harassment,
weapons-related victimization, and victimization by staff members. Astor
believes that student victimization must include an analysis of how violence
impacts the student’s emotional, cognitive and social domains. Astor also asserts
that related similarities and differences are important to understanding and
intervening in a specific type of victimization (Astor & Benbenishty, 2005).
Along with the identification of types of student victimization, school leaders
must also examine the school level factors that impact the safety and achievement
of students. These factors are listed in the following narrative.
School Level Factors
School level factors include development of schoolwide awareness,
responses to violence, school climate, school size and class size, location and
time, and peer groups. Schoolwide awareness means that the entire student body,
faculty, administration and parents are engaged in prioritizing school violence and
addressing its challenges to make the school safe. Responses to violence include
those that are positive and negative, as well as those that generate no action. For
example, according to Olweus (1993), a negative response of the peer group to
bullying behavior and its support of victims is essential to reducing bullying
levels. On another extreme, a lack of response by the peer group, by parents, and
by school staff is a risk factor that perpetuates bullying (Olweus, 1993). School
68
climate includes school board policies and procedures against violence, teacher
support of students, student participation in decision-making, and development of
interventions to prevent school violence. School and class size address the impact
that a big school and a large class have on student behavior. Hellman and Beaton
(1986) believe that a high student to teacher ratio makes it difficult for teachers to
monitor students’ behavior effectively, so discipline problems and criminal
activities increase. School location and time also impact the rate of student
violence. For example, school playgrounds during recess, before and after school
have high rates of student victimization. Lastly, the presence of risky peer group
behaviors on the school grounds is also associated with students’ victimization.
Understanding school level factors is important to help school leaders
develop system-wide school safety and student achievement initiatives. For
example, in addressing the challenges of street gangs impacting students on the
school grounds, education leaders need to be guided by specialized school board
policies and procedures. They also must train teachers on effective gang
prevention and intervention strategies that can be used to strengthen classroom
management, and foster a safe school climate. Most important, they need to
understand the individual needs of each impacted student and provide positive
behavior support that can strengthen their safety and academic achievement
(Mayer, 1995). The next section focuses on the individual level factors of
students.
69
Individual Level Factors
Individual factors address race, gender, age, and the physical
characteristics of students (Astor & Benbenishty, 2005). For example, boys are
more prone to engaging in school violence than girls; younger students are more
likely to report greater victimization than older students; and victims of bullying
tend to be shorter and weaker than those their age, while bullies tend to be taller
and stronger (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1996, 1998, 2000; Voss
& Mulligan, 2000; Olweus, 1993). These individual factors are very important in
understanding the diverse characteristics of students attending K-12 schools.
Along with these factors, to maximize effectiveness in school safety and student
achievement, school leaders are also expected to understand the following
external school factors.
External School Factors
Factors outside the school cover parents of bullies and victims, family
poverty, community context, and ethnicity and culture (Astor & Benbenishty,
2005). Research on parents of bullies and victims shows that parenting not
characterized by warmth or direct involvement in a child’s daily life increases the
risk that the child will act out aggressively; parents that do not set clear rules
about acceptable and unacceptable behavior and who tolerate their child’s
aggressive behavior increase the risk that the child will become a bully; and
parents who model aggressive behavior increase the risk that their child will also
become a bully (Olweus, 1993; Bowers et al., 1994; Sullivan, 2000). Regarding
70
family poverty, Black and White students whose parents had a history of
unemployment were more likely to engage in violent behavior than those that had
parents fully employed (Brownfield, 1987). Regarding community context,
discrimination and lack of opportunities for education and employment have all
been identified as risk factors for inter-personal violence (Catalano and Hawkins,
1996). Researchers have also found that violence rates differ by ethnicity and
culture. Specifically, Blacks and Hispanics are found to have higher levels of
violent victimization (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 1996, 1998,
2000).
Understanding the above external factors is important to assist needy
students to address related health, safety and academic needs. For example, in a
Middle School case involving Hispanic English learners whose parents are poor,
illiterate and unemployed, effective education leaders are compelled to understand
the impact of the home environment on these students’ education. Morever, if
these students are failing their classes, getting into physical fights, and
underperforming in their achievement tests, then education leaders are also
expected to identify and address these students’ needs in a timely and effective
manner. These actions include working with other education stakeholders to
maximize effectiveness.
Astor & Benbenishty (2005) believe that a comprehensive theory of
school violence must include the views of all stakeholders impacted by it. At a
minimum, the multiple perspectives of teachers, students, and parents must be
71
examined. In this regard, because schools are embedded within socio-
ecologically nested contexts, and because each school is unique, to maximize
effectiveness in addressing school violence, the sharing of ownership,
responsibility, and accountability among respective stakeholders is an important
requirement (Astor & Benbenishty, 2005).
The next section addresses best school safety and security practices.
Although most of these practices are applicable to all public schools, they are
specifically applicable to public middle schools. As the field of school safety
continues to evolve, these practices are similarly expected to become more
effective in preventing or reducing school violence.
Best School Safety and Security Practices
Throughout the 20
th
century, educators witnessed a variety of professional
approaches aimed at preventing or curtailing violence at school. Some of these
approaches were led by school teachers or principals, while others were
developed by non-educators who attempted to impose their ideas on schools.
Other approaches were also developed by leaders at universities, community
based organizations, private businesses, or government agencies (United States
Department of Education, 2008). For example, at Garfield High School, which is
located in a high risk environment in East Los Angeles, calculus teacher Jaime
Escalante was able to use his charisma and a user-friendly approach to teach
calculus to high risk students, and prevent them from engaging in violent and
disruptive behaviors. According to Mathews (1988), Escalante’s approach began
72
with the high expectation that all students had the potential to be excellent
academic achievers. He then engaged students in establishing a set of core values
that included an emphasis on practicing respect, responsibility, courage, integrity,
hard work, and perseverance (Mathews, 1988). Subsequently, he led them in
establishing clear classroom rules on acceptable and unacceptable student
behavior; focused on their nutrition; treated them with kindness; demanded hard
work and discipline from them; involved their parents; shared ownership,
responsibility and accountability with students and their parents; and taught them
to celebrate their success (Mathews, 1988). Beyond Escalante’s great personal
efforts and successes, he soon realized that he alone could not address the broader
school safety and academic needs of all of the students attending Garfield High
School. Moreover, he was not able to replicate the abovementioned success at
local middle schools. As a result of these shortcomings, he got frustrated and
decided to leave the teaching profession.
Another example is the Drug Awareness Resistance Education (DARE)
Program, which was developed through a partnership between the Los Angeles
Police Department and the Los Angeles Unified School District. Initially, the
focus of DARE was to prevent 5
th
and 6
th
grade students from engaging in illegal
drug use and abuse. Later, it was expanded to include students attending public
middle schools. Through this program, uniformed police officers were assigned
to respective elementary and middle schools to implement a curriculum composed
73
of 17 lessons plans. Each week, a police officer implemented a one-hour lesson
plan on respectful, trustworthy and responsible behavior.
As part of DARE, students and police officers were able to develop
healthy relationships that led many students to stay away from drugs. Beyond
DARE’s successes, it also had many limitations. These included a limited
mission that prevented its leaders from implementing it at earlier and later grade
levels. In fact, limited resources also prevented DARE officers from conducting
effective follow-up work with students that participated in DARE. In later years,
it also suffered other shortcomings when it expanded its resources to address the
challenges of street gangs and youth violence. These shortcomings resulted in
research and evaluation studies that showed that many high school students that
participated in DARE during their elementary school years were more apt to
engage in alcohol abuse than those students that did not (Lynam et al., 1989;
Kanof, 2003). In 2001, the Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. David
Satcher, placed the DARE program in the category of “does not work” (Satcher,
2001). In 2007, the American Psychological Science Journal placed DARE on a
list of treatments that have the potential to cause harm to clients (Lilienfeld,
2007).
Another example is a student boot-camp, known as the Turning Point
Academy. Through state legislation, the California National Guard was granted
20 million dollars to develop this Academy (California Senate Bill 1542, Chapter
366, 2000). Its main purpose was to design a comprehensive educational
74
initiative that would address the diverse needs of high risk students who were
expelled from public secondary schools for possession of guns, for use of illegal
drugs, or for engaging in other serious misbehaviors. The Guard used these
financial resources to hire personnel, to craft a specialized academic curriculum,
and to develop a well-organized physical training component. After more than
six months of unilateral engagement in this work, its personnel began to serve
student clients. However, because of numerous shortcomings, the expected large
number of students did not come. These limitations included poor planning with
the impacted school districts that led to transportation, housing, and other related
problems. In fact, during its two-year duration, only 20 students were served.
Subsequently, funding for this program was stopped.
The evolution of best practices in violence prevention at school has been
influenced by many well-intentioned initiatives that have proven to be ineffective
in addressing the broader needs of urban public schools. Despite these
experiences, researchers have used the lessons learned from these initiatives to
develop better, evidenced-based, safety and security practices. One important
lesson is that school violence can be addressed more effectively through a
concerted effort that shares ownership, responsibility and accountability among
students, parents, educators, police officers, and community leaders working
together (Astor & Benbenishty, 2005).
Modern school safety and security practices were also influenced by
recent acts of extreme violence committed by a variety of school shooters. These
75
incidents include the killing of two students and the wounding of 25 others by
student Kip Kinkel at Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon (Dwyer et al.,
1998). After this incident, President Bill Clinton directed the Secretaries of the
United States Departments of Education and Justice to develop an Early
Warning/Timely Response guide to help adults reach out to troubled students
quickly and effectively (Dwyer et al., 1998). This guide includes the following 13
characteristics of schools that are deemed to be safe and responsive to all
students: 1) Focus on academic achievement; 2) involve families in meaningful
ways; 3) develop links to the community; 4) emphasize positive, meaningful
relationships between student and school staff; 5) discuss safety issues openly; 6)
treat students with equal respect; 7) create ways for students to share their
concerns; 8) help children feel safe in expressing their feelings; 9) establish a
system for referring children who are suspected of being abused or neglected; 10)
offer extended day programs for children; 11) promote good citizenship and
character education; 12) identify problems and assess progress toward solutions;
and 13) support students in making the transition to adult life and the workplace
(Dwyer et al., 1998).
The Early Warning/Timely Response guide also affirms recent research,
which has shown that effective interventions are culturally appropriate, family-
supported, individualized, coordinated, and monitored (Dwyer et al., 1998; Astor
et al., 2005). Interventions are specifically effective when they are designed and
implemented consistently over time with input from the child, the family, and
76
appropriate professionals. Schools can also draw upon the resources of their
community to strengthen and enhance intervention planning, implementation and
evaluation (Dwyer et al., 1998; Astor et al., 2005).
Best practices on school safety are also reflected in the findings of the
annual National School Survey On Crime and Safety (NCES, 2007), which
documents principals’ reports of the prevalence of formal school practices
designed to prevent or reduce school violence. These practices particularly
address the involvement of parents in preventing or reducing school violence,
safety and security procedures, and allowable disciplinary policies. These
findings are organized for elementary, middle, and high schools respectively. In
accordance with the main focus of this dissertation, the following findings only
address the realities of the participating middle schools.
NCES findings on parent involvement show that 60 percent of middle
schools obtained parental input on policies related to school crime; 49 percent
provided parental training to deal with students’ problem behaviors; and 19
percent involved parents at school to maintain discipline (National Center for
Education Statistics, September, 2007). Conversely, these statistics show that 40
percent of these schools did not involve parents in the development of school
safety policies; 51 percent also did not provide any parent training on ways to
address students’ misbehaviors; and 79 percent did not engage parents at school to
help maintain student discipline. These statistics further show that the gap in
77
parent involvement at middle schools was similar to the one manifested at all
participating elementary and high schools (see Appendix J).
NCES findings on safety and security procedures also show that 64
percent of middle schools had security officers, or police present on a regular
basis; 42 percent used one or more security cameras to monitor the school; 40
percent used dogs to conduct random drug checks; 14 percent required students to
wear uniforms; 24 percent conducted random sweeps for drug contraband; and 10
percent performed random metal detector tests on students (National Center for
Education Statistics, September, 2007). By contrast, 36 percent of these schools
did not have security officers, or police present on a regular basis, and
overwhelmingly over 50 percent of them did not use one or more security
cameras to monitor the school, did not use dogs to conduct random drug checks,
did not require students to wear uniforms, did not conduct random sweeps for
drug contraband, and did not perform random metal detector tests on students.
NCES findings regarding disciplinary policies further show that 77
percent of middle schools allowed out-of-school suspension with no curriculum or
services provided; 80 percent allowed transfer to a specialized school for
disciplinary reasons; and 59 percent allowed removal from school for the
remaining of the school year with no services (National Center for Education
Statistics, September, 2007). By contrast, these statistics showed that a minority
of middle schools had policies that did not allow students to be suspended with no
curriculum or services provided, did not allow them to transfer to specialized
78
schools for disciplinary reasons, and did not allow them to be removed for the
remaining of the school year with no services (see Appendix J).
In summary, these findings show that urban schools located in high crime
areas have limited rates of parent involvement at school; higher levels of safety
and security procedures; and higher levels of allowable disciplinary policies, such
as those that allow out of school suspensions with no services (see Appendix J).
These findings also compared schools with low, moderate or high minority
enrollments. For example, schools where Hispanic enrollment levels are high
have corresponding levels of parent involvement at school; safety and security
levels vary from those that are higher to those that are lower; and allowable
disciplinary policies are lower (see Appendix J). This latter finding means that
schools that have lower minority enrollment have higher levels of allowable
disciplinary policies.
The above survey findings show the practical school safety and security
realities that middle school principals are experiencing at their respective schools.
These findings did not address the effectiveness levels of respective school safety
practices. However, they did identify the preponderant gaps that continue to
plague all schools. The following section identifies a variety of exemplary and
promising programs that are built on the above findings.
Exemplary Programs
The United States Department of Education (USDOE) has a list of
exemplary programs that have proven to be effective in addressing the needs of
79
students attending middle schools. All of these programs have been reviewed and
approved by this department using the following criteria: Evidence of efficacy;
quality of program; educational significance; and usefulness to others (United
States Department of Education, 2008). Specifically, exemplary programs are
those that are well implemented and evaluated according to rigorous standards of
research, including experimental and control groups, or quasi-experimental
designs (Astor et al., 2005). These programs are in concurrence with Astor’s
comprehensive, school-centered theory on school violence, and Marzano’s model
on best practices in student achievement (Astor & Benbenishty, 2005; Marzano.
2003). Examples of these programs are presented below.
The Safe Schools and Healthy Students Initiative is a discretionary grant
program that provides students, schools, and communities with federal funding to
implement a coordinated, comprehensive plan of services that focus on promoting
healthy childhood development and preventing violence and drug abuse (U.S.
Department of Education, 2008). This Initiative addresses the following six
areas: safe school environment; alcohol and other drug and violence prevention;
mental health needs; early childhood needs; schools and communities; and school
policies. It targets students in K—12 grades and it is driven by a group of multi-
agency stakeholders that represent school, community, mental health, public
health, and law enforcement agencies. The USDOE, along with other federal
agencies, funds this program at selected schools up to $2 million per year for
three consecutive years.
80
A second program is called Life Skills Training. This program combines
building social competencies, violence prevention, and drug abuse prevention. It
targets 6
th
through 9
th
grade students, and it is composed of 15 sessions per year.
Each session lasts 45 minutes. It costs $625 per middle school set, which includes
a teacher’s manual and 30 student guides.
A third program is known as Second Step, which is primarily a violence
prevention curriculum. This program focuses on violence prevention and
building social competencies. It targets pre-K through 9
th
grade students, and it is
composed of 20 sessions per year. Each session is 20 to 50 minutes in duration.
Its price varies from $259 for a pre-K kit to $545 for a middle school kit.
Lastly, there is the Strengthening Families Program. This program also
combines building social competencies, violence prevention, and drug abuse
prevention. It targets students in 5
th
through 9
th
grades, and it is composed of 7
sessions per year. Each session lasts two hours. The cost of this program varies
from $175 for a leader’s manual to $3,500 for a three-day session.
Promising Programs
In addition to exemplary programs, USDOE also developed a list of
promising programs. Like exemplary programs, specialized criteria were used to
review and approve these latter programs. Unlike exemplary programs, however,
promising programs have not met the same rigorous research and evaluation
standards, and have not achieved sufficient, consistent positive outcomes (Astor et
al., 2005). These programs are also in agreement with the school safety and
81
student achievement theories of Astor (2005) and Marzano (2003) respectively.
Examples of these programs are listed below.
The first promising program is called, Aggressors, Victims, and By-
standers: Thinking and Acting to Prevent Violence. This program focuses on
violence prevention and building social competencies. It targets students in 6
th
through 9
th
grades, and it is composed of 12 sessions. Each session lasts 45
minutes and it is implemented one week apart. The cost of this program is $60
for material and training, which can vary from $1,000 to $1,500 per training.
The second promising program is titled, Community of Caring. This
program focuses on building social competencies, violence and drug abuse
prevention. It targets students in K—12 grades, and it is composed of 14-session
curriculum. Each session lasts 45 minutes. It is also provide on-going student
forums, service learning projects, and family involvement activities. The cost of
this program is $4,000 for 500 elementary school students, and $8,250 for 1,000
secondary students.
The third promising program is known as Peace Builders. This program
focuses on developing a healthy, peaceful school climate by promoting pro-social
behavior among students and staff, reducing student aggression, and improving
social competence. Through this program, students learn and practice five
principles: 1) Praise people; 2) avoid put downs; 3) seek wise people as advisors
and friends; 4) notice and correct harmful behavior; and 5) right wrongs. These
principles are reinforced and modeled by school administrators, teachers, and
82
parents. These services are provided to students in 1
st
through 8
th
grades, and it is
composed of day-long trainings for parents, teachers and students that are on-
going, school-wide, and community-wide. It charges schools $8 per student
participant and $1,250 for a two-day training of trainers for elementary schools.
Costs for middle school include $1,250 for a two-day trainer of trainers session.
The fourth promising program is called Students Managing Anger and
Resolution Together (SMART). This program focuses on violence prevention
and building social competencies. It targets students in 5
th
through 9
th
grades, and
it is composed of 8 modules used in sequence or independently. Its cost is $195
for user license for one computer, $395 for multi-use license, and $595 for
network license.
The fifth promising program is known as the Think Time Strategy. This
program also focuses on violence prevention and building social competencies. It
targets students in K through 9
th
grades, and it requires a teacher working in
tandem to send disruptive students to a Think Time desk as necessary. Its only
cost is $49 for video-based training.
The exemplary and promising programs mentioned above are initiatives
that education leaders need to support, improve, and replicate at needy schools
across America. However, because one size program does not fit all schools,
they must use due diligence in spreading these programs to other K-12 schools
(Astor et al., 2005). In addition, to maximize related program success, education
leaders need to fund formative evaluations to identify related program strengths
83
and weaknesses. This information then should be used to explore better ways to
sustain and spread these programs’ effectiveness. The success or failure of these
initiatives, however, will continue to be determined by the exercising of
exemplary school leadership (Heifetz, 1994).
The next section addresses this study’s research question two. This
question explores the leadership practices that middle school leaders use to ensure
school safety and maximize student achievement. The following section focuses
on leadership.
Exemplary School Leadership
School safety is a pre-requisite to student achievement, which compels
educators to exercise exemplary leadership (Marzano, 2003). Burns (2003)
defines exemplary leadership as a discipline of disciplines that requires the
mobilization of personal and group resources to ensure the constitutional rights of
all Americans to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These disciplines
include history, philosophy, anthropology, sociology and political science.
Exemplary leadership starts by developing the intellectual, spiritual and physical
resources of educators (Bolman & Deal, 2006; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002; Covey,
1989). This includes developing sharp minds that can assist to optimize their
thinking; strong hearts that can teach them to love humanity and guide their
morality; and healthy bodies that can help them to overcome physical challenges
(Bolman & Deal, 2006; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002; Covey, 1989). The greatest
challenge to realizing these attributes, however, is to create and maintain balance
84
among them. Once educators do this, then they can proceed to mobilize group
resources. Accordingly, exemplary education leaders must also take the time to
understand the group members’ hearts, minds and spirits (Bolman & Deal; Heitez
& Linsky, 2002; Covey, 1989). In other words, time must be dedicated to
empathize with each other’s roots, voices and visions and cultivate mutual
respect, responsibility and integrity. If this is done effectively, then the group can
focus its energies on facing, defining and solving the most serious problems
related to school safety and student achievement (Heifetz, 1994).
According to Delaine Eastin, former Superintendent of Public Instruction
in California, the decline of public education is not due to a lack of quality
research on the improvement of public schools; rather, it is due to a lack of vision,
heart, and courage by the people who fund educational policy (Eastin, 2008).
Eastin recommends developing a curriculum that supports the education of
educators to lead the educational transformation that is required to bring about
effective change. Eastin also recommends integrating this curriculum, as part of
designing a comprehensive certification program for school leaders.
In concurrence with Eastin’s recommendations, the Interstate School
Leaders Licensure Consortium, which is a part of the Council of Chief State
School Officers, established a set of three tenets, seven principles, and six
standards that it believes are necessary for the effective development of
exemplary school leaders (Flanary & Simpson, 2008). The first tenet states that
despite related context, diversity, and school level, there is a single set of
85
standards that applies to all leadership positions. The second tenet states that the
focus and ground of the standards should be the heart and soul of productive
leadership. And the third tenet states that, beyond codifying related education
work, the standards should help push and pull the profession to a higher level of
effectiveness (Flanary & Simpson, 2008).
The Consortium used the above tenets to craft the following seven
principles: (1) Standards should reflect the centrality of student learning; (2)
standards should acknowledge the changing role of the school leader; (3)
standards should recognize the collaborative nature of school leadership; (4)
standards should be high, upgrading the quality of the profession; (5) standards
should inform performance-based systems of assessment and evaluation for
school leaders; (6) standards should be integrated and coherent; and (7) standards
should be predicated on the concepts of access, opportunity, and empowerment
for all members of the school community (Flanary & Simpson, 2008). These
principles are clear in embracing exemplary school leadership as a discipline that
fosters high quality public service. This public service includes empowering
education stakeholders to make schools safe learning environments, where all
principals can lead, teachers can teach, and students can learn and achieve at the
highest education levels. According to Flanary & Simpson (2008), these
principles are reflected in the following six standards:
86
I. An education leader promotes the success of every student by facilitating the
development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of
learning that is shared and supported by the school community.
II. An education leader promotes the success of every student by advocating,
nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to
student learning and staff professional growth.
III. An education leader promotes the success of every student by ensuring
management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient,
and effective learning environment.
IV. An education leader promotes the success of every student by
collaborating with faculty and community members, responding to diverse
community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
V. An education leader promotes the success of every student by acting with
integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.
VI. An education leader promotes the success of every student by
understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social,
economic, legal, and cultural context.
The above standards were forged with the intent of strengthening school
leadership through the development of high quality licensure and certification
programs that prepare school leaders for leadership in the 21
st
century (Flanary &
Simpson, 2008). Standard three is particularly relevant to the education leader’s
commitment to developing safe and secure learning environments. Although the
87
support for the implementation of these standards is evolving, presently they have
gained the support of the American Association of School Administrators to
develop a system of certification for school leaders (Flanary & Simpson, 2008).
In tune with the above standards, this study uses Bolman and Deal’s
(2003) reframing organizational theory to address the leadership challenges
inherent in the realization of school safety and student achievement. This theory
directs leaders and managers to use structural, human resource, political and
symbolic frames to address the challenges of organizational complexity, surprise,
deception and ambiguity (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The structural frame addresses
the social architecture of an organization. This includes addressing the division of
labor (differentiation) and the coordination of related responsibilities
(integration). This coordination can be vertical or horizontal, or a mixture of
both (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The human resource framework offers possibilities
in which an organization can be energizing, productive and mutually rewarding
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). The political frame addresses politics as a process of
making decisions and allocating resources in a context of scarcity and divergent
interests, which are influenced by power, conflict and ethics (Bolman & Deal,
2003). The symbolic frame focuses on how humans use meaning, belief and faith
to make sense of the messy, ambiguous world in which they live (Bolman & Deal,
2003). All of these frames are interdependent. This means that, depending on the
situation or challenge, one frame can be more applicable than others.
88
Accordingly, Boleman & Deal (2003) advocate for the use of reframing to
maximize leadership and management effectiveness.
This study uses the above four frames to identify and analyze leadership
practices at selected middle schools, and determine their impact in reducing the
victimization of students, and improving their academic achievement. Like
student achievement and school safety, leadership is also a critical area that must
be understood and cultivated to realize educational excellence (Marzano, 2003;
Bolman & Deal, 2006; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002).
Conclusion
The above literature review identifies laws, policies, research, practices,
and programs that have proven to have a significant impact on school safety and
student achievement in America’s schools. This review also explores the
leadership practices that contribute to these successes. The above information
thus proves that leadership and school safety are indeed significant factors that
can influence student achievement. In conclusion, if school administrators are to
excel in leading, if teachers are to succeed in teaching, and if students are to
maximize their learning, then it helps to have schools that exemplify safe and
supportive learning environments.
The next chapter introduces the research design and methodology used in
this study. The design presents the research methods selected to address its two
research questions; while the methodology identifies the process used to collect
related data. Data analysis shows how this information can be put to practice.
89
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research design and methodology used to conduct
this study. Its organization includes, in sequential order, an introduction that
addresses the problem of school violence; the study’s purpose; the research
questions; the research design; the setting; the school targets; the data collection
that includes research methods and procedures; and the data analysis. Each of
these areas is addressed below.
Introduction
In America, during the past decade, hundreds of thousands of students and
teachers were victims of school violence. These victimizations varied from thefts
and assaults to shootings and killings (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2008; National Center for Education Statistics, 2005, 2006, 2007).
This study addresses these victimizations by focusing on the risk and protective
factors that impact school safety and student achievement at two urban middle
schools in the National, and the Inner City School Districts. Both of these schools
are located in communities that have high poverty, crime, and violence (California
Department of Education, 2009; Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, 2009).
Specifically, this study identifies leadership strategies that high performance
middle schools use to address school violence and ensure school safety.
90
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to expand knowledge about the impact of
violence on schools, and the leadership strategies that can be used to improve
school safety, and student achievement. This study uses applied research,
because its aim is to understand the nature of a societal problem and address
questions deemed important to society (Patton, 2002). Its desired results are to
expand Astor’s and Marzano’s theories on school safety and student achievement
respectively (Astor & Benbenishty, 2005; Marzano, 2007). Astor’s school-
centered theory forwards a framework that addresses the individual safety needs
of students and educators, as well as those of the social and physical
environments; while Marzano’s theory addresses school, teacher and student level
factors that influence student achievement. This study also uses structural,
political, human resource, and symbolic frameworks, as developed by Bolman and
Deal (2003), to analyze leadership effectiveness.
The study’s desired level of generalization is limited to less than one year
of data collection, analysis and interpretation of two urban middle schools. The
key assumption is that school violence and student academic deficiencies can be
understood and solved with empirical knowledge. The standard for judging this
study will be one that is rigorous and insightful in addressing the challenges of
school violence and student failure effectively. Publication of related findings
will be in Applied Research Journals, or journals that specialize in school safety,
school improvement, and student achievement.
91
Research Questions
Using a comprehensive literature review on school reform and school
safety, the following research questions were developed to guide this study:
Question 1: How does a middle school that is located amid high-risk
environments achieve high academic performance?
Question 2: What are the leadership factors that contribute to improve
school safety and student achievement at respective middle schools?
Research Design
The study’s research design uses a mixed methods approach to study two
urban middle schools. Mixed methods employ both quantitative and qualitative
research approaches for the purpose of reducing the limitations and biases of these
research methodologies (Creswell, 2003). Quantitative research includes the
identification and analysis of Academic Performance Index (API) and Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) scores at benchmark and program improvement middle
schools. Qualitative research involves the development of related staff surveys,
focus groups, interviews of leading school personnel, field observations, and
review of important school documents.
The mixed methods approach allows for the triangulation of relevant data
sources and the convergence of data from the quantitative and qualitative
approaches (Creswell, 2003). Data results from one method can help guide the
collection and interpretation of data from other methods and vice versa. This
collection of data from multiple approaches provides the corroborating evidence
92
to enhance the validity of this study’s conclusions (Bazeley, 2004). The
triangulation of data research design provides comprehensive information from a
variety of sources associated with school safety, school improvement, and student
achievement.
Setting
The National School District is located in Los Angeles County, California.
This district serves roughly 1,170 students attending one elementary school, and
one middle school, which are located in the city of Los Angeles, California. Of
these students, 92 percent are Hispanic, 6 percent are Asian, 1 percent is White,
and one percent is other ethnicity. These students also reflect high poverty
income levels, and limited parent education backgrounds (National School
District, 2009). The National School District is also governed by a five-member
elected board of education.
The Inner City School District serves more than 78,000 students in the
diverse communities of Los Angeles County, California. These students include
25,000 students who are in pre-K through 12 grades. Of these students, 76
percent are Hispanic; 14 percent are Asian; five percent are White; and two
percent are Filipino and African American respectively. Like the National School
District, most of the students in this district also come from high poverty
households and limited education backgrounds (Inner City School District, 2009).
This school district is also governed by a five-member elected board of education.
93
Both of the above school districts and their schools are located in the
patrol jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD). The
National School District, which is located in the city of Los Angeles, is serviced
by the LASD’s Temple Station. In 2008, this city experienced 3 homicides, 4
rapes, 46 robberies, 72 aggravated assaults, 105 burglaries, 245 larceny thefts, 186
grand theft autos, and 7 arsons that totaled 668 crimes (Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department, 2009). During this same time period, this city also reported
the arrests of 158 juveniles, and 668 adults. Many of the juveniles arrested
attended local public schools (Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, 2009).
The Inner City School District is located in the city of La Puente,
California, and is serviced by the LASD’s Industry Station. In 2008, this city
experienced 3 homicides, 7 rapes, 117 robberies, 148 aggravated assaults, 163
burglaries, 306 larceny thefts, 176 grand theft autos, 163 burglaries, and 5 arsons
that totaled 922 crimes (Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, 2009). This
city also reported 18 juvenile and 158 adult arrests. Like the city of Los Angeles,
many of the juveniles arrested in the city of La Puente also attended its local
public schools (Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, 2009).
The schools and communities in the jurisdictions of the LASD’s Temple
and Industry Stations are also impacted by more than 15 multi-generational street
gangs, which are composed of over 10,000 members. The names of these gangs
include Monte Flores, Puente 13, Mara Salvatrucha, 18
th
Street, Aztlan 13, and
Valinda Flats. These gangs are in constant war against each other. This criminal
94
reality thus puts all students attending the above schools, and growing up in these
communities, at risk of becoming victims or aggressors. This conclusion is
supported by research that claims neighborhood crime also impacts the school,
which ultimately influences student achievement (Hanson et al., 2003).
The impact of school crime on the above school districts is documented in
state-mandated annual Safe Schools Assessment Reports (California Department
of Education, 2001). For example, in 2001 the K-12 schools in the National
School District reported 1 drug/alcohol offenses; 0 batteries; 0 assaults with a
deadly weapon; 0 possessions of a weapon; 0 property crimes; and no dollar loss
to the district (California Department of Education, 2001). During this same time
period, the K-12 schools in the Inner City School District reported 74
drug/alcohol offenses; 229 batteries; 21 assaults with a deadly weapon; 9
robbery/extortions; 12 sex offenses; 44 possessions of a weapon; 76 property
crimes; and a total of $17, 227 in dollar loss to the district (California Department
of Education, 2001). Despite differences, the above statistics clearly show that
criminal activity is part of the setting that impacts students and educators at local
elementary, middle, and high schools.
Targets
The study’s units of analysis are two urban middle schools: The
Benchmark middle school of the National School District; and the Program
Improvement middle school of the Inner City School District. A high performance
(benchmark) middle school is defined as one that outperformed its Academic
95
Performance Index growth target expectation for at least two consecutive school
years, having a statewide ranking of at least decile five (No Child Left Behind
Act, 2002). The Program Improvement middle school, as defined by federal law,
is one that failed to meet Adequate Yearly Progress in its growth target
expectations for three consecutive years (No Child Left Behind Act, 2002). The
following narrative provides information on each of these schools.
The Benchmark Middle School
This study identifies the Benchmark middle school as an educational
institution whose students have achieved high reading and math scores in
California’s Academic Performance Index (www.schoolsmovingup.net, 2008;
California Department of Education, 2009). This school serves 688 fourth
through eighth grade students. These students are composed of 92.2 percent
Hispanic; 4.9 percent Asian; 2.3 percent White; 0.3 percent African American;
and 0.3 percent Pacific Islander. Of these students, 74 percent are indigent and
qualify for free lunch; 14 percent are English learners; and 4 percent are students
with disabilities (Benchmark Middle School, 2009).
Regarding this school’s staffing level, it has 27 full time credentialed
teachers. One hundred percent of its teachers are in full compliance with the
teacher requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (2002) and the average
annual teacher’s salary is $63,070. It also has one full time counselor,
psychologist, and speech/language pathologist; and three half time library
paraprofessionals.
96
Like other middle schools in Los Angeles County, the Benchmark middle
school also has experienced student discipline problems with students who come
from drug-gang-violence infested homes and whose parents are also primarily
Spanish-speaking immigrants. These problems have resulted in hundreds of
office referrals that concluded in 10 student suspensions during school year 2007-
2008. To address these challenges, the superintendent at the National School
District selected an excellent school principal who had experience as a teacher in
addressing student discipline and helping other teachers to improve student
achievement at this school. Under this principal’s guidance, the leadership team
at the Benchmark middle school was able to establish school reforms that assisted
students to dramatically improve their academic achievement and scores in the
California Standards Test, the Academic Performance Index, and the California
Achievement Test (California Department of Education, 2008).
The Program Improvement Middle School
The Program Improvement middle school is located in a high-poverty,
high-risk community in the city of La Puente, California. In particular, this
community is inhabited by a variety of Hispanic immigrants who do not speak
English as their first language, and by families who are active in multi-
generational street gangs. The school operates on a traditional school calendar
and is committed to providing a strong instructional program for all students to
ensure excellence in education. In 2006-2007, this school stopped enrolling sixth
grade students and now only serves grades seventh and eighth. This change
97
contributed to a decrease in student enrollment and an increase in the level of
instruction and support services available to students (Program Improvement
Middle School, 2008). During the 2007-08 school year, this school served 402
students in grades seven and eight. These students are composed of 89.8 percent
Hispanic; 3.5 percent Asian; 43.5 percent White Caucasian; 2 percent Filipino;
0.7 percent African American; and 0.5 percent Pacific Islander (Program
Improvement Middle School, 2008).
Despite the risk factors impacting students at home, at school, and in the
community, this school has great support from parents and other community
leaders who are active in the School Site Council, the English Learners Advisory
Council, the technology committee, and the school’s Safety Committee. This
support is essential to share ownership, responsibility, and accountability among
all of the school’s stakeholders. This concerted action in turn helps to strengthen
the health, safety, and success of students and staff.
During 2007-2008, this school had 29 fully credentialed teachers who met
all credential requirements, as established by the California Commission On
Teacher’s Credentialing. The school had one teacher who did not qualify to teach
English learners mis-assigned, and it also had two vacant teacher positions. Of all
teachers, 92 percent of them were in compliance with the federal No Child Left
Behind Act (2002) requirements; while eight percent of them were not (Program
Improvement Middle School, 2008). The average teacher salary is $55,190. High
quality teachers that are well-compensated are important to raise high
98
expectations in students. These expectations include helping students to improve
their moral character, to set and achieve high academic goals, and to help make
their school a safe and disciplined learning environment.
The Program Improvement middle school also has a Student Code of
Conduct that guides students in developing a meaningful, productive and
enjoyable school experience. To develop student personal growth, appropriate
behavior is encouraged through praise and motivational incentives, as well as
through assertive discipline and conflict resolution tools. Students are further
guided by specific rules and classroom expectations that promote respect,
cooperation, courtesy, and acceptance of others. The school’s discipline
philosophy promotes a safe school, a friendly classroom environment, and
demonstrates that good discipline is a solid foundation on which to build an
effective school (Inner City School District, 2007).
The goal of the school’s discipline program is to provide students with
opportunities to learn self-discipline through a system of consistent rewards and
consequences for their behavior. Parents and students are informed of discipline
policies at the beginning of each school year through information packets, a
Student Planner, and at Back to School Nights. Students are also reminded of
school rules and policies throughout the year through the school’s quarterly
newsletters and during responsibility assemblies. Despite the above foundations
and practices, during 2007-2008, the Program Improvement middle school
99
experienced approximately 1,000 student office referrals that resulted in 168
suspensions (Program Improvement Middle School, 2009).
All students at the Program Improvement middle school have met growth
targets on its 2006- 2007 and 2007-2008 Academic Performance Index.
However, its main subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress are the
English Learners and students with disabilities. The academic deficiencies of
these two groups are responsible for keeping this school in the category of
program improvement for the past five years (California Department of
Education, 2008). The superintendent of this district also selected an exemplary
school leader within this district to lead the Program Improvement middle school.
This new leader is a former elementary school principal who had experience in
leading other educators in improving student achievement. Unlike the
Benchmark middle school, however, this school suffered systemic challenges -
such as high staff turn over, poor student engagement, and limited parent
involvement - that kept it in this challenging academic category.
In accordance with the above insights, this study uses a purposeful
sampling, which selects information-rich cases strategically and purposefully
(Patton, 2002). In particular, it uses Criterion Sampling that compares schools
based on their students’ Academic Performance Index scores. It also uses
Theory-Based Sampling to examine the constructs of Astor’s theory on school
violence, Marzano’s theory on student achievement, and Bolman and Deal’s
reframing organizational theory (Astor & Benbenishty, 2005; Marzano, 2007;
100
Bolman & Deal, 2003). These theories will be used to explore better leadership
approaches that can be used to improve school safety and student achievement.
The study’s sample size at each of the selected schools includes a survey
of 21 teachers; a focus group involving the members of the school safety teams,
which include teachers, parents, police officers and community leaders;
interviews of 10 key school leaders; and ten half-day observations of selected
classes and school leaders (see Attachments A-C). The California Healthy Kids
Surveys for 2007 and 2008, which were taken by all seventh grade students at
each of the selected middle schools, were also reviewed to identify data that
documents students’ perceptions about school safety.
Data Collection
This researcher collected all research data related to this study from the
education leaders at the selected middle schools, or through the Internet. Data
from surveys, focus groups, interviews, and observations were collected in person
by this researcher. The following sections address the methods and procedures
used in this study’s data collection.
Methods
This study’s research questions were addressed through the use of
quantitative and qualitative research methods. A summary of these methods, and
their respective activities that address each of the two research questions at the
benchmark and program improvement schools, is provided in Table 2 listed on
the next page. This information corresponds with the narrative that follows it.
101
Table 2
Research Methods for Two Research Questions
At Benchmark and Program Improvement Middle Schools
Research Question 1:
How does a middle school that is located amid high risk environments achieve high academic
performance?
Quantitative Methods
1)""Academic Performance
Index" (2007-2008)
2)""Adequate Yearly
Progress (2007 - 2008)
Activities
At each school, review and analyze Math and Reading Scores for all student
ethnic groups, English Learners, and Special Education students.
Same as above.
Qualitative Methods
1) California Healthy Kids"
Student Survey (2007 -
2008)"
2)Adult/Educator Survey"
"3)""Focus Group "
4)""Personal Interview
Protocol"
5)""School Observations"
6)""Review of School
Documents
Activities
Analyze school climate and student safety questions and responses, as
documented for 7
th
grade students at each school.
Survey 21 teachers at each school, document and analyze responses.
Conduct a one-hour Focus Group involving School Safety Team members at each
school, and analyze and document responses.
Interview ten school leaders at each school, and document responses.
Conduct ten full-day observations of classrooms and school leadership at each
school.
Review Comprehensive School safety Plans, California Uniform Management
Information System reports, California Healthy Kids Surveys, School
Accountability Report Cards, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s crime reports, and
County Children’s Planning Council’s report on children and youth wellness.
Research Question 2:
What are the leadership factors that contribute to improve school safety and student
achievement at selected middle schools?
Qualitative Methods
1)""Adult/Educator Survey"
"
"2) Focus Group"
3) Personal Interview
Protocol"
"
4)""School Observations
Activities
Survey 21 teachers at each school, and analyze and document their responses
regarding the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic aspects of
leadership.
Conduct a one-hour focus group at each school with its school safety team
members and address their perceptions regarding leadership factors that
can"improve school safety and student achievement.
Interview ten school leaders at each school, and analyze and document their
personal views on the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic aspects
of leadership.
Conduct ten half-day observations of school leaders’ behaviors at each school,
and analyze and document findings.
102
Quantitative methods were primarily used to address research question
one at both of the selected schools. These methods were used to compare data
regarding academic achievement at middle schools located in high-risk
environments. In particular, these methods were used to identify and analyze the
selected middle schools’ math and reading scores, as documented in their
respective Academic Performance Index (API), and Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) reports (California Department of Education, 2008). Special emphasis was
given to disaggregate these data and identify high and low achieving student
groups.
Qualitative methods addressed each of this study’s two research questions,
which focused on securing information on leadership, school safety, and student
achievement at the selected middle schools. These methods included the use of
educator surveys, focus groups involving members of School Safety Teams,
interviews of diverse school leaders, school observations, and review of related
school documents. Each of these methods is addressed below.
The 2007 and 2008 California Healthy Kids Surveys were used primarily
to secure school safety perceptions from seventh grade students attending the
selected middle schools. These surveys were part of state mandates by the
California Department of Education for all California school districts, in
compliance with the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. These survey
data were collected by the West Ed Corporation, which was under contract with
the California Department of Education.
103
An Adult/Educator Questionnaire was also used to document teacher
perceptions on the school safety and student achievement challenges confronting
their schools, and the leadership initiatives instituted to address them. This
questionnaire, which consists of 25 questions, was structured to address the two
research questions. In particular, a three–point Likert scale was used to address
factors that are part of state-mandated comprehensive school safety plans, and
those that foster school leadership and student achievement (California Education
Code, 2007; Bolman and Deal, 2003; Marzano, 2003). Participants were thus
asked to rate each question using the following statements: Fully developed,
partially developed, and not yet developed. The three-point Likert scale was also
selected to compel participants to avoid taking a neutral position on any of the
questions (see Appendix C).
A Focus Group Protocol was also designed to secure information from
members of the School Safety Team at each middle school (see Appendix D).
The purpose of the focus group was to secure insights into the attitudes,
perceptions and opinions of participants regarding this study’s two research
questions (Krueger, 1994). This Protocol has ten questions that correspond with
the Adult/Educator Questionnaire. This Protocol was used to clarify and
document team members’ responses.
An Interview Protocol was also developed and used to conduct one-hour,
in-depth interviews of each school’s education leaders (see Appendix E). This
Protocol, which consists of 25 questions, was designed to correspond with the
104
study’s two research questions. To maximize data collection, analysis, and
application, as well as data triangulation, all interview questions also
corresponded with those that were included in the previously mentioned
Adult/Educator Questionnaire. Through these interviews, the author of this study
was able to secure more thoughtful and thorough responses from school leaders.
School observation Forms for classroom and school leadership activities
were also developed to address the study’s two research questions at the selected
schools (see Appendix F and G). The classroom Form used Marzano’s
framework on student achievement (Marzano, 2003). The school leadership Form
used Bolman and Deal’s leadership paradigm, which addresses structural, human
resource, political, and symbolic organizational frames (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
The four frames provided a structure for gathering data on the school’s culture
and leadership qualities. All school observations addressed each of these frames.
A review of important and pertinent school documents was also
undertaken. This included reviewing each middle school’s 2008 Comprehensive
School Safety Plan, the 2008 California Uniform Management Information
Reporting System data, and the 2008 California Healthy Kids Survey data. In
addition, each school’s 2008 Accountability Report Card was secured and
analyzed to determine respective education challenges and the corresponding
actions used to address them. Data related to external school factors - such as
community crime, health, and safety - were secured from the Los Angeles County
105
Sheriff’s Department, the County’s Department of Health, and the County’s
Children’s Planning Council.
The study used naturalistic inquiry to collect qualitative and quantitative
data and perform content and statistical analysis. For example, survey data on
educators’ perceptions of school violence were analyzed for content and statistical
significance. This approach allowed the researcher an opportunity to examine
minimal breadth and maximum depth of factors that contribute to school safety
and those that impact student achievement. This study used the above multiple
methods to document multiple data sources and perspectives to affirm validity
and confidence in related findings.
Procedures
At the start of this research study, the principals of the two selected middle
schools were contacted and formal agreements were established. These
agreements covered confidentiality issues, school schedules, and school policies
and procedures. They also addressed the study’s purpose, participants’ roles,
responsibilities, and expected outcomes. Most important, they addressed the
study’s research questions, its design, along with its data collection procedures
and methods, and its data analysis.
The school principals also agreed to help secure their respective teachers’
cooperation in taking the study’s Adult/Educator Questionnaire. A total of 36
teachers at the selected schools agreed to take this questionnaire: 21 at the
106
Benchmark middle school; and 15 at the Program Improvement middle school.
Questionnaire findings were subsequently analyzed and documented.
The school principals also assisted to convene a one-hour focus group at
each school that involved their respective school safety team members. To
maximize transparency and cooperation among all group members, these
principals were not included. A colleague at the Los Angeles County Office of
Education recorded the focus group members’ comments, while the author of this
study facilitated their responses and interactions. The Focus Group Protocol has
ten questions that address this study’s two research questions (see Attachment B).
The members of each focus group agreed to answer all questions and all
responses were recorded. Subsequently, these responses were reviewed and
documented.
The principals and members of the school safety teams at each school also
committed to help identify ten top school leaders. These education leaders were
selected based on their leadership excellence at each school. A careful effort was
manifested to select a group of leaders that represented the diversity of the
respective school’s classified and certificated staff members. The school
principals also assisted to schedule interviews at times convenient to interviewees,
and secure office space to do this. The study’s Interview Protocol was then used
to interview the identified education leaders. Notes of each interview were taken
to memorialize each interviewee’s responses. To clarify answers and capture
107
better data, the researcher also asked additional follow-up questions that were not
part of the Protocol.
School principals also assisted the study’s author to schedule ten half days
of school observations per school. These observations used the study’s Forms for
classroom and school leadership. These observations took effect during times that
minimized classroom and school disruption. These observations provided rich
qualitative information that was used to compare data from questionnaires, focus
groups, interviews, and document reviews.
In agreement with the school principals, time was also allocated to review
important school documents on and off the school grounds. These documents
addressed the study’s two research questions at both of the selected middle
schools. A comparison analysis for each of the two selected schools was
conducted and findings became part of the triangulation of all related research
data.
Data Analysis
According to Creswell (2003), data analysis is a process that involves the
following six steps: 1) Organize and prepare the data for analysis; 2) read through
all the data; 3) begin detailed analysis using a coding process; 4) use the coding
process to generate a description of the setting, as well as the categories or themes
for analysis; 5) advance how the description and themes will be represented in the
qualitative narrative; and 6) make an interpretation of the data (Creswell, 2003).
108
The data analysis of this study involved the use of Creswell’s six steps.
First, once all data were secured, they were organized and prepared for analysis.
Second, all data were read and important findings were noted. Third, a coding
process was used to separate data for each selected middle school into segments.
Each segment addressed one of the two research questions. Each segment was
further separated into sub-segments that addressed corresponding surveys,
interviews, observations, and related documented information. Fourth, the coding
process was further used to describe each of the segments, identify themes related
to school safety and student achievement, and provide detailed description of each
of the selected school’s case study. Fifth, this study used narrative passages to
convey the findings of its analysis. Sixth, a thoughtful interpretation of the
study’s findings was documented.
Conclusion
This study was performed in 2008 and 2009. Because of time constraints
prescribed by the doctoral program of the University of Southern California’s
School of Education, this study had strategically fixed times. These times
concurred with the work expected to be performed by doctoral students during
2008 and 2009.
The logistics of the planning, implementation, and evaluation of this study
were addressed by this researcher, in collaboration with the principals of the
selected schools. The analysis of this project’s data focused on addressing its two
research questions. All information was also triangulated to verify related
109
commonalities and differences. Ultimately, this information was used to forward
recommendations and conclusions. Subsequent chapters document the actual
work that was performed by this researcher. All of this work corresponds with
the abovementioned research design and methodology.
The material resources needed to plan, implement and evaluate this study
were supported by the Los Angeles County Office of Education, and the
participating middle schools. All financial costs related to this study were
incurred by its principal researcher. These costs included paying for tuition,
transportation, and clerical services.
110
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDINGS
This chapter presents this study’s findings and provides an analysis of
results framed by its two research questions. Research question one focuses on
understanding how a middle school that is located in a high-risk environment
achieves high academic performance. This understanding includes comparing a
high performing school with one that is low performing and has difficulties
realizing high academic success for all of its students. Research question two
identifies the leadership factors that contribute to improve school safety and
student achievement at the two selected middle schools. The researcher of this
study used a purposeful sampling that identified the Benchmark middle school in
the National School District, and the Program Improvement middle school in the
Inner City School District (Patton, 2002). Each of these schools is located in a
high-risk environment, and has unique academic and safety aspects that can be
used to best address the above research questions.
The Benchmark middle school was selected primarily because it is in its
third year as a California Distinguished School. This distinction is based on its
continuous student improvement in the California Standards Test (CST), and the
California Academic Performance Index (API). According to the California
Department of Education (2009), Shively’s CST student scores for 2006, 2007,
and 2008 in English Language Arts were 41, 48, and 48 respectively; and in
Mathematics, its student scores were 38, 38, and 39 respectively. The percentage
111
of its CST student scores in English Language Arts are particularly noteworthy
because they are above those listed for its school district and the State for the past
three years (see Table 3).
The Benchmark middle school’s students also scored high in the
California Academic Performance Index, which led to meeting all API
requirements. Specifically, for 2006, 2007, and 2008, this school’s API base
showed a gradual increase from 696 to 728 to 746 respectively; its API target was
5 for each year; its API growth was 32, 17, and 15 respectively; and its actual API
score also showed a gradual increase from 728 to 745 to 761 respectively
(California Department of Education, 2009). These scores thus show that this
school surpassed its API targets and improved its overall API standing. Although
its State rank is 6, its rank among similar middle schools is 8. This means that
this school’s scores are better than 80 percent of similar schools in California.
This school was thus selected by this study’s researcher to help identify
exemplary teaching and learning strategies that help students learn and achieve at
high education levels.
Conversely, this study selected the Program Improvement middle school
because it is on the fifth year of being in the category of program improvement.
This status is based on its poor student performance on the California Standards
Test. This shortcoming has prevented it from achieving Adequate Yearly
Progress, which is a major requirement of the federal No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001.
112
The Program Improvement middle school’s CST scores for 2006, 2007,
and 2008 in English Language Arts were 23, 29, and 35, respectively; and in
Mathematics, they were 27, 28, and 20 respectively. These scores ranked more
than ten points lower than those for its school district and the State (see Table 3).
They were also more than 13 points lower than those listed by the Benchmark
middle school (California Department of Education, 2009).
Table 3
California Standards Test Results
For The Benchmark and Program Improvement Middle Schools
School District State
2006 / 2007 / 2008 2006 / 2007 / 2008 2006 / 2007 / 2008
Benchmark MS
English 41 48 48 40 43 47 40 4 3 46
38 38 39 46 48 48 40 40 43
Program Improvement MS
English 23 29 35 40 41 45 40 43 46
Mathematics 27 28 20 40 39 41 40 40 43
Based on the above low CST scores, the Program Improvement middle
school also failed to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress. In particular, because the
percent proficiency rate for Hispanic students in English Language Arts and
Mathematics is less than 35 percent and 20 percent respectively, it remains in this
Program Improvement category (California Department of Education, 2009).
113
Other student subgroups that are also having difficulty achieving proficiency in
English Language Arts and Mathematics are English learners and Special
Education students. Thus, this school was selected to analyze the education
approaches its educators are using to overcome related difficulties and help meet
the special needs of these students.
The Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools were also
selected to be part of this study because they are located in high-risk
environments, which are infested with illegal drugs, gangs, and violence (Los
Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, 2009). Specifically, they are located in
high crime communities that are patrolled by the sworn personnel of the Los
Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. In 2008, the communities surrounding the
Benchmark middle school reported 668 crimes, which consisted of 3 homicides, 4
rapes, 46 robberies, 72 aggravated assaults, 105 burglaries, 245 larceny thefts, 186
grand theft autos, and 7 arsons (L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, 2009). In this
same year, the communities surrounding the Program Improvement middle school
reported 922 crimes, which consisted of 3 homicides, 7 rapes, 117 robberies, 148
aggravated assaults, 163 burglaries, 306 larceny thefts, 176 grand theft autos, and
5 arsons (L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, 2009)
Local crime and violence also impacted students at both of the above
middle schools. According to the California Healthy Kids Survey (2008),
although approximately 20 percent of all participating students at both schools
reported feeling safe at school, a significant 4 percent of them felt unsafe. Of all
114
students, approximately 20 percent of them reported being harassed, being in a
fight, and being afraid of getting beaten up. At a more dangerous level, 5 percent
of all students also reported carrying a gun on the school grounds, and 10 percent
reported being involved in a street gang. Conversely, despite the noted risks,
students at these schools demonstrated significant resilience. For example,
approximately 34 percent of all students at both schools reported being engaged in
a caring relationship; 58 percent reported having high expectations at school; and
approximately 14 percent reported meaningful participation in their education
(California Healthy Kids Survey, 2008). Thus, due to the characteristics of these
schools, which include the development of comprehensive school safety and
academic initiatives, they were further selected to help this researcher analyze
their work in protecting the well-being and success of their students.
To best address each of this study’s two research questions, these results
are organized in sequence beginning with faculty surveys, followed by focus
groups of school safety teams, interviews of diverse school personnel, and
observations of classroom and school-wide manifestations of leadership. This
researcher began this study by focusing on faculty surveys because of a personal
belief that teachers would be more transparent and forthcoming. This decision is
supported by research that concludes that teachers are the most influential persons
in a student’s education at school (Marzano, 2004). These surveys were followed
by focus groups of school safety teams, whose responsibilities include helping
school authorities to comply with the development of state-mandated
115
Comprehensive School Safety Plans. Interviews of diverse school personnel were
then undertaken to dig deeper into their personal experiences at school. These
personnel were carefully selected to include diverse viewpoints from
administrators, teachers, counselors, support staff, and police officers that had
long and short-term tenures at the participating middle schools.
As this researcher collected data from surveys, focus groups, and
interviews, interesting patterns and commonalities began to emerge. To
substantiate these findings, the researcher then conducted observations of
classroom activities, and shadowed the school principals to observe their
leadership activities. These ethnographic observations were followed by a review
of important documents for each school, such as the 2008 California Healthy Kids
Survey, the 2008 Comprehensive School Safety Plan, and the 2008 School
Accountability Report Card. Although this study collected quantitative data from
the above research methods, it did not engage in quantitative analysis. Rather,
based on sound research practices (Creswell, 2003), these data were transformed
into qualitative research findings, which in turn were used to draw a comparison
between both of the participating middle schools. This comparison of findings
was particularly useful in identifying and analyzing common voices, patterns, and
themes, and in documenting sound conclusions (Strauss & Corwin, 1998).
This study identified the following three emerging themes: (1) Exemplary
school leadership, which addresses the role of the principal in leading school
stakeholders to ensure campus safety and student achievement; (2) a safe and
116
supportive learning environment that includes the establishment of a diverse
school safety team and the development of comprehensive school safety
initiatives; and (3) a culture of educational excellence that addresses school,
teacher and student level factors to maximize teaching and learning. In
comparing these themes and related findings, this study found exemplary school
leadership to be the dominant, overarching theme that impacts the entire school
environment. Specifically, principal leadership was found to be the major force
that helps sustain a safe and supportive school environment, and contributes to
develop a culture of educational excellence. This finding is supported by
landmark research studies on school leadership, which conclude that principal
leadership has a significant impact on student safety and achievement (Astor et
al., 2005; Marzano et al, 2008). This theme is thus the major variable that
underlines all other themes. Thus, it is prioritized first to avoid backtracking, and
for easier referencing in later themes.
This chapter is structured to address the above three themes, per the above
sequential order. Each theme includes information on its corresponding research
question, research methods, and related findings. Each theme is treated separately
in the following narratives.
Exemplary School Leadership
This theme addresses research question two, which explores the leadership
factors that contribute to improve school safety and student achievement at the
Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools. To best address this
117
question, this section forwards findings that are based on the surveys, focus
groups, interviews, and observations performed in this study. All findings are
clustered together for each of the above middle schools to avoid repetition. These
findings are also contrasted to identify similarities and differences
Surveys. To address research question two, this study used a survey
instrument that is based on structural, political, human resource, and symbolic
frames of leadership, as developed by Bolman and Deal (2002). The structural
frame addresses the social architecture of the school, such as its division of labor
and related responsibilities; the political frame defines politics as a process of
making decisions and allocating resources in a context of scarcity and divergent
interests; the human resource frame addresses the possibilities in which the school
can be energizing, productive and mutually rewarding; and the symbolic frame
focuses on how educators use meaning, belief, and faith to make sense of the
messy, ambiguous work in which they live in (Bolman & Deal, 2003). This
survey is composed of eleven questions that address all of these frameworks (see
Appendixes C-3 and J). Each survey question has a range of answers that vary
from Fully Developed, to Partially Developed, to Not Yet Developed. This
survey was completed by 21 faculty members at the Benchmark middle school,
and 15 teachers at the Program Improvement middle school. This section
provides the most prominent survey findings for the category of Fully Developed
at these schools. Findings for the categories of Partially Developed, and Not Yet
Developed are included as part of Appendix J.
118
At the Benchmark middle school, survey data revealed the following five
most prominent findings under the category of Fully Developed: The school’s
leadership team is in place; school policies and procedures on safety, instruction
and achievement are also in place; leadership team members have been trained to
understand and implement the school’s policies and procedures regarding safety,
instruction, and achievement; administrators, counselors, and teachers are well
qualified and in compliance with the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001;
and the American flag is used as a unifying symbol that encourages excellence in
teaching and learning (see Appendix J). All of these findings received a high
response rate of 81% and above. This rating suggests that the educators that
participated in this survey believe that the above areas are being addressed very
effectively at this school. Among these findings, the structural frame received the
highest rating (86%), whereas the political frame received the lowest response
(43%).
At the Program Improvement middle school, survey data revealed the
following five most prominent findings under the category of Fully Developed:
The school’s leadership team is in place; its policies and procedures on safety are
also in place; its administrators, counselors and teachers are well qualified and in
compliance with the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; its leadership
team is trained to maximize student achievement by using Professional Learning
Communities; and its leadership team is trained to help teachers improve
instruction (see Appendix J). All of these areas received a high response rate of
119
74% and above. This rating suggests that teachers at this school are confident that
these areas are being addressed adequately. Among these findings, the human
resource frame received the highest rating (94%), while the structural frame
received the lowest response (74%).
In comparing the above findings for the Benchmark and Program
Improvement middle schools, one can clearly see commonalities and differences.
On commonalities, both schools confirmed that their leadership teams are in
place; that school policies and procedures on safety are also in place; and that
administrators, counselors, and teachers are well qualified and in compliance with
the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. These areas fall under the
structural and human resources frames of leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Under the structural frame, these schools are noted as having school safety plans,
and the leadership teams that are assigned related responsibilities; under the
human resources frame, school administrators, counselors, and teachers are noted
as being well-qualified to improve student achievement (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Regarding differences, teachers at the Benchmark middle school noted
that its leadership team members understand the roles of its internal and external
stakeholders, and know how to leverage the divergent interests of these
stakeholders in the making of decisions. This difference is categorized under the
political frame (Bolman & Deal, 2003). In addition, this school is noted for
knowing how to use the American flag as a symbol of respect and love for
country to unite stakeholders to improve student achievement. This difference
120
falls under the symbolic frame (Bolman & Deal, 2003). By contrast, teachers at
the Program Improvement middle school noted its leadership team’s training in
helping teachers to improve instruction, and student achievement by using
Professional Learning Communities. These areas fall under the human resources
frame of leadership, which emphasizes the optimum training and support of
school personnel to maximize their effectiveness in education (Bolman & Deal,
2003).
Focus Groups. This section provides information generated by two focus
groups comprised of members of school safety teams at the Benchmark and
Program Improvement middle schools. Each school’s focus group - which was
composed of administrators, teachers, parents, and police officers - addressed five
questions that centered on research question two (see Appendix D). These
questions highlight exemplary school leadership, school safety and student
achievement, training needs, and parent and community engagement. All focus
group responses are presented in clusters per school for each of these areas.
These responses are contrasted to specify differences and commonalities. Each of
the above areas is addressed in sequential order below.
Exemplary School Leadership
The most prominent responses from focus group members at the
Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools defined exemplary school
leadership as a process of collaboration, where all stakeholders participate in the
development of the school’s vision and mission, and work together to realize
121
them. This process involves everyone at the school and ensures that all voices are
heard and honored. This work also involves sharing ownership with educators,
students and parents in developing clear, realistic and measurable school goals,
and working individually and collectively to achieve them.
According to the Benchmark middle school’s principal:
Exemplary leaders must be visionaries that communicate a clear picture of
school safety and student excellence. They must also be selfless and
willing to sacrifice themselves to ensure the health, safety, and success of
all students. Similarly, they must be respectful of all school stakeholders.
In addition, they must be reliable and willing to work extra hours, so that
when everyone is gone, students would know that educators are still there
for them.
The assistant principal at the Program Improvement middle school added:
Excellent school leaders must also exemplify empathy, which requires
listening attentively to students, parents, and staff and understanding their
views about problems, related causes, and solutions. Similarly, they must
engage in teamwork that shares ownership, responsibility and
accountability with parents, students, police officers, and community
representatives. In addition, they must exemplify integrity in their words
and actions, and make no excuse to compromise their honor. They must
also be excellent communicators, which includes listening and speaking
clearly, concisely and precisely. Most important, educators are expected
to lead by example and this includes being punctual to class, using
appropriate speech in communicating with students and staff, doing their
work on time, and helping others to do the same.
At both of these schools, focus group members stated that their
administrators reflect all of the qualities referenced above. In particular, they
noted that these educators know how to actualize these qualities in supporting
teachers to improve student achievement. At the Benchmark middle school,
focus group members added that exemplary leadership is ultimately reflected by
the school’s status as a California Distinguished School (California Department of
122
Education, 2009). At the Program Improvement middle school, focus group
members said that this school’s improved student performance in the California
Academic Performance Index also exemplifies leadership (California Department
of Education, 2009). At both schools, focus group members also acknowledged a
change for the better since the arrival of their new school administrators. (Note:
Both school principals were appointed by their district superintendents and have
three years in their current positions. The Benchmark school’s principal has over
a decade of being a teacher and assistant principal at this school. By contrast, the
Program Improvement school’s principal has over a decade of being an
Elementary School teacher and principal at other district schools.)
School Safety and Student Achievement
To maximize school safety and student achievement, focus group
members at both schools also stated that their leaders must engage internal and
external stakeholders, such as teachers, parents and police officers. These
members added that school leaders must also involve students in productive
activities, such as mentoring other students and teaching them how to exercise
peer assistance leadership. At the Benchmark middle school, a counselor stated:
School leaders must also acknowledge students’ responses in the
California Healthy Kids Survey, which denote an increase in self-admitted
gang membership. Students must be taught how to stay away from gangs
and avoid bullying. If these problems exist, then students must be taught
how to work with educators and other adults to address them effectively.
123
Another focus group member at this school added:
Ensuring school safety and student achievement is a continuous process
that requires all school stakeholders to keep constant vigilance and use
school and community resources. At this school, educators and support
staff are on the same page regarding safety - constantly engaging students,
greeting them, monitoring them, and helping them to succeed. For
example, teachers and administrators are in front of the school every day,
early in the morning, to meet and greet parents who are dropping off their
children, and rotating with other school personnel for the afternoon shift
when school ends and parents return to pick up their children. The main
purpose of these interactions is to build trust and awareness so that
children feel safe and secure at school. At this school, neighbors are also
engaged in being part of the school. They assist to keep constant watch on
students, as they travel to and from school. Neighbors particularly assist
to make the school a safe haven.
At this school, focus group members further stated that its leaders have
worked together very effectively in making the campus the safest place to be for
students. Because of this work, they stated that this school has earned a Safety
Performance Award from the Los Angeles County Joint Powers Authority, and a
Golden Bell Award from the California School Boards Association.
At the Program Improvement middle school, focus group members said
that, to maximize school safety and student achievement, educators must show a
true caring for students by knowing their names, connecting with their hearts and
minds, and understanding their realities at home and at school. A teacher at this
school emphasized:
If anyone is bullying a student at school, educators must take action to
prevent this from happening. Likewise, if a student is failing his classes,
educators need to work together with this student and his parents to turn
failure into an opportunity to do better and succeed at school.
124
Another teacher added:
Educators must also have high expectations of all students and help them
to ensure their personal safety, and achieve academic success at the
highest education levels. Educators also need to communicate clearly the
school’s safety policies and discipline rules, and enforce them in a timely,
fair, and consistent manner. For example, to curtail gang dress attire on
the school grounds, this school established a rule that prohibits students
from wearing untucked shirt tails. Initially this rule was difficult to
enforce, but educators were persistent and succeeded in educating students
and their parents to cooperate.
Focus group members at this school also stated that school authorities
must be encouraged to share critical information on ways to identify and address
strangers and adult predators on or around the campus. They recommended
sharing this information in a timely and secured manner with the teachers and
counselors who need to know it. They also recommended addressing related
confidentiality issues in ways that respect the rights of students, and educators.
Training Needs
Focus group members at the Benchmark and Program Improvement
schools also agreed that, to maximize safety and achievement, school authorities
need to address the training needs of teachers, as well as those of the school safety
team members, which include counselors, police officers, parents, and support
staff. One law enforcement officer at the Benchmark middle school stated:
School Safety Team members need monthly training on effective
supervision of students before, during and after school. They also need
training on how to identify adult predators, and ways to prevent child lures
and student victimization. Additional training needs include information
on emergency preparedness and response. If possible, school safety
experts from local and state education and law enforcement agencies
should be contacted to provide this training.
125
A teacher added:
Educators also need training on how to address the challenges posed by
disruptive students, staff, or parents in a safe and effective manner. Above
all, educators need training on how to maximize their personal safety, and
how to communicate among their peers, parents, and students in the
primary languages of these individuals. The main goal of these trainings
must be to provide effective customer service to students, parents, and
staff and make all them feel safe and secure on or around the school
grounds.
At the Program Improvement middle school, focus group members stated
that teachers need training on the early warning signs of student violence. They
also need help on how to address student anger in the classroom. One focus group
member added:
Teachers often do not know how to address the challenges of student
misbehavior in the classroom. Thus, they need training that can assist
them in making true connections with all students, in order to develop a
safe and successful school climate.
Parent and Community Engagement
Focus group members at the Benchmark and Program Improvement
middle schools further agreed that educators must cultivate parents as partners to
maximize school safety and the educational achievement of students. In this
accord, they emphasized that parents must be welcomed and encouraged to visit
their children’s school to participate in its diverse education and extra-curricular
activities. They added that parents must be persuaded to become active members
of the school’s safety and improvement teams. According to an administrator at
126
the Benchmark middle school:
Educators at this school established a Parent Institute, which is
coordinated by staff that speak the parents’ primary languages of English
and Spanish. Through this Institute, parents collaborate with educators to
improve their children’s academic achievement. For example, parents
learn how to use school resources to help their children do their
homework, and address academic challenges.
A parent at this school added:
At the Parent Institute, parents also learn to identify and address student
problems, such as bullying, Internet abuse, and student harassment. In
addition, parents are educated on the ways in which the school and the
school district work. Parents also learn best ways to communicate with
their children and school authorities, and ways to help each other to
address student/teacher/parent challenges.
Another parent added:
One challenge that impacted parents, students and educators at this school
was a new School Board Policy that requires all students to wear school
uniforms. This challenge brought all of us together to address the
implementation of this Board policy effectively. Parents thus learned that
the main purpose of uniforms was to prevent the victimization of students
who dressed in clothing that was associated with street gangs or other
deviant social groups.
Focus group members from this school also stated that, through collaboration,
parents and educators have learned to work together to help students stay safe and
busy on their school work to maximize their learning.
At the Program Improvement middle school, focus group members stated
that educators at this school are constantly engaged in recruiting parents and
community leaders to be part of school safety initiatives, such as the school safety
committee that is responsible for developing this school’s Comprehensive School
Safety Plan. Focus group members added that all of them feel safe at this school.
127
However, they admitted that, due to the dangers of gangs and violence that impact
the community, there are some students and staff that do not feel safe on or
around the school grounds.
One teacher added:
During my first year of teaching at this school, I did not feel safe. This
was due to the fact that the school was dirty, had graffiti written on its
sidewalks, and there was a constant presence of police patrol cars parked
in front of the school. Today, this has changed. Today, the school is clean
and there is a culture of safety that is reflective in friendly, respectful, and
responsible relationships among students, parents and educators.
Another teacher stated:
I grew up in the community surrounding this school and proceeded to
graduate from Notre Dame University, where I received a bachelor’s
degree and a teaching credential. Today, I teach at this school and cannot
pinpoint the presence of gangs on the school grounds. Although there are
some students who consider themselves gang wanna-bes, the campus is
safe and it is focused on academic learning.
Based on the above responses, the Benchmark and Program Improvement
middle schools manifested many commonalities and few, subtle differences.
Among commonalities, both schools shared a commitment by their principals to
train teachers and staff in ways to improve student supervision and address the
threats of adult predators. Both schools also engaged parents and community
leaders in helping to improve school safety and student achievement. Among
subtle differences, focus group members at the Benchmark middle school
suggested training to address community threats, while focus group members at
the Program Improvement middle school recommended training staff in
128
classroom management. This leadership work falls under the human resource
and political frames of leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Interviews. This section documents findings of interviews that were
conducted with a select group of administrators, teachers, counselors, support
staff, and police officers at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle
schools respectively. The questionnaire that was used included eight questions
that address leadership factors that impact safety and achievement at these schools
(see Appendix E-2). Although many of these questions are similar to those
included in focus groups, the answers provided by interviewees delved deeper
into their personal leadership knowledge and experience. This section provides
the most prominent answers for each of these questions.
Exemplary School Leadership
At the Benchmark middle school, all interviewees agreed that exemplary
school leadership requires educators to treat every student, parent and staff
member with utmost caring, respect, and integrity. This requires them to show
students and staff that they are totally committed, in word and deed, to ensure
their health, safety and academic success at school. According to the
Superintendent that oversees this school:
Leadership requires shared decision-making to realize the school’s
education goals and help it comply with the federal No Child Left Behind
Act’s requirements. A key aspect of this work is to look at students’ data
to determine their level of achievement, and establish realistic education
benchmarks for each student and the entire school community. The
ultimate goal of exemplary school leadership is to empower students with
knowledge and skills that can assist them to succeed in life.
129
The Superintendent also believes that honesty, commitment, and a sense
of purpose are great qualities of exemplary school leaders. These findings
correspond with Bolman & Deal’s (2003) symbolic frame of leadership, which
requires educators to represent the core values of the school and give meaning to
them. In the Superintendent words: “Leaders must know that their purpose in
education is to focus on the well-being and academic success of students and
staff.”
At the Program Improvement middle school, all interviewed personnel
agreed that school leadership begins by developing a shared vision, where
administrators lead, teachers teach, and students achieve at the highest education
levels, in a safe learning environment. The sharing of this vision must involve all
school stakeholders and secure their commitment to help realize it. Specifically,
interviewees emphasized that exemplary leadership requires educators to share
ownership, responsibility, and accountability among the school’s internal and
external stakeholders. They added that, if this is done correctly and all
stakeholders are truly connected with each other, then whenever any of them is
missing the work continues to be done efficiently and effectively. This finding
corresponds with Bolman & Deal’s (2003) human resources frame of leadership,
which requires all school personnel to be well-qualified to work individually and
collectively to maximize student learning and achievement.
130
According to this school’s Principal:
To help in this work, school leaders must establish smart goals that are
specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound. For example,
teachers need to be given autonomy to use standards-based instruction in
their classrooms and be held accountable for producing results. These
results are often in the form of growth in student test scores. Teachers are
also expected to actively participate in their Professional Learning
Communities and collaborate with their peers to create positive student
results. School leaders are further expected to monitor progress
constantly, secure needed education resources, and help educators close
the achievement gap throughout the school.
Most interviewees also agreed that trust is the best quality of a school leader.
According to the Assistant Principal at this school:
Trust is not obtained automatically with one’s title, instead it has to be
earned through one’s actions. If a school leader is attentive to the needs of
students and staff, and commits to work with them to create positive
results, and keeps his promises, then trust can be earned. Conversely, if a
school leader does not do the above, then he is untrustworthy. Trust is
particularly important to strengthen the relationship between educators and
parents. If parents believe that educators are trustworthy, then they can
feel comfortable sending their children to school, knowing they will be
safe in their presence.
In general, interviewees at the Benchmark and Program Improvement
middle schools agreed that each of their schools has a culture of leadership that
promotes the leadership development of students, faculty, support staff, parents,
and school police officers. Interviewees added that the adult stakeholders are
encouraged to participate in the school’s safety and improvement teams to
identify problems and create solutions. Teachers are also required to participate
in Professional Learning Communities to address education challenges, and
maximize their teaching and learning. Interviewees also said that the role of
131
administrators is to strengthen these teams by building on their leadership
excellence, while the role of teachers is to be supportive of each other’s work.
Initiatives to Improve the School’s Social, Cultural and Physical Environments
As stated in previous chapters, this study uses Astor’s (2005) theory on
school safety, and Marzano’s (2003) theory on educational excellence, which
claim that the external environment impacts the development of effective school
safety and student achievement initiatives respectively. In this light, Astor
(2005), and Marzano (2009) further claim that leadership similarly impacts the
school’s social, cultural and physical environments. This section builds on these
research developments.
At the Benchmark middle school, interviewees agreed that a clean and
safe campus generates good feelings among students and staff, and proves that
school authorities care. Thus, to improve the school’s environment, they
recommended cleaning the campus, and eliminating the graffiti from school walls,
desks, and textbooks. They also recommended fixing all broken windows;
mowing and trimming the grass areas and trees; and cleaning all classrooms,
bathrooms, offices and cafeteria areas. To improve the school’s social and
cultural environments, they recommended clarifying and actualizing the school’s
core values. Theses values include respect, responsibility, and integrity in
cultivating healthy multi-racial and multi-cultural relationships among students
and staff.
132
According to the principal, to improve this school’s social environment,
one must also strengthen school/community/policing partnerships. In her words,
“The purpose of these partnerships is to prevent or reduce student involvement in
graffiti, gangs, and violence at school. These partnerships also help to strengthen
relationships with internal and external stakeholders to prevent harm during
school emergencies.”
At the Program Improvement middle school, interviewees also agreed that
a clean school, the school’s core values, and school/community/law enforcement
partnerships help improve school safety. On the physical aspects of the school,
the Assistant Principal stated: “A careful monitoring of all electrical, water, and
gas facilities can mitigate hazards that can be harmful to students and staff.”
Regarding the school’s cultural aspects, the Principal added:
School leaders must create opportunities that respect and honor the
school’s diverse student cultures. This work includes scheduling activities
that correspond with America’s ethnic celebrations, such as Black History
and Hispanic Heritage months. However, to prevent slighting any student
or staff member who belongs to a neglected culture or ethnicity, school
leaders should sponsor multi-cultural and multi-ethnic school activities
that engage and honor the entire school community.
Interviewees at both middle schools also agreed that a constant monitoring
and supervision of students before, during, and after school send a strong message
to them that educators care about their safety, and will not tolerate any student or
adult misbehavior that can harm them. These actions also reinforce to students
and staff these schools’ commitment to high quality customer service.
133
Strategies to Engage the Disengaged Teacher
The challenges of school violence and student failure are both impacted by
the teacher in the classroom. According to Marzano (2003), because the teacher
is the most influential leader in the classroom, he or she needs to be trained to
engage students to set great education goals and demonstrate a total commitment
to help in achieving them. When the teacher is disengaged, however, this has the
potential of exacerbating problems that in turn can foster student disengagement
and failure (Marzano, 2003).
Table 2 at the end of this section shows the common strategies that the
principals at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools use to
engage the disengaged teacher. In summary these strategies include having the
respective school principal meet in private with the disengaged teacher and
conduct a performance needs assessment; use of attendance, behavior, and
achievement data as evidence to establish education benchmarks and measure
progress; development of a formal teacher performance contract; assignment of a
teacher mentor / coach to assist the needy teacher; and mobilizing Professional
Learning Community members to help the needy teacher. Interviewees at both of
these schools specifically noted that their principals led by example and worked
diligently with respective Professional Learning Communities’ members to make
sure that disengaged teachers were provided the assistance needed to improve
their work performance. Interviewees emphasized that the ultimate goal of this
134
challenging work is to exercise exemplary leadership to not allow any teacher to
fail.
At the Program Improvement middle school, its principal shared an
experience she had with a math teacher who decided to isolate herself, and
refused to participate in a Professional Learning Community. This teacher also
began scrutinizing student behavior, which resulted in generating 47% of the
school’s student referrals for misbehavior in the classroom. To address these
challenges, the Principal stated:
I brought this teacher into my office to discuss the shortcomings of her
work performance, and showed her related data to support them. This led
to the development of an action plan that persuaded this teacher to
participate in her Professional Learning Community and work with its
members to secure support and guidance. This teacher also agreed to be
mentored by a teacher specialist, who is part of the District’s Peer
Assistance Review Team. In addition, the school established a new
student referral policy that requires all teachers to meet after school with
the referred students and their parents. This teacher also agreed to comply
with this policy. Because of this work, this teacher is now engaged and
has improved her work performance.
Strategies to Engage the Disengaged English Learner
Education research on school connectedness proves that students who
believe that the adults at the school care about their health, safety, and success are
more likely to behave appropriately and succeed at school (Blum et al., 2002;
Osterman, 2000; Catalano et al., 2004; Libbey, 2004). Conversely, just as
connection can yield important benefits for students, lack of connection can hurt
them (Osterman, 2000). Researchers have found that the major forces behind
violent behavior and dropping out from school come from academic failure and
135
disengagement from school (Osterman, 2000). This section introduces effective
strategies that principals at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle
schools use to engage the disengaged English learner (see Table 2 listed at the end
of this section).
In summary these strategies include strengthening the EL student’s school
connectedness; assessing the EL student’s needs; and developing an education
plan that establishes personal goals regarding attendance, behavior, and
achievement. Interviewees noted that, as part of maximizing the effectiveness of
this work, these principals connected with the hearts and minds of these students,
and showed respect and empathy for their cultures, native languages, and realities.
These principals also showed these students a true caring for their safety, and
success in education.
Strategies to Engage the Disengaged Parents of English Learners
Interviewees at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools
concurred with education research that shows student success correlating with
parent involvement at school (Marzano, 2003). Table 4 listed on the next page
shows the strategies that interviewees at both of these schools recommended to
address the challenges of disengaged EL parents. These strategies include direct
communication of EL student challenges between school authorities and parents;
establishment of a school/student/parent performance contract that identifies
specific roles and responsibilities; and implementation of a Parent Institute for
136
Quality Learning that teaches parents how to work with school authorities to help
their EL students achieve academic success.
Like the above successful work that addressed the challenges of
disengaged teachers and students, interviewees stated that the principals from
both the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools also manifested
positive results in addressing the problems of disengaged EL parents. Since these
challenges at times can be highly stressful, interviewees stated that their principals
showed a great caring, courage, and competence in using these schools’ policies,
procedures, and practices to foster healthy educator, parent, and student
relationships to work collectively in developing enduring solutions. In this light,
these principals have established a good reputation for knowing how to use the
structural, political, human resource, and symbolic frames of leadership and
organizational development (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
137
Table 4
Strategies to Engage Disengaged Teachers, EL Students, and EL Parents
To Improve Student Achievement at
The Benchmark and Program Improvement Middle Schools
Disengaged
Groups
Strategies for Engagement
Teachers • Principal has private honest talk with needy teacher that focuses on
work performance, not the person.
• Use attendance, behavior & achievement data as evidence.
• Develop formal Teacher Performance Agreement.
• Assign a teacher mentor / coach.
• Direct PLC members to help needy teacher.
• Direct needy teacher to observe effective teachers’ use of time,
curriculum content, pacing of instruction, teacher/student engagement,
diverse teaching styles, use of technology, and classroom management.
• Principal monitors and guides progress.
• Use continuous data chats to chart progress.
• Provide recognition of needy teacher’s effort and progress.
EL Students • Maximize student connectedness with teachers and other adults at
school. This connectedness must be based on utmost caring for needy
EL student’s health, safety and success at school.
• Assess education needs of EL student and craft an education plan that
addresses attendance, discipline and achievement.
• Empathize with needy EL student’s culture, language, and life
• Assign older peer tutor/mentor to help needy EL student.
• Offer needy EL student the opportunity to participate in student
council, AVID, and after school tutoring and physical education.
• Provide recognition of needy EL student’s effort and progress.
EL Parents • School authorities have a private talk with parents to discuss student
attendance, behavior, and achievement.
• Establish school / parent / student performance contract that identifies
specific roles, responsibilities, and guidelines.
• Establish Parent Institute for Quality Learners and recruit parents to
participate.
• Hire bilingual staff that can communicate with EL parents.
• Recruit parents to join the school’s Parent/Teacher Organization.
• Make regular phone calls to EL student’s home.
• Direct school counselor to conduct visits to EL student’s home.
• Invite parents to visit or volunteer at school and participate in related
academic and recreational activities.
• Monitor, guide, and celebrate EL parents’ efforts and progress.
138
Strategies to Improve Student Achievement At Program Improvement Schools
At the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools,
interviewees agreed that, if the No Child Left Behind Act’s (2002) requirements
are not changed, from using a sub-group achievement model to one that is focused
on personal growth, sooner or later most schools would fall into Program
Improvement. Thus, beyond the idealism of improving subgroups, they advocate
for more realistic approaches that acknowledge each student’s personal progress
and reward the teachers that work with them. They added that this work must
include connecting with each student’s school realities, assessing respective
needs, and developing a personalized education plan.
To maximize student attendance, discipline, and academic achievement at
Program Improvement schools, interviewees at the Benchmark and Program
Improvement middle schools stated that school leaders must develop specialized,
research-based approaches that address each of the above areas and strengthen
student connectedness to caring adults at school (Osterman, 2000).
The principal at the Benchmark middle school added:
Administrators must know students and teachers by their names, and
strengthen their personal relationships with them. Students, as well as
teachers, need to know that school administrators care for them and are
committed to their success. School administrators are also encouraged to
conduct daily classroom observations of the instructional strategies that
teachers use to connect with students and foster their learning and
achievement. In particular, the actualization of high expectations must be
examined, and the quality of instruction must be consistently evaluated.
At the Program Improvement school, its principal emphasized that, to
maximize student success, this school uses a research-based Three-Stage
139
Intervention Model (Belfaz et al., 2007). This model is composed of school-wide
reforms aimed at alleviating 100% of problem behaviors; shepherding for the
15% to 20% of the students who need additional support; and intensive efforts -
involving counselors, or mental health specialists – for the 5% to 10% of students
that need more clinical type of support (Kaiser & Danielian, 2009). This model,
along with corresponding interventions, is presented in Table 5 listed below. The
main goal of this work is to identify students who need special intervention,
provide them with comprehensive services, and help them succeed at school.
TABLE 5
Comprehensive Plan for Keeping Students On the Graduation Track
At the Program Improvement Middle School
Focus of Intervention
Type of
Intervention
Attendance Behavior Course Failure
School-wide
(All Students)
(100%)
Every absence brings a
response.
Teach, model, expect
good behavior.
Research-based
instructional programs.
Create culture that says
attending school everyday
matters.
Positive social incentives
and recognition for good
behavior.
In-classroom
implementation support to
enable active and engaging
pedagogies.
Targeted
Students
(15-20%)
Two or more unexcused
absences in a month bring
brief daily check by an
adult.
Two or more office
referrals bring
involvement of behavior
team.
Elective replacement, extra
help courses tightly linked
to core curriculum.
Attendance team
investigates causes of
student absences, and
solves problems.
Simple behavior checklist
is brought from class to
class, checked each day
by an adult.
Preview upcoming lessons
and fill in knowledge gaps.
Assign mentor to student.
Intensive
Students
(5-10%)
Sustained one on one
attention and problem
solving.
In-depth behavior
assessment to determine
causes of misbehavior.
One on one tutoring.
Bring in appropriate social
services, or community
support.
Behavior contracts with
family involvement.
Bring in social services.
Source: Success In The Middle School (Kaiser & Danielian, 2009).
140
A comparison of comments made by interviewees at the Benchmark and
Program Improvement middle schools regarding student achievement reveals that
the former school’s education leaders are very strict in enforcing their
expectations of students and staff regarding attendance, discipline, and academic
achievement. Specifically, they perform daily class walkthroughs to verify
effective instruction practices, and they are proactive in ensuring that members of
Professional Learning Communities meet regularly to improve teaching and
learning. By contrast, because education leaders at the latter school are
constantly addressing student class disruptions, their class walkthroughs are more
sporadic, and their involvement with Professional Learning Communities is more
limited. Despite differences, school leaders at both of these schools exemplify
great caring, competence, and willfulness to maximize teaching and learning a
their schools.
Leadership Observations. At the Benchmark middle school, its principal
is under the direct supervision of the district superintendent. Because this district
is composed of only one elementary school and one middle school, the
superintendent is privileged to work closely with the principals and the leadership
teams of these schools on a daily basis. Historically, the superintendent has been
working in this position for over 15 years. She is thus responsible for leading the
transformation of the Benchmark middle school from a dirty, unsafe and low
performing campus to one that is clean, safe, and exceptional in its student
achievement. To verify the leadership excellence of the superintendent and the
141
principal of the benchmark middle school, the researcher invested five part-time
days observing their school-related work. These observations referenced Bolman
and Deal’s (2002) multiple frames of leadership (see Appendix G).
On one occasion, this researcher observed the superintendent and the
principal monitoring and supervising students and staff who were diligently and
quietly participating in after school homework activities. Most of the students
were reading quietly, others were working on laptop computers, and others were
being tutored by teachers and counselors. This observation took effect after
school, at approximately 4:00 PM. Based on this researcher’s observations,
learning at this school was fully active with students, teachers, and support staff
working together to improve academic achievement. The superintendent stated
that this reality is part of the academic culture at this school. She added that all
students who score below basic in the California Standards Test are required to
attend after school tutoring and homework sessions. Teachers and staff are also
committed to assist all students to succeed in their schoolwork and this includes
volunteering to tutor students after school. The role of the superintendent and the
principal is to be present to support school staff with materials, supplies, training,
and other related services.
These observable activities showed well-qualified administrators ensuring
that the school reflected a clean, safe, and supportive learning environment,
during after-school hours. These activities particularly showed teachers using
their leadership skills to help needy students improve their academic achievement.
142
School administrators and teachers also reflected the school’s core values of
caring, respect, and integrity in connecting with students and helping them
improve their academic work. These actions reflected structural, human
resources, and symbolic frames of leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2002).
At the Program Improvement middle school, to understand the daily
realities confronting its leaders, the researcher invested five part-time days, and
one full day observing their activities regarding school safety and student
achievement. During this time, this researcher observed the leadership actions of
its principal in addressing an attempted student kidnapping, a school-wide fire
drill, an interpersonal student conflict, classroom monitoring visits, and after
school tutoring. The following Table 6 exemplifies a full day of observations that
reflect these actions.
__________________________________________________________________
Table 6
Use of Multiple Frames of Leadership to Address
A Day in the Life of Educators at the Program Improvement Middle School
__________________________________________________________________
Field Observations
________________________________________________________
The day began at 7:50 AM when the researcher experienced the after-effects of an
attempted kidnapping of a female student by an adult predator. The student was able to run into
the school and secured help. Once the Sheriff's representatives appeared, they took a police
report, drew a profile of this predator, and a notice was published to inform parents and others
about this incident and to seek their help in preventing harm to students. The Principal was
present to meet with the responding police representatives and helped secure counseling services
for the impacted student.
By 9:00 AM, the school’s fire alarms were activated and all students and staff
participated in a fire drill. Students and staff marched silently in straight lines to a field far away
from the school's buildings. A student at the front of each line had a green 8 1/2 X 11 cardboard
paper, which denoted that all students were accounted for and were safe. (Note: A red cardboard
paper means that a student is missing). The researcher also observed the Assistant Principal, along
with the maintenance supervisor, conducting an inspection of the school’s physical facilities and
verifying that everything was safe and sound. Subsequently, she communicated these findings to
143
__________________________________________________________________
Table 6 (continued)
__________________________________________________________________
Field Observations
_______________________________________________________________________________
the Principal. In turn, the Principal ordered all teachers to march their students back to class
quietly and the drill concluded. The Principal informed this study’s researcher that the fire alarms
were malfunctioning and that this was the second fire alarm in one week. After this, school
authorities worked with the custodian at this school to fix this problem.
By 10:30 AM, the researcher was joined by a representative from United States
Congresswoman Grace Napolitano and, along with the school's Assistant Principal, conducted
classroom observations. There, the researcher witnessed high engagement by teachers who
walked around their classrooms, as they verified students' work and checked for their related
understanding. By 11:30 AM, the researcher joined teachers and administrators from the Bassett,
Rowland and Hacienda-La Puente Unified School Districts at a luncheon, where many students
from these districts' schools were presented with scholarships. By 1:00 PM, the researcher
interviewed staff about their work with high risk English Learners and Special Education students,
and secured their recommendations to address related strengths and shortcomings. By 2:00 PM,
the researcher witnessed the Assistant Principal conduct conflict mediation with a group of
students who were sent to the office for speaking vulgarities and engaging in a physical fight. By
3:00 PM, the researcher debriefed personal experiences with the school administrators and
concluded the day. These experiences provided this researcher with first hand information on the
safety and education challenges confronting students and staff at this school. Specifically, the
leadership actions of the Principal and Assistant Principal exemplified competence, respect, and
integrity in addressing criminal activities, emergency preparedness, and student conflicts. These
actions reflect symbolic and human resources frames of leadership excellence (Bolman & deal,
2002).
Since the academic deficiencies and low test scores of Hispanic English
learners are primarily responsible for keeping the Program Improvement middle
school in program improvement, this researcher invested time observing the
leadership initiatives that school authorities use to address these challenges
effectively. Table 7 listed on the next page documents this researcher’s
observations of related parents’ meetings.
144
__________________________________________________________________
Table 7
Strategies to Address the Needs of
Failing Students at the Program Improvement Middle School
__________________________________________________________________
Field Observations
This researcher observed two parent meetings and verified the above information. One
meeting took effect at 7:00 PM, and the other at 8:30 AM. Each of these meetings was attended
by approximately 30 Spanish-speaking parents. At each of these meetings, the principal
welcomed the parents and focused on identifying failing students, analyzing related causes, and
developing a school/parent partnership to improve student achievement. To maximize
communication between Spanish-speaking parents and educators, these meetings were translated
into Spanish by the Spanish-speaking Assistant Principal. She then introduced a bilingual
motivation speaker who taught them how to identify their human strengths and weaknesses, and
how to maximize the former and minimize the latter. This speaker also emphasized the trials and
tribulations that humans experience in life, and ways to overcome them by working together.
Specifically, the speaker encouraged parents and educators to work as partners to assist needy
students, and teach them how to transform personal shortcomings into opportunities to become
better humans at school. As part of each meeting, school counselors showed parents their
children’s failing academic records and engaged them in a dialogue to discuss related causes.
According to these counselors, the main causes of student failure include disruptive behaviors,
such as laziness, boredom, and distractions. School authorities also showed parents the school
results from the California Healthy Kids Surveys that manifested student views on safety and
resilience, as well as engagement at school. School authorities also communicated clear
expectations, which included respect for self and others; punctuality; attendance; continuous
academic improvement; and no option to fail. In addition, these authorities informed parents of
the consequences for non-compliance with the above expectations, which could lead to no
privileges, and no grade promotion for their students. Parents were particularly encouraged not to
accept failure for their children. As an option, parents were encouraged to sign a formal written
contract allowing their child to stay after school and participate in a comprehensive tutoring and
education program, which is coordinated by the staff of the International Center for Education and
Sports (ICES).
These parent meetings were in concurrence with Marzano’s (2003) political and symbolic
frames of leadership. By engaging parents and community leaders to address the challenges of
failing students, educators showed an understanding of the roles of these stakeholders, and their
ability to work with them to maximize collective effectiveness. Similarly, educators showed true
understanding of symbolic leadership by representing the school’s core values of caring, respect,
integrity, and responsibility in motivating students and their parents to work along with them to
participate in after-school educational activities to improve related academic work.
This researcher also met several times with this school’s Principal and Assistant Principal
to review the outcomes of the above parent meetings. In total, these administrators, along with
their school counselors, sponsored five parents meetings at different times - before, during and
after school – to review with parents the poor academic records of their student siblings. In total,
39 parents signed a parent/school written agreement that allowed their children to stay after school
from 3 to 6 PM to participate in ICES’ tutoring and related academic and physical education
activities. By contrast, 14 parents chose not to do this.
145
__________________________________________________________________
Table 7 (continued)
__________________________________________________________________
Field Observations
__________________________________________________________________
The Assistant Principal noted that the students whose parents allowed them to participate
in ICES, subsequently showed a positive change in their behavior in their classrooms, and on the
school grounds. Their parents also manifested a caring attitude and showed an eagerness to assist
educators in helping their siblings to improve their academic work. This translated into a better
working relationship between educators and parents at school.
Education research on student achievement has proven that home environment is one of
the best predictors of student achievement (Marzano, 2003; Charters, 1963; White, 1982).
Specifically, under home environment, parent expectations, communication about school, and
supervision are deemed to be essential factors (Marzano, 2003). Based on the above parents’
meetings, educators assisted to increase parents’ expectations of their children’s education; parents
engaged in communication with educators; and parent attendance manifested a commitment to
supervise their children and work with educators to improve their academic achievement.
ICES is a new after school enrichment program at the Program
Improvement middle school. Since not all of its students have the same needs,
ICES staff separates them into self-directed and controlled groups. According to
the assistant principal at this school, in 2008-2009, this school had 120 student
applicants for ICES. Of these, only 114 registered: 75 self-directed; and 39 in a
controlled environment. Since 2008, school authorities have made ICES
mandatory for all students failing one or more of their classes. The 39 failing
students currently represent the general controlled group of this program (Kaiser
& Danielian).
According to the Assistant Principal, the self-directed group members get
one hour of homework and reading; one hour of other related academic activities;
and one hour of sports activities. The general controlled group focuses only on
doing homework, reading, and other related academic activities for three hours.
146
Both groups work daily from 2:40 to 5:40 PM during school days. On two
occasions, this researcher observed ICES counselors helping needy students do
their schoolwork in clean and quiet cafeteria, and classroom environments.
Students were also observed reading, writing, and working on computers. The
researcher did not observe any teachers present. The researcher also observed
two disruptions by disengaged students, and effective adult interventions.
Throughout the above observations, the researcher observed the principal
and assistant principal exemplifying humility, competence, and a firm will in their
interactions with students, parents, and school staff. Specifically, the researcher
observed these school leaders guiding these persons in working together to help
needy students improve their attendance, behavior, and academic achievement.
These behaviors concur with Collins (2004), whose research shows that humble,
competent, and willful leaders are essential to build an organization’s enduring
greatness.
In summary, this section identified leadership factors that contribute to
improve school safety and student achievement at the Benchmark and Program
Improvement middle schools. These factors included the following: A
commitment to exercise principal leadership; actualization of the schools’ core
values; work with the school’s leadership team to address student-educator-parent
challenges; training of teachers to align and maximize standards-based
assessment, instruction, and accountability; compliance with local, state and
federal education laws, and related policies and procedures; and a strong
147
collaboration with parents, law enforcement personnel, and civic leaders to ensure
the health, safety and success of all students, The next section provides additional
findings that specify how exemplary school leaders contribute to the development
of a safe and supportive learning environment.
A Safe and Supportive Learning Environment
Theories, research and practices examined in this study reveal that when
the school is the primary focus of school safety work, it can act as an anchor to
mobilize internal and internal stakeholders, and maximize their effectiveness in
developing a safe and successful school environment (Astor et al., 2004;
Marzano, 2003). This theme references research question one that examines how
a middle school that is located in a high risk environment achieves high academic
performance. This theme also infuses information on research question two,
which explores the leadership factors that contribute to improve school safety and
student achievement at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle
schools. Like the previous theme, findings for each of these schools are clustered
together for each of the research methods used in this study. A comparison of
these findings between both of the above schools is also provided.
Surveys. This section uses a California approved survey that was
completed by 21 faculty members at the Benchmark middle school and 15
teachers at the Program Improvement middle school (see Appendix C-2). This
section addresses this survey’s component two, which is composed of 19
questions. These questions focus on the school’s physical environment and its
148
critical role in supporting a safe and secure learning environment. Each of these
questions has a range of answers varying from Fully Developed to Partially
Developed to Not Yet Developed. The following narrative documents the most-
prominent Fully Developed findings for both of the above-mentioned schools.
These findings are listed are part of Appendix I.
At the Benchmark middle school, the five most prominent findings under
the category of Fully Developed confirmed that this school’s classrooms are clean
and safe learning environments; it has adequate lighting throughout its facilities; it
has an updated inventory of school property; it provides students with current
textbooks; and its staff see the school as part of the community (see Appendix I).
Another finding that also received a high rating is this school’s monitoring and
supervision of students before, during, and after school. All of these findings
received a high approval rating of 88% and above, which suggests that the faculty
believe that these areas are being addressed effectively.
At the Program Improvement middle school, the five most prominent
findings under the category Fully Developed confirmed that this school also has
clean and safe classrooms; it provides students with current textbooks; it has
sports places and equipment; it has a clean and safe eating area; it provides
students with healthy food; and it is part of the surrounding community (see
Appendix I). These responses received an approval rating of 66% and above.
This rating suggests that most faculty members agree with these findings.
149
A comparison of the above faculty survey findings between the
Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools reveals many
commonalities and differences (see Table 8). As commonalities, both schools
prioritized having classrooms, bathrooms, and eating areas that are clean and safe;
providing students with current textbooks; addressing vandalism immediately;
and ensuring that their education staff collaborate with local community residents
to ensure school safety. Among differences, the percent of faculty responses for
most of the above areas is higher at the Benchmark middle school than the one at
the Program Improvement middle school. For example, at the former school, its
report rate for supervising students is (86%), whereas the latter school’s response
rate for this area is (53%). Despite differences, all of these actions are essential to
ensure student safety at school (Furlong et al., 2002).
Table 8
Faculty Surveys at the Benchmark and Program Improvement Schools
Most Prominent Fully Developed Responses to Component 2: Places
Benchmark MS Program Improvement MS
(N – 21) (N – 15)
Fully Developed Fully Developed
No. % No. %
1. Classrooms are clean to learn. 21 100 11 73
2. Keep clean & safe bathrooms. 14 67 8 53
3. Have eating area & healthy food. 16 76 11 73
4. Provide students current books. 18 86 14 93
5. Address vandalism immediately. 17 81 9 60
6. School is part of the community. 19 90 10 66
150
Focus Groups. This section provides information generated by two focus
groups comprised of members of school safety teams at the Benchmark and
Program Improvement middle schools respectively. Each focus group addressed
ten questions related to research questions one and two (see Appendix D). The
following information shares these groups’ most prominent responses to the
questions that best correspond with the theme of developing a safe and supportive
learning environment.
School Safety and Student Achievement
At the Benchmark middle school, focus group members stated that safety
is a key factor that must be met to help students succeed at school. According to a
senior teacher:
Safety includes character education that teaches students how to make
difficult decisions, and choose the hard right over the easy wrong. For
example, students must learn to exemplify the core values of respect,
responsibility, and honesty to cultivate healthy human relationships. They
also need to learn how to exercise these values to prevent lying, cheating,
and stealing, and the harming of others.
A school counselor added:
Safety also requires teaching students how to develop healthy peer
relationships that result in strengthening their humanity and the lives of
their peers. Healthy peer relationships also help raise their self-esteem
and self-confidence to stay in school and improve their academic
achievement. One way to engage students in healthy peer pressures is
through sports activities that teach them teamwork, temporary defeats,
resiliency, and success. Thus, educators are encouraged to engage
students in sports and use these experiences to focus their energies on
positive school activities that can be leveraged to improve their academic
work.
151
Focus group members also agreed that the school must be a safe haven,
where students and staff feel safe. Although this school’s community is impacted
by continuous acts of violence, where gang shot-callers dictate orders to gang
members to come to school and recruit new members, they emphasized that this
school is a sanctuary that teaches students how to stay away from drugs, gangs
and crime. School authorities are committed to keep the gang presence away
from the school grounds. This work includes addressing student dress attire,
tattoos, graffiti, and other student mannerisms in a timely and effective manner.
A focus group member who is a law enforcement officer stated:
At this school, a full time STAR deputy works with students daily and
provides them with drug/gang/violence prevention and education. STAR,
which stands for Success Through Awareness and Resistance, is a
prevention program sponsored and coordinated by the Los Angeles
County Sheriff’s Department. STAR teaches students and their parents
effective approaches to identify and avoid drugs, gangs, and violence.
STAR also teaches them alternatives that help students to succeed at
school. This work includes teaching them how to exercise respect,
responsibility, honesty, and integrity to strengthen themselves and their
peers.
A focus group member who is a teacher also emphasized:
As educators, we must focus on establishing positive behavior support by
providing recognition for positive student behavior. For example,
educators must be encouraged to praise in public and criticize in private
respective student behavior. In addition, we need to enforce school and
classroom rules in a clear, timely, fair, and consistent manner.
At the Program Improvement middle school, focus group members stated
that the safer the school, the easier it is for students to learn. Hence, they stated
that, to improve school safety and student achievement, educators at this school
concentrate on identifying at risk students who are failing their classes, and are
152
experiencing difficulties in their school attendance and discipline. Once these
students are identified, educators conduct a comprehensive assessment of their
personal needs, and develop an individualized education plan that includes
effective interventions to help them succeed at school.
Focus group members specifically referenced this school’s Diamonds
Club, which is composed of under-performing, high-risk female students.
According to a school counselor:
Educators at this school have taught all Diamonds’ members to have high
expectations of themselves. These students have also learned to motivate
each other and even attend school on Saturdays to improve their school
work. If we don’t address these students’ immediate needs, then we will
find ourselves investing a lot more dollars if they drop out or go to prison.
The above findings concur with the education research of Belfaz and
associates (2007), which claims that to improve the academic achievement of at
risk students, one is also required to develop similar improvements in their
attendance and discipline. These findings are also supported by research that
proves student safety is a substantive factor that impacts student achievement
(Elliott et al., 1998).
Student Safety Problems and Solutions
At the Benchmark middle school, focus group members shared that
establishing safe passages is the most significant school safety challenge
confronting this school. According to a veteran teacher: “The crossing of major
traffic streets by students poses numerous safety challenges to school authorities.
153
These challenges can vary from a car accident involving student victims, to
student abductions by adult predators, to bullying by local gang members.“
To address this problem, the Principal stated:
Educators at this school are assigned to help supervise and monitor
students throughout the school’s periphery. Educators also work with
cross-walk city workers and sheriff’s patrol personnel to ensure student
safety. In addition, parents are trained to work with school and law
enforcement authorities to prevent student victimization. School
authorities also conduct monthly fire drills involving students and staff,
and local fire and police authorities.
At the Program Improvement middle school, focus group members agreed
that Internet safety is a significant problem impacting educators at their school,
and thus they need training to address it effectively. In the words of a school
counselor: “Student use of MySpace.com is particularly posing challenges of
harassment and bullying by students against each other. Thus, teachers and
support staff need training to address this problem.” This counselor shared the
California Department of Education’s (2009) definition of cyber bullying, which
includes sending insulting or threatening messages electronically through the
Internet. To address this challenge, the principal stated that her school district has
established state-approved school board policies and procedures, and is in the
process of developing related staff development training.
Interviews. This section documents the findings of interviews of a select
sample of school administrators, teachers, support staff and police officers that
were conducted at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools."
Although each person completed the questionnaire’s 25 questions, this section
154
only addresses questions that focus on this study’s Research Question One (see
Appendix E-1). All responses that correspond with each selected question are
clustered together, and are listed sequentially for each of the above schools.
The Role of School Safety on a Student’s Education
All students have a Constitutional right to attend school in a safe and
secure learning environment (California Constitution, 2009). Because many
schools are not 100 percent safe, there is room for improvement. This study
focused on identifying the impact of school safety on student achievement.
Interviewees at the Benchmark middle school agreed that school safety is
a fundamental right of all students and staff." If the school is not safe, then
students can’t engage in healthy learning, and this ultimately minimizes their
academic achievement (Elliott et al., 1998)." In the words of the district
superintendent:
Middle schools must focus first on their physical environment and make
sure it is clean and safe. Subsequently, schools must require students to
wear uniforms. This action is needed to prevent gang dress attire from
being used to recruit students into gangs. Respect for law and order is also
mandatory at this school. Students will do what they think school
authorities allow them to do. Therefore, they need to know that parents
and educators expect them to be respectful, responsible, honest and
courageous in doing what is best for themselves, their peers, and their
teachers.
The principal added:
If students do not feel safe at school, then they will not learn and achieve
at the highest education levels. Therefore, at this school, teachers and
staff are expected to foster healthy connections with students and help
keep them safe. Today, this school is a safe haven for students, parents,
and staff, and it exemplifies a successful collaboration among parents,
police and community.
155
At the Program Improvement middle school, interviewees agreed that a
safe and supportive school environment is essential to the well-being of students
and staff, to effective instruction, and to student learning. In this light, this
principal shared her views of this school’s transformation:
In years past, prior to my arrival to this school, student misbehavior was
rampant. This included constant student fights, defiance of school
authority, student cursing against teachers, vandalism, drug abuse, and
gang activities. To address the influence of gang dress attire and related
school disruption, during my first year at this school I led the school’s
leadership team in establishing a dress code that requires students to wear
shirts with collars and their tails tucked in their pants. To implement this
dress code, the school’s leadership team secured the cooperation of
parents, community leaders, and district staff. Accordingly, on day one of
the code’s implementation, 200 students disobeyed its requirements, and
thus received a 3-day warning referral to comply. On day two, the number
of students out of compliance with this code was reduced to 100. In
subsequent days, the number of students in non-compliance continued to
decrease until it reached the current number of 20 per day. To help poor
students and parents comply with this dress code, I led other staff leaders
in purchasing uniforms, and in sewing and tailoring student clothing. In
addition, I established school-wide rules requiring students to be
respectful; keep their hands to themselves; be on time to class; do their
homework; and come to school on time. These rules were enforced
consistently and timely by teachers and staff, and parents were also
persuaded to cooperate. Students were also persuaded to sign a contract
with school authorities, whereby they committed to comply with these
rules.
The Assistant Principal added:
Because students can commit an unsafe act in seconds, school safety
should be the number one goal of all public schools." Similarly, because
students can select unsafe choices that can harm their lives and others,
educators must focus on teaching them character education." Teachers and
support staff must be trained to implement positive behavior intervention
support systems that give recognition to students when they behave
appropriately." This approach focuses on the appropriate expected
behavior and rewards students for their efforts." One way to teach students
this approach is to involve them in role-playing the expected behavior.
156
The above narrative documented findings derived from interviews with
diverse personnel from the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle
schools. Statements by these personnel concurred with education research results,
which conclude that school leadership and school safety impact student
achievement (Marzano, 2008; Crosse, S., 2002). These findings particularly
conclude that the main catalyst of effective school safety and student achievement
initiatives is the school principal (Marzano, 2008).
Observations. As part of verifying the information provided by this
theme’s surveys, focus groups, and interviews, this researcher conducted five part
time days of observations at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle
schools respectively. These observations particularly focused on shadowing the
school leaders at the above schools and using a research observation protocol
listed as Appendix G. The following narrative documents these observations.
Research surveys, focus groups, interviews, and observations revealed that
the principals of the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools
understand that, to develop a safe and supportive learning environment, they need
to be skillful in the following areas: (1) Use of their school’s structures, policies
and procedures; (2) hiring, training and promoting their schools’ staffs to comply
with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (2002); (3) leveraging the
power and influence of their schools’ stakeholders to ensure safety, instruction,
and achievement; and (4) representing their schools’ core values of caring,
respect, and integrity in their interactions with their respective students, parents,
157
and staffs. These qualities correspond in sequence with previously noted
structural, human resources, political, and symbolic frames of leadership (Bolman
& Deal, 2002). In leveraging these frames, both principals maintain a close
relationship with their district superintendents and local police authorities. Both
principals are also active members of the Association of California School
Administrators, and are leaders of a local consortium of middle school principals.
On the school grounds, both principals chair their respective school’s safety and
improvement teams. Both principals also monitor the performance of their
respective school’s Professional Learning Communities, and
Parent/Teacher/Student Association. Each of these groups is composed of diverse
stakeholders and thus represents numerous special interests that have enduring
differences. Although all of these groups are committed to work together to
realize the school’s vision and mission, at times their relationships are tested by
situations involving interpersonal conflict on the school grounds. The following
observations document a case involving student bullying and harassment at the
Benchmark middle school (see Table 9).
__________________________________________________________________
Table 9
Use of Multiple Frames of Leadership to Address
Student Bullying and Harassment at the Benchmark Middle School
__________________________________________________________________
Field Observation
__________________________________________________________________
In the fall of 2008, the researcher observed the principal of the Benchmark middle school
engage students who were involved in bullying at school. This case involved one female student
who was being harassed by a group of female students, and this led to a physical altercation during
158
__________________________________________________________________
Table 9 (continued)
__________________________________________________________________
Field Observation
__________________________________________________________________
school hours. Subsequently, the victim and the main aggressor were counseled by the Principal,
and they were released to their parents on a five-day suspension. Upon the return of both of these
students to school, the harassment against the student victim continued to be perpetuated by a
larger number of female students who now began calling the victim a “snitch.” This case also
took a new turn, when this harassment began to be manifested in a popular Internet website,
known as MySpace.com. The Superintendent and the Principal thus decided to bring together the
parents of the victim and the aggressors to conduct conflict mediation. School authorities also
decided to invite a law enforcement representative to present a picture of the consequences that
students can expect for engaging in harassment and hate-motivated behavior. At this meeting, the
Superintendent and the Principal provided all student parties and their parents an opportunity to
share their views on the definition of the problem of student harassment, its causes, and its
solutions. School authorities also emphasized the school policies against bullying and harassment
at school, and the consequences that can lead to arrest and expulsion from school. In addition,
they shared prevention and education resources and programs that can be used to curtail this
misbehavior on the school grounds, such as the Success Through Awareness and Resistance
program, which uses a police officer to help students stay out of trouble and succeed at school.
The school’s Principal added that other resources include mentorships, after-school counseling,
and recreation. The school counselor was also assigned to work with the victim and the
aggressors, which included working with their teachers to monitor their behaviors and provide
them with positive behavior support. The good news is that, at this meeting, all aggressors
apologized to the victim and promised their parents and school authorities to stop all harassment
and be better students at school. Based on the most-current update the researcher received from
the Superintendent and the Principal, this problem has been solved and all involved students are
behaving appropriately and are doing well in their school work.
This case showed the Superintendent and the Principal being in compliance with the
structural aspects of leadership by using members of the school’s leadership team to address
student bullying and harassment effectively (Bolman & Deal, 2003). These administrators’ work
included using a division of labor among school personnel, sharing responsibilities with them, and
enforcing specific laws and policies that prohibit bullying and harassment on the school grounds.
In addition, this work acknowledged the influence of this problem on the impacted students’
academic achievement. In other terms, if this problem was left unattended, then it was probable
that it would ultimately influence the safety, instruction, and academic success of the impacted
students.
This case also showed compliance with the political aspects of leadership by recognizing
the potential harmful impact of these problems on the entire school community, and ways to
engage parents and law enforcement representatives to solve them (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The
Superintendent and the Principal also used their authority to secure the use of proper intervention
services, and focus on the prevention of future related misbehaviors. In this process, they were
effective in using teachers and counselors to help monitor the behavior of all students involved in
this case
This case also addressed human resource leadership effectively by maximizing the use of
school administrators, teachers and counselors (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Specifically, the
Superintendent and the Principal made a decision to involve teachers and counselors to help
monitor the behavior of impacted students. To maximize effectiveness in this work, these
administrators sponsored a half-day training on bullying prevention and intervention for teachers,
159
__________________________________________________________________
Table 9 (continued)
__________________________________________________________________
Field Observation
__________________________________________________________________
counselors and other support staff. The sharing of ownership and responsibility among these
stakeholders allowed them to work as a family to replace hate-motivated student misbehavior with
safe and positive behavior support that fosters the success of all students.
Lastly, school personnel exercised symbolic leadership by using the school’s mascot,
which is represented by a little Angel (Bolman & Deal, 2003). This Angel represents a
commitment to do good and prevent harm by taking a stand against student violence. The
school’s high expectations, where every student is expected to learn and succeed at the highest
education levels, are also manifested by the actions that were undertaken by school authorities and
their leadership team members.
At the Program Improvement middle school, this researcher also observed
the principal’s leadership actions in addressing an incident of hate on the school
grounds. These actions were based on a fundamental understanding that hate at
school is a criminal act that incites political reactions and impacts the interests of
numerous school stakeholders, such as parents, elected school board members,
and city officials (California Penal Code, section 33032.7, 2009; California
Education Code, section 33032.5, 2009). To neutralize potential political
damage, this principal took affirmative action to mobilize internal and external
school stakeholders to prevent this incident from disrupting the school
environment. Like the above case, this case references multiple frames of
leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2002). Table 10 listed below provides the facts of
this case and the leadership actions undertaken by the principal to address its
challenges.
160
Table 10
Use of Multiple Frames of Leadership to Address Hate
Against an African-American Teacher at
the Program Improvement Middle School
__________________________________________________________________
Field Observations
__________________________________________________________________
In the Fall of 2008, this researcher observed the principal of the Program Improvement
middle school address an incident of hate. This case involved an African American female teacher
who discovered gang graffiti written with black spray paint on the door of her classroom. This
graffiti denoted demeaning words that threaten to harm this teacher because of her race. This
teacher immediately reported this incident to the principal who proceeded to take action. First, the
principal met with this teacher and took and incident report that documented her account of the
facts. She then went to the targeted teacher’s classroom and took a picture of the racist graffiti.
After this she contacted the district’s chief of police, and informed the district assistant
superintendent and superintendent of the known facts of this case. She also contacted school
safety experts from the Los Angeles County Office of Education, and the County Commission On
Human Relations, and invited them to attend a meeting with members of the school’s safety team
to discuss strategies against hate-motivated behaviors on the school grounds. This meeting was
attended by a select group of adults that included teachers, counselors, police officers, parents, and
representatives of the above county agencies. At this meeting, she asked participants to share
their definitions of a hate crime on the school grounds, its causes, and possible solutions. In
accordance with the California Penal Code, section 33032.7 (2009), they agreed that a hate crime
is a case whose facts indicate discrimination based on the targeted person’s race, gender, or sexual
orientation that is a substantial factor in the commission of an offense. Their proposed solutions
included sponsoring a special student leadership training for a select group of 50 student leaders
from the 7
th
and 8
th
grade levels. This training addressed the definitions of a hate crime and a hate
incident, and prevention and intervention approaches that included the planning and
implementation of a school-wide campaign against hate. The County Commission On Human
Relations donated t-shirts, posters, folders, and bumper stickers that had a message on them that
read: No Haters Here. Students were also trained to exemplify and communicate respect,
responsibility, integrity, and tolerance to their peers. As part of this message, they used their
school’s mascot, which is the bust of a Viking, to denote school unity and strength. These
students then formed into smaller groups and they were allowed to make anti-hate presentations in
classroom across the school.
The Principal also implemented a staff development training on hate crime prevention,
which was attended by all school faculty. She also implemented a modified version of this
training for parents at this school. Despite these initiatives, the principal emphasized that the
targeted teacher still did not feel safe. In fact, because she was aware that the local Hispanic gangs
had put a green light on all African-Americans living or working in the communities surrounding
the school, she knew that all African Americans were potentially at risk of being harmed by them.
Consequently, this teacher decided to transfer to another school in a different school district.
(Note: A greenlight is a symbol that denotes selective targeting by street gangs. This means that
community members with a greenlight on them become targets of gangs that potentially could
result in physical harm to their persons.) According to the principal, the closure of this case came
when a student was identified as the main perpetrator of this hate incident, and he was
subsequently suspended with a recommendation for expulsion from this school. Notably, it was
161
__________________________________________________________________
Table 10 (continued)
__________________________________________________________________
Field Observations
__________________________________________________________________
the student leaders that were trained to define, identify, and take a stand against hate that assisted
to solve this case (Heifetz, 1994).
The above actions corresponded with the structural, human resources, political, and
symbolic frames of leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2002). Under the structural frame, the principal
showed a mature understanding of the school’s structures, policies, and procedures, and used them
to effectively address this case. Under the human resources frame, she took the initiative to train
school staff, parents, and students on effective hate crime prevention and intervention approaches.
Under the political frame, she showed an excellent ability to leverage the power and influence of
internal and external resources by sharing ownership and responsibility with them to prevent hate
on the school grounds. And, under the symbolic frame, she exemplified the actualization of the
school’s core values and influenced teachers and students to follow her lead.
Based on the above observations, the principals at the Benchmark and
Program Improvement middle schools showed many commonalities and few
notable differences in addressing their respective cases. Commonalities included
their commitment to confront harassment and hate in a responsible manner; their
ability to use their school’s structures and stakeholders - including students - to
exercise effective distributive leadership; and their determination to ensure the
safety and success of students and staff. Among notable differences, the former
school’s case involved student aggressors and a student victim, while the latter
school’s case involved a student aggressor and a teacher victim.
Review of Documents. As part of this research study, this researcher
secured copies of the Comprehensive School Safety Plans for the Benchmark and
Program Improvement middle schools, and reviewed their contents to verify their
compliance with existing state law (California Education Code, Section 32282,
2008). Table 11 listed at the end of this section describes each school’s level of
162
compliance with respective legal requirements. For example, both schools had
School Safety Committees that were in compliance with state law. Each of these
committees’ members included school administrators, teachers, counselors,
parents, and police officers.
Regarding the assessment of school crime and violence, both schools
manifested shortcomings in reporting related school crime and violence. Under
California law, all school districts are required to report annually the total number
of crimes that occur on or around the school grounds (California Penal Code,
Section 628 et seq., 2009). Despite this legal requirement, both schools did not
have updated school crime reports for 2008. In addition, based on a review of
their School Accountability Report Cards (SARC), the number of school
suspensions and expulsions was not the same as the one reported in the California
Department of Education’s Uniform Management Information and Reporting
System (UMIRS). For example, the Benchmark middle school reported zero
suspensions in its SARC, yet it reported 10 suspensions under UMIRS. Based on
UMIRS’ data, five of these suspensions were for causing, attempting to cause, or
threatened to cause physical injury to another person; one for possession of a
dangerous object; and four for causing or attempting to cause damage to school
property.
By contrast, the Program Improvement middle school reported 45
suspensions in its SARC, while it reported 168 under UMIRS. Based on
UMIRS’ data, 25 of these suspensions were for causing, or attempting to cause, or
163
threatened to cause physical injury to another person; 12 for unlawfully
possessing, using, selling, or otherwise furnishing, or being under the influence of
a controlled substance; 10 for unlawfully possessing or offering, arranging, or
negotiating to sell drug paraphernalia; 81 for disrupting school activities or
otherwise willfully defying the valid authority of supervisors, teachers,
administrators, school officials, or other school personnel engaged in the
performance of their duties; and 40 others for a variety of student misbehaviors at
school. At both of the above schools, the specific location where these crimes
and misbehaviors occurred was not noted. In addition, the specific characteristics
of the student perpetrators and victims were not addressed.
On school safety policies and procedures, this researcher was not able to
verify their complete existence at the Benchmark and Program Improvement
middle schools. Although their principals stated that their school districts have
policies and procedures for child abuse reporting, suspension and expulsion,
dangerous student notification, sexual harassment, dress code, safe ingress and
egress, school rules, and hate crime reporting, this researcher was not able to
verify the existence of most of them. On a brighter side, this researcher did verify
the existence of policies on dress code at both schools.
This researcher was also successful in verifying these schools’ compliance
with the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), which
requires all public elementary and secondary schools to implement the Incident
Command System (ICS). This system requires schools to assign competent
164
personnel to fulfill the incumbent responsibilities of the following positions:
Incident commander, public information officer, mental health officer, safety
liaison officer, chief of planning and intelligence, chief of operations, chief of
logistics, and chief of finance and administration. This researcher reviewed each
school’s ICS organizational chart that identified the names and phone numbers for
the specific personnel assigned to fulfill the responsibilities of each of these
positions. Based on this review, an identified note of concern is that these
personnel had no backups that could substitute for them in case of their absence.
This researcher also verified the existence of action plans to ensure a safe
learning environment at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle
schools. Each action plan consists of four major goals, a set of respective
success indicators, activities, resources, validation criteria, responsible parties,
and starting and ending dates. The following information summarizes each of this
Plan’s four goals: Goal one addresses the personal characteristics and experiences
of students and staff, and specifies that all students and staff members are
provided a safe teaching and learning environment; goal two addresses the
school’s physical environment, which specifies that all students are safe and
secure while at school, while traveling to and from school, and when traveling to
school-related activities; goal three addresses the school’s social environment,
which includes the leadership and organizational processes of the school, and the
programs and community resources that are made available to students and
parents; goal four addresses the school’s culture, which specifies that the school
165
will provide the education environment where students, parents, staff, and
community members effectively communicate in a manner that is respectful to all
cultural, racial, and religious backgrounds. This latter goal specifically states that
this school shall provide effective leadership to address the challenges of racism,
gang crime, and violence on or around the school grounds.
Based on the limited interactions with these schools’ stakeholders and
related observations, this researcher was able to confirm compliance with each of
the above goals. Under goal one, this researcher observed students and staff
behaving respectfully toward one another, abiding by their respective school’s
code of conduct, and obeying related safety policies and procedures. Under goal
two, this researcher observed that these schools’ grounds were clean and safe, and
their educators monitored student behavior before, during, and after school.
Under goal three, this researcher observed educators, students, parents, and police
personnel working together to prevent students from engaging in criminal
behavior. Under goal four, this researcher observed the principals at these schools
exercising leadership in assessing the needs of teachers and staff, and empowering
them with knowledge, skills, and resources to maximize their effectiveness.
Beyond the achievement differences between both schools, this researcher was
able to confirm that these schools are clean, safe, and productive.
The researcher also verified that these plans were reviewed by a
representative from the local law enforcement agency, the School’s Safety Team,
and approved by the district superintendent. This researcher further verified that
166
these plan were integrated into respective School’s Accountability Report Cards
by July 1, 2008. Most important, the researcher verified that these plans were
updated by March 1, 2008.
Despite these schools’ compliance with most of the above state-mandated
safety requirements, their leaders failed to hold a public hearing to inform parents
and community residents on the existence of these plans and thus, on this regard,
these schools are out of compliance. Based on interviews with teachers,
counselors, and parents, they confirmed that the majority of the teachers and
parents at their schools are not aware of their Comprehensive School Safety
Plans, and thus this is a major shortcoming that needs to be corrected.
Interviews with school personnel and reviews of School Safety Plans at
the above schools also revealed that they do not have comprehensive policies and
procedures on street gangs, hate-motivated behavior, cyber-bullying, and threat
assessment and management, which are vital areas impacting their students and
staffs. For example, at both of these schools, an increasing number of students
are using computers to harass and threaten other students. Under these
circumstances, school authorities need to approve related policies and procedures
that can help them and their staff to be prepared to address these challenges
effectively.
Interviewees added that another area of concern that is not being
addressed adequately at the above schools is the implementation, and evaluation
of their Incident Command System. Despite having a written matrix that
167
identifies a staff person for each of the positions under this system, most of these
persons have not been trained on their respective roles and responsibilities.
Interviewees recommended that these persons also need to be engaged in
planning, implementing, and evaluating reality-based exercises on crime and
violence that teach them how to maximize each of their responsibilities under this
system.
In summary, to ensure the safety and success of students and staff, this
theme shows that exemplary school leadership requires principals to work
effectively with their schools’ internal and external stakeholders in updating their
Comprehensive School Safety Plans and making them practical to address related
challenges (Marzano, 2008). Specifically, this work requires them to manifest a
total commitment to lead by example in preventing harm to students and staff. If
students, educators, and parents experience a school environment that is safe and
supportive, then these qualities can contribute to develop a culture of educational
excellence (Astor et al., 2005; Marzano, 2008).
168
Table 11
Review of Comprehensive School Safety Plans
At Benchmark and Program Improvement Middle Schools
Benchmark MS Program Improvement MS
Legal Requirements
California Education Code,
Section 32282 (2008)
School Safety Committee
Assessment of School Crime
And Violence
Policies and Procedures
• Child Abuse Reporting
• Suspension and Expulsion
• Dangerous Student Notification
• Sexual Harassment
• Dress Code
• Safe Ingress and Egress
• School Rules
• Hate Crime Reporting
Emergency Management (SEMS)
Incident Command System
Action Plan On
Safe School Environment
• Physical Environment
• People and Programs
Law Enforcement Review
Annual Public Meeting
District Office Approval
Post Plan on School
Accountability Report Card
by July 1, 2008
Plan updated by March 1, 2008
In compliance.
Part. compliance.
Crime data are
not available, and
suspension data
are inconsistent.
In partial
compliance.
Most policies
are not in
place.
In compliance.
In compliance.
In compliance.
Not in
compliance.
In compliance.
In compliance.
In compliance.
In compliance.
In partial compliance.
Crime data are not available,
and suspension data are
inconsistent
In partial compliance.
Most policies are not
in place.
In compliance.
In compliance.
In compliance.
Not in compliance.
In compliance.
In compliance.
In compliance.
169
A Culture of Educational Excellence
This theme focuses on research question one, which explores how a
middle school that is located in a high-risk environment achieves high academic
performance. This theme also infuses information on research question two,
which examines leadership factors that contribute to improve school safety and
student achievement at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle
schools. This section also compares these schools’ findings for each of the
research methods used in this study.
Surveys. This study used a state-approved educator’s survey, which was
completed by 21 faculty members at the Benchmark middle school and 15
teachers at the Program Improvement middle school. This survey only addresses
component one’s 16 questions to determine how people and programs at the
above schools help to create a caring and connected school environment, where
teachers and students work together to maximize teaching and learning (see
Appendix C-1). Each survey question has a range of answers varying from Fully
Developed to Partially Developed to Not Developed. The following narrative
provides related findings for both of the participating middle schools.
At the Benchmark middle school, the five most prominent survey findings
under the category of Fully Developed confirmed that this school is engaged in
improving its curriculum and teaching practices; it communicates clearly school
standards and consequences that are enforced in a timely, fair, and consistent
manner; it sets high academic and behavior goals; it uses multiple learning
170
approaches in instruction; and it communicates procedures to address threats (see
Appendix H). These responses received a moderate rate of 55% and above,
which suggest that a many teachers at this school believe that these areas are
being addressed adequately.
At the Program Improvement middle school, the five most prominent
findings under the same category confirmed that this school sets high academic
and behavior goals; promotes caring and supportive relationships with students;
provides continuous staff development to meet the unique needs of students;
engages in improving curriculum and teaching practices; and emphasizes critical
thinking and respect (see Appendix H). All of these responses received a high
65% response rate. This rating suggests that a moderate majority of teachers at
this school believe that these areas are being addressed effectively.
Table 12
Faculty Surveys at the Benchmark and Program Improvement Schools
Most Prominent Fully Developed Responses to Component 1: People and Programs
Benchmark MS Program Improvement MS
(N – 21) (N – 15)
Fully Developed Fully Developed
No. % No. %
1. Set high academic and 13 62 13 87
behavior goals.
2. Improve curriculum and 14 67 10 66
teaching practices.
3. Emphasize critical 14 67 10 66
thinking and respect.
4. Use clear standards and 14 67 12 80
enforced them consistently.
5. Use multiple learning styles. 12 57 8 53
171
__________________________________________________________________
Table 12 (continued)
__________________________________________________________________
Faculty Surveys
__________________________________________________________________
6. Provide on-going training 11 52 10 66
to meet students’ unique needs.
7. Use procedures to report 12 57 9 60
and deal with threats.
8. Promote caring relations. 10 48 12 80
In comparing the above responses between the Benchmark and Program
Improvement middle schools, one can clearly see commonalities and differences
(see Table 12 above). As commonalities, under the category of Fully Developed,
both schools gave priority to setting high academic and behavior goals; engaging
in improving curriculum and teaching practices; emphasizing critical thinking and
respect; using clear standards and enforcing them in a timely, fair and consistent
manner; using multiple learning approaches in instruction; providing continuous
staff development to meet the unique needs of students; and communicating to
faculty members school policies and procedures to report and address threats.
Among differences, the percent of faculty responses for most of the above areas is
higher for the Benchmark middle school than for the Program Improvement
middle school. For example, one main difference is that at the Benchmark school
only 48% of its faculty reports that this school promotes caring relationships
172
among students and staff, whereas 80 percent of the faculty at the Program
Improvement school claims that this school encourages these relationships.
Focus Groups. This section provides information generated by two focus
groups comprised of members of school safety teams at the Benchmark and
Program Improvement middle schools respectively. Each focus group addressed
five questions related to Research Question One (see Appendix D). The
following information shares these groups’ prominent responses, which focus on
understanding how a middle school in a high risk environment achieves high
academic performance.
High Academic Performance in a High Risk Community
Focus group members at the Benchmark middle school concurred that, to
maximize academic achievement in a high-risk community, school leaders must
involve teachers, counselors, support staff, parents, and law enforcement officers.
This includes establishing high expectations and healthy communication among
all of these stakeholders, and securing their help to maximize instruction and
achievement. According to the Principal: “Great teachers are those who know
how to engage students and their parents to maximize personal safety and
academic success at school.”
Focus group members also advocated for developing college preparatory
initiatives, such as the I am Going To College Program, and AVID, which stands
for Achievement Via Individual Determination (California Department of
Education, 2009). A teacher emphasized: “Both of these initiatives introduce
173
students to college information, and teach them how to overcome shyness with
confidence to improve their current academic achievement and set and achieve
college-oriented goals.” To compliment this work, members also agreed on
establishing Parent Institutes that provide parents with information on college
admission and related grants and scholarships. Another teacher added: “Middle
schools must also engage in articulation with feeder elementary and high schools
to help each other develop a continuity of student success.”
At the Program Improvement middle school, focus group members stated
that engagement among teachers, students, and parents varies, and often is
reactive and negative. Hence, they recommended that school leaders be more
proactive and increase the engagement of these stakeholders in developing
effective school safety and academic initiatives. They also emphasized that
teachers and parents need to help motivate students to set high academic and
behavior goals, and assist to achieve them. A senior teacher added: “Teachers
and parents must be committed to be exemplary role models and use their power
to influence students to actualize positive behaviors at school.”
Student Assessment and Instructional Leadership
At the Benchmark middle school, focus group members agreed that, to
support student assessment and instructional leadership in the classroom, school
leaders must provide teachers with opportunities to communicate with each other,
within the same subjects and grade levels. This comment concurs with the use of
174
Professional Learning Communities to help teachers improve their instructional
leadership (Dufour et al., 2006). According to a senior school administrator:
At this school, all teachers participate in Professional Learning
Communities. This work requires them to use an Eight Step Instructional
Process that directs them to work together in small teams per grade level;
requires constant mentoring of junior teachers by senior ones; mandates
collective analysis of data by teams of educators; and urges the application
of data to the corresponding curriculum. All PLC members are
particularly expected to work together in addressing barriers and
improving instruction.
Members also agreed that, to improve student achievement, educators must share
ownership with parents. According to the principal:
This school has a Parent Institute that teaches parents how to partner with
educators to reinforce class instruction and improve student achievement.
Educators at this school are also in a constant search for best practices in
teaching and learning. Similarly, they are expected to post student
achievement scores to establish baseline data and benchmarks. This helps
students and staff to see their progress and to motivate them to work
smarter to improve student achievement.
In addition, focus group members stated that school administrators need to
be trained in best practices in instructional leadership to help teachers improve
their teaching practices in the classroom. A school teacher added:
Educators must learn to use technology to improve assessment and student
achievement. At this school, all teachers have a personal laptop and an
LCD projector, which they use to facilitate their instruction. All students
at this school are also required to complete a computer-based Accelerated
Reader Program. This program requires students to read books and use
computers to answer questions related to their reading assignments. Each
student is required to set reading goals and achieve them in a six-week
period.
At the Program Improvement middle school, focus group members
recommended training school administrators in the use of Professional Learning
175
Communities, because their implementation at this school is not consistent and
has numerous shortcomings. They added that school administrators also need
training in best practices in assessment and instruction, and need to be directed to
spend more time in the classroom helping teachers to maximize teaching and
learning. These findings concur with education research that advocates for the
development of school leaders who focus on cultivating the success of every
student by establishing an instructional program conducive to student learning and
staff professional growth (Flanary & Simpson, 2008). This work corresponds
with the human resources frame of leadership, which advocates for the training
and development of highly qualified educators (Bolman & Deal, 2002).
This section shared many commonalities and differences from focus group
members at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools. Among
subtle commonalities, they identified education approaches that foster a strong
connectedness among their diverse stakeholders; high expectations by students,
teachers and parents; and effective use of Professional Learning Communities to
help teachers improve instruction. This researcher also sensed subtle differences
between both schools. For example, at the Program Improvement middle school
these subtleties included minimal involvement of its diverse stakeholders in
developing safety and academic achievement initiatives; expectations of students,
teachers, and parents varied; effective use of Professional Learning Communities
also varied; and school administrators need more training in best instructional
176
practices and in sharing them with needy teachers. Conversely, the Benchmark
middle school performed better in the abovementioned areas.
In summary, all of the above major findings focused on understanding the
views of the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools’ diverse
stakeholders. These views identified instructional approaches that can be used to
maximize teaching and learning. These views correspond largely with education
studies that show instructional leadership practices as having a significant impact
on the development of student achievement (Elliott et al., 1998; Marzano, 2003).
Interviews. This section documents the findings of interviews of a select
sample of school administrators, teachers, support staff and police officers that
were conducted at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools.
Each person only completed the questionnaire’s 11 questions that focus on this
study’s Research Question One (see Appendix E). All responses that correspond
with each selected question are clustered together, and are listed sequentially for
each of the above schools.
Definitions of Education
At the Benchmark middle school, interviewees agreed that education is
learning to respect and honor humanity by taking students, parents and educators
into account. According to its District Superintendent: “Beyond the formal aspect
of education, it is experienced-centered. This means that a person’s experience,
in and out of the classroom, influences how humans take each other into
account.”
177
This school’s principal added:
Education is a process of self-discovery, which requires understanding of
humanity and the environment we share with others in order to improve
them. Education separates humans from animals. Unlike animals,
education requires humans to think and reason to be better.
At the Program Improvement middle school, interviewees agreed that
education teaches students to think and question reality, define problems, and
identify related causes and solutions. They also noted that education teaches
students to be caring, respectful and responsible to make this world a better place.
An English teacher added:
Education teaches students to discover their purpose in life and cultivate
effective leadership to achieve it. Education is a process of inquiry,
research, and evaluation that requires students to attend school eight hours
per weekday to maximize their learning and achievement. Education is
the ultimate equalizer that allows students to enjoy equal access and
opportunities throughout their lives.
Insights On Effective Middle Schools
At the Benchmark middle school, all interviewees agreed that an effective
middle school has a culture of excellence, where administrators lead, teachers
teach, and students learn at the highest education levels, in a clean and safe
environment. This culture includes addressing the health and safety needs of all
students (Maslow, 2002). Ineffective middle schools have a culture of
mediocrity, where educators do not meet students’ diverse needs and make
excuses for their failure (Marzano, 2003).
178
According to the Principal:
An effective middle school has a clear sense of purpose and a common
vision that are focused on raising capable young men and women to
succeed in life." An effective middle school also has high expectations for
all students, parents and staff." Specifically, its teachers and staff believe
that all students can and will learn at the highest levels, and work
individually and collectively to realize this thinking."" At this school, staff
are not satisfied with good enough work; instead, they strive to go from
good to great." An ineffective middle school does not have these attributes.
At the Program Improvement middle school, interviewees agreed that an
effective middle school has specialized systems in place, teachers and staff are on
the same page regarding standards and assessments, and its main focus is on
meeting all children’s needs." Specifically, school staff treat children as children."
Conversely, its principal stated: “An ineffective school is always in a crisis, there
is no clear direction, teachers and staff are not on the same page regarding
standards and assessments, and there are no systems in place to identify students
who are failing, are unsafe, and are absent.” The Assistant Principal added:
An effective school is one that runs on time like a clock; it is well
structured; and there are effective checks and balances that address student
attendance, behavior and academics. At this school, student tardies are
addressed daily and the school’s secretary calls offending students’ homes
within hours. Student attendance is also checked every day and those
students who have attendance contracts are checked every six weeks to
determine who needs to attend Student Attendance Review team
meetings. Student behavior is also checked every three weeks and all
offenders and their parents are required to meet with school authorities.
Student academics are also checked every three weeks. All students
receiving grades of Ds and Fs get school notices sent to their homes
requiring them and their parents to meet with a school counselor. Parents
of these students are also persuaded to sign a school contract agreeing to
allow their son or daughter to participate in after school tutoring,
homework workshops, and other related activities that are part of a
comprehensive after school education program, which known as ICES.
179
Research on effective schools by Belfaz and associates (2007) concurs
with this latter finding. Specifically, they discovered four predictive factors
among sixth grade students that impact their development in middle school and
that ultimately influence their dropping out of school. These predictors are poor
attendance, misbehavior at school, failure in Math, and failure in English. One
implication of their research is that the more factors a student experiences, the
higher his chances of dropping out of school become real. Thus, these researchers
believe that comprehensive school reform must be combined with targeted
interventions that specifically focus on improving student attendance, behavior,
and achievement (Belfaz, et al., 2007).
In comparing the attendance, behavior, and achievement data of the
Benchmark middle school with those of the Program Improvement middle school,
as listed in Table 13 below, one can conclude that both schools are doing a great
job at maintaining high attendance rates. On student suspensions, however, both
schools reported major differences. According to the Benchmark school’s
principal, in 2008, this school experienced over 500 student office referrals for
misbehavior in the classroom, yet only ten of them resulted in suspensions. By
contrast, the principal at the Program Improvement school reported roughly 1,000
student office referrals in 2008, yet only 168 of them concluded as suspensions.
Regarding student achievement, both of these schools also showed improvement
in the Academic Performance Index’s scores of their students.
180
Table 13
Comparison of Attendance, Behavior, and Achievement Data
At the Benchmark and Program Improvement Middle Schools
Benchmark MS Program Improvement MS
2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008
Attendance 92% 90% 98% 95% 95% 97%
Behavior 26 30 10 132 108 168
Suspensions
Academic 728 746 761 658 678 701
Performance
Index
Note: Behavior and achievement data were secured from the California Department of
Education’s website at www.cde.ca.gov on July 25, 2009. Attendance data were secured from the
principals at the Benchmark and Program Improvement Middle Schools respectively.
Components of An Exemplary Middle School
Interviewees at the Benchmark middle school agreed that the most
effective components of a successful middle school are principal leadership; high
academic expectations by students, parents, and staff; structure; safety; standards-
based instruction; highly motivated staff; and parents that are dedicated to help
students improve their learning and excel in education. The principal added:
Leadership, vision, creativity and partnerships are essential to the
development and sustainability of an effective middle school." As a former
physical education teacher, to maximize my effectiveness with students, I
learned to develop a game plan, get the right people in the right places,
and develop teamwork to achieve success." Today, I use this experience to
build teacher leaders and to foster leadership at all levels of the school."
Regarding the school’s vision, I see it as a future picture of educational
excellence that requires one to communicate it clearly to all school
stakeholders." Creativity requires thinking inside and outside the school
box to help realize the school’s vision." Finally, partnerships require
educators to work together with parents, police officers, and community
leaders to ensure school safety and maximize student achievement.
181
Research on school leadership by Marzano et al. (2008) supports the
above principal’s statement. These researchers conducted a meta-analysis of the
last 35 years of research studies on school leadership and they concluded that
specifically principal leadership has a significant impact on student achievement
(Marzano et al., 2008). To further clarify the role of the principal, they identified
21 responsibilities that he or she must realize to enhance student achievement.
For example, since no one person succeeds alone, a principal is responsible for
distributing leadership by working with teachers, support staff, and parents to
maximize student achievement (Marzano et al., 2008).
At the Program Improvement middle school, interviewees agreed that the
most effective components of an exemplary middle school include an academic
program focused on standards; appropriate personal assessments that pinpoint a
student’s assets and deficits; instruction that addresses the developmental needs of
students at a personal level; a code of student conduct that exemplifies respect,
responsibility, integrity, and results; and a school-wide commitment to help all
students succeed and go on to college or trade school. According to its Principal,
“An exemplary school must also be committed to help heal the lives of students
who have been wounded by poverty, drugs, gangs, hate, and violence. In many
regards, this requires educators to be miracle workers and do their very best to
ensure the health, safety, and success of all students.”
182
The assistant principal added:
In general, the most important components of an effective middle school
include rigor in teaching and learning; safety at each classroom and
throughout the school; interventions to address the needs of students;
Professional Learning Communities that meet twice per week to address
student challenges and improve teaching and learning; and after school
tutoring provided by teachers and support staff." In addressing difficult
student cases at this school, each student who fails three or more courses is
required to attend Study Hall, which is a working lunch session
coordinated by school counselors." Each failing student’s work and
academic status is checked constantly and has a formal review every six
weeks." I credit Study Hall for helping to reduce the number of failing
students from last year’s 58 to this year’s 30." This school also offers an
After School Homework Club, which helps needy students and is
monitored by teachers on a rotating basis.
The above finding is supported by education research that proves that the
strength of an effective middle school is impacted by its weakest link (Marzano,
2003). In particular, the federal No Child Left Behind Act (2002) has been used
to identify student populations that are failing academically and thus it holds
schools accountable for reducing failure and improving achievement.
Effective Strategies to Maximize Student Learning
To maximize student learning, interviewees at the Benchmark middle
school recommended that teachers engage students in hands-on, experience-
oriented, collaborative activities, such as creating science experiments or
designing cardboard space stations. These activities allow students to get out of
their chairs, work in teams, and help each other complete assignments. Through
this work, they build mutual respect and trust, feel good about themselves, and
motivate each other to continue doing better schoolwork. Interviewees also
supported requiring teachers to recognize and praise student achievement in front
183
of class, and thus provide positive behavior support.
The principal added:
Motivation is essential to help middle school students to maximize their
learning. In this regard, students must learn to set realistic education
goals, exercise persistence, and secure help from peers and teachers to
realize them. These goals need to build on the respective student’s
education mastery levels.
At the Program Improvement middle school, interviewees stated that
teachers need to focus their diverse skills on teaching students multi-disciplinary
learning, beyond the California Standards Test. For example, students need to be
taught how to write term papers, work together in collaborative teams to complete
class projects, and participate in community service activities that teach them how
to own their learning.
The assistant principal added:
To improve student achievement, this school is implementing a
shepherding strategy. This strategy requires each homeroom teacher to
shepherd 20-30 students and follow them throughout their classes across
the school year." Each teacher shepherd is responsible for connecting with
his/her students’ realities, and helping them to overcome their education
challenges to maximize their learning.
Interviewees at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools
further stated that student populations at their schools are also impacted by multi-
generational education gaps that exist among their families. For example, the
learning environments that impacted the education of students’ grand-parents and
parents are in many ways different than theirs. Although one can claim that the
hearts and minds of humans remain the same, today students have many more
advanced tools - such as computers, the Internet, Google and Netscape - that can
184
be used to engage them in virtual and accelerated learning. Another example is
the manner in which parents and educators addressed student misbehavior." In the
past, corporal punishment as a consequence for student misbehavior was
considered acceptable." Today, this punishment is unacceptable."
The assistant principal added:
In the past, middle school students learned in a limited linear manner."
Today, due to technological advancements, these students learn in
seconds, fast, and in exponential manners." This reality has taught students
to become multi-disciplinary, multi-tasking leaders, in order to adapt
themselves to the use of the Internet, cell phones, and cyber-texting."
Today, students and teachers at this school use computers and LCD
projectors to facilitate the cultivation of teaching and learning.
School-wide and Classroom Realities
Interviewees at both the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle
schools also shared the following commonalities regarding their campus-wide and
classroom realities. Under school-wide realities, these interviewees included
state-approved standards, assessments, and instruction protocols; cleanliness;
order; safety; respect; highly qualified teachers; engaged students in school
uniforms; engaged parents; and excellent staff support services. One difference
mentioned by interviewees at the Program Improvement school is this school’s
murals of university logos that are painted on the front exterior walls of its
classrooms. The Benchmark school does not have college murals, but it does
have an active AVID program that supports students in pursuing a college
education. (Note: A subtle difference between these schools is the constant
185
presence of police cars parked only in front of the Program Improvement middle
school, which psychologically reinforces insecurity.)
Under classroom realities, interviewees at both middle schools included
clean, safe, and well organized environments; the posting of class expectations,
learning standards, objectives, and students’ quality work; students active
engaged; highly qualified teachers using standards-based instruction; teachers
using multiple learning modalities to maximize teaching and learning; use of
technology, such as overheads, laptops, and LCD projectors; students’ use of
Cornell notes, and Wickr writing tools (see Table 14). Interviewees added that
classrooms at both schools also feature posters of their mascots’ logos, featuring
positive acronyms of Saints and Vikings respectively. At both schools,
interviewees concluded that there were no notable differences.
186
Table 14
Classroom Realities at
The Benchmark and Program Improvement Middle Schools
School Classroom Realities
Benchmark Middle
School
Students actively engaged in learning; class expectations, learning
standards, objectives, and students’ quality work posted on walls;
teachers complying with 8 steps of effective instruction; multiple
methods of lesson delivery, varying from direct instruction to virtual
learning using computers; high teacher/student connectedness; which
includes teacher checking for student understanding; teacher’s use of
white smart boards to write information and clarify instruction;
students using Cornell note taking that includes thinking,
summarizing, and organizing class work; Wicker writing that teaches
students inquiry, collaboration, and writing; and posters of Heads,
Hearts, and Hands Working Together.
Program
Improvement
Middle School
Clean, organized, and safe learning environment; students fully
engaged in their schoolwork; and highly qualified teachers using
standard-based instruction and diverse teaching strategies to maximize
student learning. One would also see teachers using technology – such
as laptops, LCD projectors, overheads, and smartboards – to facilitate
instruction; and teachers moving throughout their classrooms
answering students’ questions and verifying their understanding of
class assignments. Further, one would see teacher posting classroom
student behavior rules, standards, goals, lessons plans, and exemplary
student work on walls.
Strategies to Address the Special Education Student’s Needs
Interviewees at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools
also shared their common strategies to address the needs of special education
students. These commonalities included full inclusion, engagement, and
acceptance of special education students, as part of regular classes; building on
strengths of each student’s Individualized Education Plans; help students set and
achieve attendance, behavior, and achievement goals; support special education
187
student’s pro-social behaviors; use professional learning communities to help
teachers address difficult student challenges; train teachers in classroom
management, conflict resolution, and in ways to comply with the laws of special
education; work with parents of special education students to help them succeed
at school; recognize special education student’s efforts and progress (see Table
15). Interviewees at both schools did not mention any differences.
Table 15
Effective Instructional Strategies for Special Education Students at
The Benchmark and Program Improvement Middle Schools
School Effective Instructional Strategies
Benchmark Middle
School
Full inclusion, engagement, and acceptance of special education
students, as part of regular classes; build on the strengths of each
special education student’s Individualized Education Plan; teach
special education students to set and achieve attendance, behavior, and
achievement goals; provide special interventions to address the special
education students’ attendance, behavior, and achievement challenges;
work with special education students’ parents to help them succeed at
school; support special education students’ pro-social behaviors; use
multiple learning modalities – such as visual, auditory, and kinesthetic
– to maximize student learning; and recognize the special education
students’ efforts and progress.
Program
Improvement
Middle School
Build on strengths of special education students’ IEPs; make
classroom learning comprehensible by breaking down class lessons
into small pieces that are easier for special education students to
understand; train teacher on ways to comply with special education
laws, and to excel in classroom management and conflict resolution;
use professional learning communities to help teachers address special
education challenges effectively; hold teachers accountable for de-
escalating student misbehavior; enforce classroom rules in a clear,
consistent, and timely manner; work with parents to help special
education students to succeed at school; recognize special education
students’ efforts and progress.
188
In summary, these interviews revealed numerous commonalities between
the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools in their effort to
develop a culture of educational excellence on their respective campuses. Some
of these commonalities pertained to school-wide initiatives, classroom practices,
and specialized work targeting English learners, and special education students.
A key message of this section is that excellence in education begets equal
opportunities to achieve academic and financial success in America and
throughout the world. (Note: Interviewees did not mention notable differences.)
Observations. This section presents this researcher’s observations of the
leadership work performed by school administrators and teachers at the
Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools, as part of developing a
culture of educational excellence. The purpose of these observations was to
verify the information secured from the above surveys, focus groups, and
interviews at each of the above middle schools. These observations referenced
the theories, research, and practices related to leadership and achievement, which
are explored in this study.
At the Benchmark middle school, the principal accompanied this
researcher in conducting classroom observations to verify the use of effective
instructional strategies. The researcher invested five days, two hours each,
observing five classroom teachers, in grades sixth through eighth, teaching
English and Math. The following Table 16 describes observations that address
classroom realities at this school.
189
__________________________________________________________________
Table 16
Instructional Strategies Being Implemented In Classrooms
at the Benchmark Middle School
__________________________________________________________________
Classroom Observations
__________________________________________________________________
At each classroom, the researcher observed the following: The classroom was clean,
safe, and in order; the teacher held students to high expectations for their academic work and
personal behavior; the classroom rules were posted and followed by students and teachers;
classroom rules and consequences were consistently and fairly enforced by the teacher; the teacher
promoted caring and supportive relationships among students; students were engaged in standards-
based instruction; a variety of instructional strategies, such as collaborative team work and
individual student work, were evident; the teacher addressed multiple learning styles, such as
visual, auditory and kinesthetic; the student work was reflective of grade level standards that are
current; students had opportunities to respond in a variety of ways; the teacher moved throughout
the classroom and checked for student understanding of class content; the teacher used
differentiated instruction to meet the needs of students in the classroom; standards and objectives,
along with rubric and student work, were posted on classroom walls; the teacher provided students
with clear and relative feedback in a timely manner; and students were on task.
The researcher also observed the school’s motto: Heads, Hearts, and Hands Excelling
Together posted on each classroom’s walls. According to the principal at this school, “This
message is important to foster a spirit of collaboration among students, educators, and parents to
ensure school safety and student achievement.” This message is particularly supported by
education research studies, which prove that the sharing of ownership, responsibility, and
accountability among the school’s diverse stakeholders is essential to maximize safety and
achievement (Astor, 2005; Marzano, 2004).
The researcher did not observe the presence of English learners or Special Education
students in any of these classes, and thus the teacher made no effort to adapt class content to meet
related needs and present information in a more comprehensible manner. In addition, the
researcher did not observe any student misbehavior, or class disruption. Thus, all students were
observed being respectful and responsible, in accordance with classroom rules and the school’s
code of conduct. Throughout these observations, the Principal accompanied the researcher and
assisted to clarify information regarding each of the above areas.
At the Program Improvement middle school, the researcher also invested
five part-time days to observe five teachers in grades seventh and eighth teaching
English and Math in clean, safe, and orderly classrooms. Like the teachers at the
Benchmark middle school, the researcher observed teachers at this school using
diverse instructional strategies to engage the students’ multiple learning styles, in
a caring and effective manner. At this school, however, because it has a large
190
number of English learners that are contributing to its Program Improvement
status, two of the part-time days were dedicated to observe two teachers engaged
in teaching English Language Development classes. As part of structuring these
observations, the researcher used the lesson plan checklist for the Sheltered
Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP), which corresponds with components of
the classroom observation instrument of this study (see Appendix F). The
following Table 17 describes these observations.
Table 17
Instructional Strategies Being Implemented in English Language
Development Classes at the Program Improvement Middle School
__________________________________________________________________
Class Observations
__________________________________________________________________
Under preparation, both teachers wrote clear content and language objectives on the
black board, used supplementary materials, and integrated meaningful activities into lesson
concepts. However, both teachers showed difficulty in selecting content concepts appropriate for
all students and adopting content to all levels of student proficiency. In particular, this researcher
noticed their difficulty in addressing the needs of English learners. In regard to building
background, the researcher did not notice these teachers linking concepts to students’ backgrounds
and experiences; however, they did link past class learning to new concepts. They also
emphasized key vocabulary verbally and in writing.
On comprehensible input, one teacher used speech appropriate for different student
proficiency levels, explained academic tasks clearly, and used a variety of modeling, visual and
computer-assisted techniques; the other teacher did not do this. One teacher also provided ample
opportunities for students to work individually, or in pairs, to solve problems, and self monitor
their learning; the other one did not do this. This researcher also did not see any scaffolding used
by both teachers; however, one teacher did encourage students who were excelling in class work
to help those that were not.
One teacher used a think-pair-share approach to encourage student collaboration; the
other teacher did not. Instead, this latter teacher only sat on a chair behind a desk located at the
front of the room and had students work individually on their computers. This teacher did not
verify student understanding. In fact, many students were not doing their work; instead, they were
observed surfing the Internet.
The better teacher also provided students opportunities to use their native language
(Spanish) to dialogue and help each other to improve their learning. The other teacher did not do
this. One teacher also directed students to use their laptop computers to make their learning
practical. This included integrating their language skills, such as reading, writing, listening and
speaking. The other teacher failed to do this. In addition, one teacher provided a brief review of
191
__________________________________________________________________
Table 17 (continued)
__________________________________________________________________
Class Observations
__________________________________________________________________
key vocabulary and content concepts, and used spot checks and group responses to assess student
comprehension; the other one failed to do this.
Teacher deficiencies in addressing the needs of English learners in their classrooms are
important because, if left unattended, they can contribute to their failure at school. For example, if
English learners do not understand the English language that is used to instruct them, and they do
not feel respected, then these students can lose attention, become disruptive to the class
environment, and this can lead to their suspension or expulsion from school. Conversely, if
teachers are trained appropriately to communicate and empathize with English learners, which
includes respecting their history, language, and culture, and infusing their background into class
content, then these students can feel respected and empowered, and this can increase their
engagement and success at school (Marzano, 2004).
Understanding the diverse needs of English learners is vital to assist them
to improve their academic standing at school. In analyzing the scores of English
learners on the 2008 California Standards Test (CST) and the Academic
Performance Index (API), one notices higher scores for the Benchmark middle
school than for the Program Improvement middle school (California Department
of Education, 2009). These differences are not based on having smarter English
learners at one school than at the other. Instead, they are based on their physical
presence and personal scores on the above high stakes testing. Since the
Benchmark middle school does not have many English learners with low scores
on these assessments, this student group does not have a significant impact on its
status as a high performing middle school. By contrast, the Program
Improvement middle school has a substantial number of English learners that are
192
not performing well on these assessments. Although educators at this latter
middle school have done a fair job at improving the personal academic success of
these students, all English learners taken as a group are still not achieving
Adequate Yearly Progress to help get this school out of its program improvement
status (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Marzano (2004) believes that, if all
of these students’ needs are not addressed appropriately, then these deficiencies
can lead them to becoming disruptive, harming themselves or others, and getting
suspended or expelled from school (Marzano, 2004).
In summary, the above observations correspond with the findings of this
study’s respective teacher surveys, focus groups, and interviews at the Benchmark
and Program Improvement middle schools. All of these findings share many
commonalities, such as a real commitment to uphold high academic standards, to
ensure school safety, and to maximize student achievement. By contrast, they
also share many notable differences. One important difference is their respective
experiences with the academic achievement of English learners. In conclusion, if
school leaders are to succeed in improving the achievement of all students at
middle schools that are located in high risk environments, then they are required
to lead by example. This leading action includes upholding the highest standards
of educational excellence, distributing leadership among teachers, parents, and
other school stakeholders, and working as an extended family to maximize
personal and collective effectiveness (Astor, 2005; Marzano, 2004).
193
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
This chapter provides a discussion of this study’s major findings. It
begins by discussing the main variables for each of this study’s three dominant
themes, which differentiate the Benchmark middle school from the Program
Improvement middle school. This information is followed by a discussion on
this study’s theoretical and practical implications, future research, and
conclusions.
Significant School Variables
At the initial planning phases of this study, one key assumption about the
Benchmark middle school was that its premises and classrooms were clean, safe,
and orderly. Other assumptions were that, based on its high student scores in the
California Standards Test, its school administrators, teachers, counselors, and
support staff were excellent; that it had superior standards-based instruction,
where teaching and learning thrived at the highest education levels; and that all
students had appropriate assessments and interventions that addressed their health,
safety, and academic needs. Another assumption was that parents, police officers
and other external stakeholders were fully engaged in helping school personnel to
maximize school safety and student achievement. In general, based on the above
assumptions, one concluded that it was more likely to exemplify a culture of
educational excellence (Marzano, 2003).
194
Conversely, one assumed that the Program Improvement middle school
was dirty, unsafe, and in total disorder. Other assumptions were that, based on its
low student scores in the California Standards Test, it did not have excellent
administrators, teachers, and support staff; it did not have appropriate standards-
based instruction being practiced in its classroom; and it did not have fully
engaged teachers, students, parents and police officers committed to ensuring
school safety and student achievement. In general, based on the above
assumptions, one concluded that it was more likely to reflect a culture of
educational failure (Cross et al., 2002).
This study revealed that many of the above assumptions about the
Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools were true, while others
proved to be false. For example, despite the reality that both of these schools are
located in high-risk community environments, each of their principals manifested
unique approaches to ensure school safety, and improve student achievement. In
particular, these principals did not approach school safety in isolation, as part of a
temporary program; rather, they addressed it in a comprehensive manner, as part
of their school’s reform aimed at improving student attendance, behavior, and
achievement. These approaches support this study’s main hypothesis, which
claims that leadership and school safety are important factors that impact student
achievement (Astor, 2005). The following narratives identify the specific
variables that, based on this study, truly differentiate the above schools from one
another. These variables, which are listed on Table 18 at the end of his section,
195
reflect notable differences per research method and related theory for each of this
study’s three themes.
Principal Leadership Is A Crucial Force In School Improvement
Under Theme one, which addresses the leadership factors that contribute
to improve school safety and student achievement, the strongest commonality
shared by the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools is
extraordinary principal leadership. Despite this commonality, the principals at
both schools shared many differences. For example, the principal at the
Benchmark middle school has over a decade working at this school as a teacher,
as an assistant principal, and for the past three years in her current position. In
addition, since becoming principal, she works directly with the district’s
superintendent daily in addressing school safety and academic challenges. By
contrast, the principal at the Program Improvement middle school has only been
at this school for the past three years, and she does not work with the district
superintendent directly on a daily basis. Prior to this position, she was a teacher
and a principal at elementary schools in the school district overseeing all of these
schools.
The Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools also
manifested many other leadership differences. For example, based on faculty
surveys at both schools, the Benchmark middle school’s leaders are known
primarily for being skillful in exercising political leadership, which includes
understanding the roles of this school’s internal and external stakeholders, and
196
knowing how to leverage their diverse interests in making decisions. By
contrast, the Program Improvement middle school’s leaders are known mainly for
being focused on actualizing human resource leadership, which includes training
in the effective use of Professional Learning Communities, and helping teachers
to improve teaching and learning.
This study’s interviews of diverse personnel also revealed that, to improve
student achievement, the Benchmark middle school requires all students scoring
below basic in their California Standards Test to participate in after school
tutoring. This requirement is fully supported by parents and faculty members
who willingly volunteer to participate as tutors. As a result of this support,
faculty, students, and parents are fully engaged in these after-school activities.
Consequently, during these activities, there are no student behavior problems;
instead, students are focused on improving their school work.
In contrast, the Program Improvement middle school only requires failing
students to participate in after school tutoring. This requirement is not supported
by the vast majority of parents; instead, school leaders have to persuade them to
allow their failing siblings to abide by this requirement. Most faculty members
also do not volunteer to serve as tutors. In their stead, tutoring is facilitated by
members of a non-profit organization known as ICES. As a result of these
shortcomings, there is partial or no commitment from faculty, students, and
parents to stay after-school and participate in tutoring activities. Failing students
197
that do participate in these activities show many behavior problems, which in
many cases contribute to their academic failure.
The above variables are part of the evolving leadership work at the
Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools. Although the principal at
the former school appears to be doing a better job in improving school safety and
student achievement, the principal at the latter school is just as dedicated in these
undertakings. Despite a variation in leadership results, the overall conclusion of
the above variables is that principal leadership is indeed a crucial force that
impacts school improvement.
System-wide Prevention Conquers Reactive Intervention
Under theme two, which focuses on developing a safe and supportive
learning environment at schools that are located in a high risk community,
interviews with leaders from the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle
schools revealed many commonalities. These commonalities include effective
use of their school’s structures, policies and procedures to ensure clean and safe
school campuses; student uniforms to prevent gang dress attire from being used to
recruit students into criminal gangs; employment of highly qualified teachers to
comply with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; character
education that teaches students to practice respect for law and order; and school-
community-policing partnerships to maximize safety and achievement. Despite
these commonalities, these schools also manifested many notable differences,
which are specified in the following narratives.
198
Faculty surveys and focus groups at the Benchmark middle school
revealed that its leaders are proactive in reinforcing school-wide positive behavior
support to raise the self-esteem and academic achievement of students. They are
also effective in implementing drug/gang/violence prevention programs for all
students, such as the Sheriff’s STAR program; and efficient in intensifying
student supervision before, during, and after school hours. At this school, the
main safety problem is the threat of adult predators impacting students as they
walk to and from school. Notably, when student conflicts occur on its premises,
they are mainly directed against other students, and they are usually resolved by
school authorities in a reasonable and effective manner.
Conversely, at the Program Improvement middle school, education leaders
focus on identifying failing students, assessing their needs, and developing
individualized education plans that can be implemented and enforced consistently
by all teachers and support staff members. Education leaders at this school also
invest their time developing specialized programs to meet the needs of these
students. For example, school leaders established the Diamonds Club to help
address the needs of failing female students. The most significant problem at this
school is Internet safety, which also involves failing students who use their
computers to harass and bully other students. In addition, during this study, this
school experienced student hate directed against a teacher. Based on faculty
surveys, school leaders are so busy reacting to student misbehaviors that they do
199
not dedicate adequate time to supervise students before, during, and after school
hours.
In the continuum of school success, although the Benchmark middle
school is ranked above the Program Improvement middle school, leaders at both
schools are known for working tirelessly to develop a safe and supportive learning
environment. Based on this study’s observations, the Benchmark middle school
is indeed a clean and safe campus, where school leaders are implementing
successful system-wide prevention approaches. On the other extreme, the
Program Improvement middle school is clean and appears to be safe, but its
persistent student misbehaviors and related reactive interventions continue to
manifest leadership shortcomings. The constant presence of police patrol cars in
front of the school also creates a subtle impression of insecurity. Based on these
variables, one can conclude that system-wide prevention is more effective than
reactive program intervention.
Learning Requires Struggle – Struggle Requires Learning
Under theme three, which focuses on developing a culture of educational
excellence, faculty surveys at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle
schools revealed many commonalities and differences. Among commonalities,
both schools gave priority to setting high academic and behavior goals; engaging
in improving curriculum and teaching practices; emphasizing critical thinking and
respect; using clear standards and enforcing them effectively; and providing
continuous staff development to meet the unique needs of students. Another
200
commonality is an understanding that in order for teaching and learning to thrive,
school leaders need to engage in daily walkthroughs, and provide needy teachers
timely and effective feedback and support. Despite these commonalities, both
schools had critical variations, which are listed below.
Focus groups at the Benchmark middle school revealed that leaders at this
school engage teachers, support staff, parents, and law enforcement officers in
teams that focus on improving school safety and student achievement. For
example, teachers are required to participate in Professional Learning
Communities, which have been part of this school’s culture for over a decade. In
addition, teachers, students, and parents are taught to have high expectations of
each other and their engagement is proactive, positive, and continuous. Leaders
at this school are also trained in best practices in instructional leadership, which
include conducting daily class walkthroughs, monitoring and evaluating
instruction, and providing effective feedback and support to needy teachers. This
school has few English learners and thus it does not have any English learning
instruction problems that impact this school’s exemplary academic status.
In contrast, at the Program Improvement middle school, its leaders rarely
involve teachers, students, and parents in developing safety and academic
initiatives; expectations among them vary; and their engagement is often reactive
and inconsistent. In addition, its two-year Professional Learning Communities are
active, but their effectiveness varies. School leaders have also been trained in
best practices in instructional leadership, but they are inconsistent in conducting
201
class walkthroughs, monitoring instruction, and providing timely and effective
feedback to needy teachers. This school also has a Shepherd strategy that requires
homeroom teachers to follow and help their students throughout the school year.
The main problem that is keeping this school in program improvement is its
significant population of English learners, deficient instruction in meeting their
needs, and their poor scores in the California Standards Test.
Like the commonalities at the Benchmark and Program Improvement
middle schools, their differences are just as important in identifying areas of need,
and in developing corresponding interventions that can help them improve safety
and achievement. Despite the above differences, both principals are extraordinary
professionals that exemplify strong character ethics, professional competence, and
a total commitment to help all students and staff achieve success at the highest
education levels. Unlike the initial hypothesis of this study, these findings prove
that extra-ordinary principal leadership is the overarching force that contributes to
develop a safe and supportive learning environment, and fosters a school culture
of educational excellence.
In summary, education leaders at the Benchmark and Program
Improvement middle schools have proven that their exemplary leadership work
can produce effective results. In the spectrum of education, where at one end is
failure and at the other is success, both principals have a record of working
diligently to take their school from a bad condition to a better one. Although the
Benchmark middle school’s present academic standing is higher than the one at
202
the Program Improvement middle school, the main justification for this difference
appears to be time, and perseverance. Since the Benchmark middle school’s
leaders have been in place for over one decade, while the Program Improvement
middle school’s leaders have only been present for a period of three years, this
suggests that, as time transpires, if leaders at this latter school continue struggling
diligently to identify and address the shortcomings of needy teachers and students,
then their work is destined to improve instruction, and student achievement.
__________________________________________________________________
Table 18
Study Themes’ Variables That Differentiate
The Benchmark School From The Program Improvement School
__________________________________________________________________
Theme I: Exemplary School Leadership
Method / Theory Benchmark MS Program Improvement MS
Surveys Reflects the political Reflects the human resource
(Bolman & Deal, 2003) leadership frame. leadership frame.
Focus Groups Training focuses on Training focuses on
classroom
(Marzano et al., 2008) community predators. management.
.
Interviews Principal hired from inside Principal hired from outside
(Bolman & Deal, 2003) the school. She has over ten the school. She has three
years at this school. years at this school.
Observations Full engagement of faculty Partial or no engagement of
(Marzano et al., 2008) and students in after school faculty & students in after school
tutoring and homework sessions. tutoring and homework sessions.
(Marzano, 2003) All students scoring below Only failing students are
basic in their CST are required required to attend after school
to attend after school tutoring. tutoring. This action is not fully
Parents support this requirement. supported by parents, and students
No student misbehaviors noted. show many behavior problems.
203
__________________________________________________________________
Table 18 (continued)
__________________________________________________________________
Study Themes Variables That Differentiate Schools
__________________________________________________________________
Theme II: Safe & Supportive School Environments
Method / Theory Benchmark MS Program Improvement MS
Surveys Student supervision Student supervision before,
(Astor et al., 2005) before, during, and after school during, and after school
hours is 86%. hours is 53%.
Focus Groups School leaders focus on School leaders focus on
(Marzano, 2003) reinforcing positive failing students, assessing
behavior support to raise their needs, and developing
achievement of all students. effective education plans.
(Astor et al., 2005) School has a STAR program School has no STAR
to prevent drugs, gangs, and program; instead, it has a
violence among all students. Diamonds Club for high risk
female students.
(Astor et al., 2005) Main school problem is Main school problem is
student safe passages. Internet safety.
Interviews No notable differences. No notable differences.
Observations Student misbehaviors are Student misbehaviors are
(Marzano, 2005) against other students. against other students &
teachers.
204
__________________________________________________________________
Table 18 (continued)
Theme III: A Culture of Educational Excellence
Method / Theory Benchmark MS Program Improvement MS
Surveys 48 percent of teachers note caring 80 percent of teachers note
(Marzano, 2003) relationships between students caring relationships between
and educational staff. students & educational staff.
Focus Groups High involvement of school Low involvement of school
(Astor et al., 2005) stakeholders in crafting safety stakeholders in crafting
and achievement initiatives. safety and achievement.
(Marzano, 2003) High expectations are held by Expectations of students,
students, teachers & parents. teachers, and parents vary.
(Marzano, 2003) PLCs are active and effective. PLCs are active, yet their
PLCs are part of the school’s effectiveness varies. PLCs
culture for over a decade. are at year two of
implementation.
(Marzano, 2003) Engagement among teachers, Engagement among teachers,
students, and parents is proactive, students, and parents is
reactive, and constant. and it is not constant.
(Marzano, 2003) Instructional leadership (+) Instructional leadership (-)
School leaders consistently monitor, School leaders are not
evaluate instruction, and provide consistent in monitoring,
support to needy teachers. instruction, & providing
support to needy teachers.
(Marzano, 2003) No shepherd strategy. Shepherd strategy is used to
help teachers track student
attendance, discipline, and
achievement.
Interviews Schoolwide realities manifest Schoolwide is clean, safe, &
(Marzano, 2003; Astor et al., 2005) a clean, safe, well-ordered well-ordered, but constant
learning environment. presence of police cars
reinforces sense of insecurity.
(Marzano, 2003; Astor et al., 2005) Classrooms are clean, safe, and Classrooms are clean, safe, &
well-organized with a low well-organized, but school
number of behavior suspensions. has high number of behavior
suspensions.
(Marzano, 2003) Standards-based instruction is Standards-based instruction is
practiced consistently. not practiced consistently.
Observations No major instructional challenges Major instruction challenges
(Marzano, 2003) regarding English learners. regarding English learners.
Teachers manifest excellent Instructional practices among
teaching practices. EL teachers are not
consistent.
205
Theoretical Implications
This study examined three landmark theories on leadership development
(Bolman & Deal, 2003), on school safety (Astor et al., 2005), and on student
achievement (Marzano, 2003) respectively. These theories were specifically used
to contextualize this study’s modified hypothesis that claims that the exercising of
exemplary school leadership fosters a safe and supportive learning environment,
which in turn contributes to develop a culture of educational excellence. The
following narratives address each of these theories and their implications in
addressing this study’s research questions.
Theoretical Model On School Leadership
The history of school effectiveness research has consistently identified
school-site principal leadership as positively related to student achievement
(Witziers, Bosker, and Kruger, 2003). For example, Marzano and associates
(2008) conducted a meta-analysis of the last 35 years of research studies on
school leadership and they concluded that specifically principal leadership has a
significant impact on student achievement. Among related findings, these
researchers conclude that leadership for school improvement is most effective
when carried out by a small team of educators with the principal functioning as a
strong cohesive force (Marzano, 2008). Cotton (2003) also found positive
correlations between 26 leader behaviors and student achievement, including a
student learning focus, establishing and maintaining quality relationships,
molding school culture, and maintaining accountability. Principals as
206
instructional leaders are particularly credited for encouraging teachers to exercise
instructional leadership, which ultimately resulted in improved instructional
quality (Printy & Marks, 2004).
In the realm of school safety, in a more recent study of atypical violent
and peaceable schools in Israel, Astor and associates (2009) concluded that
principals at low-violence schools played a significant role in inspiring and
directing their staffs to ensure a safe and successful school climate. In Astor’s
(2009) words:
The principals in these schools were strong leaders who could mobilize
staff, students, and parents. They had overarching philosophies of
education that connected school safety directly to the organization and
mission of their schools. Each had beliefs that the school could change the
lives of students, society, and the world. (p. 29)
This study explored Bolman and Deal’s (2003) theory on leadership and
organizational development, which referenced the above studies’ findings. This
theory advocates for using structural, political, human resource, and symbolic
frames of leadership development to address the difficult challenges confronting
public schools. These theoretical leadership frames are thus used to address
Research Question Two that centers on identifying the leadership factors that
contribute to improve school safety and student achievement at the Benchmark
and Program Improvement middle schools. The following narratives address
each of the above frames in sequential order.
207
The structural frame
The structural frame addresses the social architecture of an organization.
This architecture includes addressing the division of labor (differentiation) and the
coordination of related responsibilities (integration). This coordination can be
vertical or horizontal, or a mixture of both (Bolman and Deal, 2003).
At the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools, interviews
confirmed that their principals are well versed on their school district’s
organizational structures. In particular, they understand the chain of command
that includes their supervisors who hold the title of Assistant Superintendent,
District Superintendent, and elected School Board members. Similarly, they
understand their District’s school board policies and administrative regulations
that provide formal guidance on expectations related to school leadership, safety,
and instruction. Both principals at the above schools credit their Superintendents
for acknowledging their educational talents and selecting them to lead their
respective schools. The Benchmark middle school’s principal was a former
Physical Education teacher who was first selected to be assistant principal and,
after excelling in this position, she was promoted to her current position. By
contrast, the Program Improvement middle school’s principal was a former
elementary school teacher and administrator. Her education record includes
working with low performing elementary schools and helping them to maximize
student achievement.
208
At the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools, these
principals also understand the differentiation of labor among their staffs. This
includes understanding the vertical and horizontal differences among teachers,
counselors, and support staff. For example, they understand their teachers’
differences per grade, per tenure, and per expert levels. These understandings are
used to share ownership, responsibility and accountability among school
personnel to maximize school safety, instructional leadership, and student
achievement. To coordinate this work, these Principals use the services of their
school safety teams, and their Professional Learning Communities. These
Principals are also adept in using their respective school’s culture of leadership,
which teaches all school personnel to be leaders in helping each other to succeed
in a vertical or horizontal manner, or in both manners.
The political frame
The political frame addresses politics as a process of making decisions and
allocating resources in a context of scarcity and divergent interests, which are
influenced by power, conflict and ethics (Bolman and Deal, 2003). The key
assumptions of this frame are that organizations are coalitions of diverse
individuals and interest groups that have enduring differences; key decisions
involve the allocation of scarce resources; scarce resources and enduring
differences create conflict and power struggles; goals and decisions emerge from
bargaining and negotiation among competitive stakeholders (Bolman and Deal,
2003). This frame is addressed in the following narrative.
209
Research surveys, focus groups, interviews and observations revealed that
the principals of the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools
understand that, to maximize their work on school safety and student
achievement, they need to become experts in the politics of education impacting
their schools. Accordingly, both principals maintain a close relationship with
their district superintendents and local police authorities. Both principals are also
active members of the Association of California School Administrators, and are
leaders of a local consortium of middle school principals. On the school grounds,
each principal chairs their respective school’s safety and improvement teams, as
well as their Coordinated School Councils. Each principal also monitors the
performance of their respective school’s Professional Learning Communities, and
Parent/Teacher/Student Association. Each of these groups is composed of diverse
stakeholders and thus represents numerous special interests that have enduring
differences. Although all of these groups are committed to work together to
realize the school’s vision and mission, at times their relationships are tested by
situations involving interpersonal conflict on the school grounds.
As presented in this study’s Chapter IV, based on related interviews and
observations, the principals at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle
schools have had experiences in addressing conflicts among students, and student
hate against a teacher respectively. In both cases, the principals were able to
prevent these incidents from getting out of control and disrupting the school
environment. The following narrative uses the latter case at the Program
210
Improvement middle school to exemplify the leadership work necessary to
leverage the politics of education. This case involved a gang-involved student
writing racist graffiti on the front exterior door of an African American teacher’s
classroom.
In analyzing the impact of student hate-motivated behavior at the Program
Improvement middle school, the principal had many choices and decisions that
she was compelled to address. One choice was to paint over the racist graffiti,
deny that this problem existed at her school, and hope that its impact would
disappear on its own. Another choice was to meet with the targeted teacher,
direct her to keep the facts of this problem confidential, and transfer its resolution
to district personnel, where its investigation had the potential of being delayed
and unresolved. Still another choice was to acknowledge that this problem did
exist at school and proceed to exercise personal and collective leadership to solve
it. Although this latter choice was full of risks, which included the risk of being
labeled as a poor administrator, it also had the promise of being an opportunity to
engage the school’s stakeholders to improve school safety. In the education
profession, educators are taught to believe that effective administrators have no
problems (Marzano, 2003). Therefore, if the principal admitted to having a
problem, then she ran the risk of being labeled as an ineffective administrator.
Despite all risks, the principal weighed the potential positive and negative
consequences of her options, and ultimately decided to validate the existence of
this problem, mobilize internal and external allies, and confront it by exercising
211
exemplary leadership. Exercising effective leadership included understanding
the impact of this incident on the entire school, the school district, the community,
parents, the elected officials, and the media, and taking steps to secure their
assistance to prevent it from escalating and being mishandled. Because each of
these groups represents special interests, a school leader is required to understand
these realities and be a mediator that focuses on win-win outcomes (Marzano,
2003). If a school leader fails to do this, and is consequently found negligent of
behaving inappropriately in preventing hate on the school grounds, then he or she
could suffer unpleasant consequences that could lead to his or her removal from
the impacted school.
To address the political challenges confronting hate on the school grounds,
school leaders are also required to know how to exercise their authority. Heifetz
(1994) defines authority as conferred power to perform a service. In his words:
“Authority is given as part of an exchange. Failure to meet the term of the
exchange means risk of losing one’s authority” (p. 101). For example, by
California law, teachers, and police officers are granted authority to protect and
serve young people (California Education Code, 2009; California Penal Code,
2009). If they fail to do this, their authority can be taken away and given to others
who can provide these services.
According to Heifetz (2009), to exercise effective authority, school leaders
must meet the following three core responsibilities: (1) Direction, which requires
leaders to clarify roles and offer a vision; (2) protection, which requires leaders to
212
make sure students and staff are not vulnerable and can survive internal or
external threats; and (3) order, which requires leaders to maintain stability. Put in
the context of the above incident of hate at the Program Improvement middle
school, the school principal realized that, as part of her formal authority, she had
conferred power granted to her by state law to help ensure the constitutional rights
of students and staff to attend a school that is safe and secure (California
Education Code, 2009; California Constitution, 2009). If she failed to meet these
legal obligations, then her conferred power could be taken away and given to
another educator who could succeed in these undertakings. In addressing the
conflict of hate at school, the principal thus realized that she needed to represent
the best of caring, respect, and integrity in providing direction to all school
stakeholders. Specifically, she needed to show these qualities to the targeted
teacher in assisting to heal her wounds. She also needed to show problem-solving
direction to all other school staff, parents, and students.
Regarding protection, despite the risks inherent in this problem, the
principal at this school realized that the best way to protect students and staff from
internal or external threats was to be transparent and share ownership,
responsibility, and accountability with them. She also secured assistance from her
school district’s police department and from representatives from the Los Angeles
County Commission on Human Relations, and the Los Angeles County Office of
Education. Through these collaborations, she was able to leverage existing human
213
resources, which included building on the noble missions of internal and external
collaborators, to maximize personal and collective effectiveness.
To maintain order, the principal kept the Assistant Superintendent and
Superintendent well-informed of her results-oriented actions, and she was able to
secure their support and appreciation. She also worked closely with the school
district’s police authorities to increase vigilance and develop healthy relationships
among police personnel, educators, students, and parents. Most important, by
empowering students, parents, and teachers with anti-hate knowledge and skills,
she was able to secure their cooperation in identifying the main student culprit,
solve this case, and maintain safety and tranquility on the school grounds.
In summary, this principal was able to use her power to strengthen
collaborations, leverage internal and external resources, and resolve the conflict of
hate at school. These actions correspond with Bolman and Deal’s (2003)
political frame of leadership. Although she was not able to address the problem
of racialized gang violence impacting the communities surrounding the school,
nor keep the impacted teacher at school, she was effective in mobilizing personal
and group resources to make the school grounds safe learning environments.
The human resource frame
The human resource framework offers possibilities in which an
organization can be energizing, productive and mutually rewarding (Bolman and
Deal, 2003). At the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools,
research surveys, focus groups, interviews and observations revealed that both of
214
these schools have administrators, teachers, and counselors that are well-qualified,
per state and federal regulations (California Commission On Teacher’s
Credentialing, 2008; No Child Left Behind Act, 2002). For example, faculty
surveys at both schools revealed that over 90 percent of their teachers are well-
qualified and in compliance with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Beyond
formal qualifications, because these schools are located in high-risk
environments, these educators are also required to help ensure the safety and
achievement of all students (California Education Code, 2008). In this context,
principals are particularly required to exercise exemplary leadership in hiring,
training, and promoting the best and the brightest educators to foster highly
energized, productive and mutually rewarding professional relationships.
Collins (2001) believes that good is the enemy of great, and that great
schools are rare because people have settled for the mediocrity of good schools.
To reverse this trend, based on his research of successful organizations, he
identified a set of requirements that must be met to achieve organizational
greatness. These requirements include developing exemplary leaders that reflect
a blend of personal humility and professional will to realize organizational goals;
replacing ineffective employees with competent people that have strong character
ethics; maintaining an unwavering faith that one will prevail in the end, regardless
of the difficulties of brutal facts; establishing a culture of excellence that replaces
a need for hierarchy, bureaucracy, and excessive controls; selecting and applying
useful technologies; and committing to a process of continuous improvement.
215
This section references Collins’ (2001) work, as part of addressing the dynamics
of human resource leadership.
Throughout this study, the principals at the Benchmark and Program
Improvement middle schools proved to be exemplary leaders who believe that all
teachers can teach, and students can learn and achieve at the highest education
levels respectively. According to interviewees at both of these schools, since
these principals’ arrival in 2006, both of them have demonstrated a great humility
and love for all students and staff at their schools. Similarly, they have shown a
great professional will to help teachers improve their instructional leadership and
effectiveness. This work has included identifying incompetent staff and
forwarding actions to replace them with caring, competent, and ethical educators.
This initiative has not been easy. In fact, at times it has been very stressful and
time-consuming. Based on this reality, this researcher dedicated time to explore
the ways in which school authorities at these schools address the education
challenges posed by disengaged teachers. This exploration identified related best
practices, which are included in this study’s Chapter IV. In concurrence with
these practices, school authorities at this school have learned to maintain an
unwavering faith in the success of their staffs and students, regardless of the
challenges confronting their schools.
As part of developing a culture of excellence, these principals have also
sponsored numerous staff development trainings on ways to use research-based
best practices to improve curriculum, instruction, and assessment. This includes
216
training on how to use data to develop better instructional practices. Added to
this, they have established Professional Learning Communities and a monitoring
system that allow them, and their schools’ leadership team members, to support
the work of teachers, counselors and fellow administrators. These schools are
also privileged to have technology initiatives that provide lap top computers for
students and teachers. These computers are particularly used to maximize inter-
personal communication and address schoolwork. At each school, two school
technology specialists are responsible for training students and staff in the proper
use of these computers, and the respective principal is responsible for supervising
their work. Beyond the above strengths, the principals’ main challenges continue
to be the realization of a unity of vision, work, and achievement among teachers,
parents, and students to engage their disengaged counterparts in a process of
continuous school improvement that would take their schools from a state of
goodness to one of greatness.
Marzano (2003) believes that effective leadership requires the principal to
be a strong cohesive force that brings a small group of competent people together,
to generate respect among all group members, and guide them with optimism,
honesty and a consideration for the health, safety and success of others.
Accordingly, the principals at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle
schools are highly instrumental in ensuring compliance with California laws that
require all public schools to establish a school safety team, and a school site
council to assist in the development of a comprehensive school safety plan, and a
217
single plan for student achievement respectively (California Education Code,
Section 32594, 2007; California Education Code, Section 6400, 2009). Thus,
these principals are proven leaders who set the tone at their schools. Through
their actions, they exemplify a healthy motivation, competence, and commitment
to ensure school safety, and help all students and staff to succeed.
The symbolic frame
The symbolic frame focuses on how humans use meaning, belief and faith
to make sense of the messy, ambiguous world in which they live (Bolman & Deal,
2003). At the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools, the
principals have used a variety of symbols to develop a unity of vision, effort, and
achievement among their students, parents, and education staffs. The first symbol
is the American flag, which represents a reverence for the United States of
America, and its democratic freedoms, where all citizens have the sacred rights to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Based on faculty surveys at both of
these schools, over 50 percent of teachers believe that this symbol is used
adequately to promote a love for the United States of America. Beyond this
symbol, each school also has a mascot that represents its values and
commitments.
At the Benchmark middle school, its mascot is a little angel, which
represent a Saint. Although this mascot has religious connotations, it is not used
in such manner. Instead, it is used as a symbol that represents the best qualities in
students against the worst aspects of humans. This symbol corresponds with this
218
school’s commitment to character education, which teaches students how to be
TERRIFIC leaders. T stands for trustworthy; E stands for empathy; R stands for
respect; R stands for responsible; I stands for integrity; F stands for fairness; I
stands for insightful; and C stands for courage (Josephson Institute of Ethics,
2009). The goal of this school is to teach students how to develop into terrific
Saints. This school also uses the symbols of Heads, Hearts, and Hands to
promote a balance of the three to maximize school safety, instructional
excellence, and student achievement.
At the Program Improvement middle school, its mascot is the bust of a
Viking. This symbol is also used to promote this school’s expectations that
correspond with each letter of VIKINGS: V is for value integrity; I is for
influence others positively; K is for know your responsibilities; I is for initiate
safety; N is for need to be prepared; G is for give respect; and S is for strive for
success (Program Improvement middle school, 2009). Like the mascot at the
Benchmark middle school, a poster of this mascot and related expectations are
located in all classrooms, and are advertised throughout the school, as symbols of
its respective values.
In summary, the above information shows the excellent work being
performed by the leaders of the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle
schools. This work addresses Research Question Two, which identifies the
school principal and his or her leadership teams as the main leadership factors that
contribute to improve school safety and student achievement at both of these
219
schools. These factors were in turn examined using multiple frames of leadership
and organizational development, as developed by Bolman and Deal (2002).
Based on these findings, some frames were discussed more than others. This does
not mean that some frames are more important than others. On the contrary, the
use of these frames will continue to reflect respective challenges and the reality
that exemplary school leadership is always evolving (Marzano, 2009; Bolman &
Deal, 2003). In this sense, the leaders at these schools realize that their actions
are a work in progress that requires constant attention to detail to meet the
personal and collective needs of students, parents, and staff. This study thus
proves that, whether a leader is working at a Benchmark school, or at a Program
Improvement school, the challenges of leadership share many similarities. These
similarities are all aimed at mobilizing personal and group leadership talents to
make the school a safe and successful learning environment.
Theoretical Model on School Safety
This study examined Astor’s (2005) theoretical model on school safety,
which focuses on the school and the socio-ecological influences impacting student
victimization. Specifically, this model examines types of victimization, school
level factors, individual factors, and factors outside the school. According to
Astor (2005), if school authorities address each of the above safety factors
effectively, then these actions will contribute to improving student achievement at
school. This model thus addresses Research Question One, which centers on
220
understanding how a middle school that is located in a high-risk environment
achieves high academic performance.
A notable quality of Astor’s theoretical model is that it concurs with many
of California’s school safety laws. In fact, all of its factors are in agreement with
a trend-setting state law that requires all local public schools to establish
comprehensive schools safety plans (California Education Code, Section 32282,
2008). Each of this model’s factors and related school safety laws are addressed
below.
Types of victimization
This factor concurs with a California law that requires all public schools to
report student and staff victimizations that occur on or around their premises
(California Penal Code, 628 et seq., 2009). These victimizations include those
related to physical violence, threats, verbal/emotional aggression, sexual
harassment, weapons-related violence, and crimes committed by staff members.
Since 2001, the California Department of Education stopped collecting statewide
student and staff victimization data, and publishing its annual Safe Schools
Assessment Report. Nevertheless, local school districts are still required to collect
this information, as part of complying with the current federal No Child Left
Behind Act (2002). Despite this requirement, district compliance in reporting this
information varies.
As stated in this study’s chapter IV, the Benchmark and Program
Improvement middle schools were not able to produce school crime reports for
221
2008. In this regard, both of these schools were not in compliance with related
state laws. In addition, their reporting of student suspensions and expulsions was
inconsistent and inaccurate. Although both schools under-reported their number
of suspensions, the Benchmark middle school’s ten suspensions were extremely
lower than the 168 suspensions reported by the Program Improvement middle
school. Notably, none of these suspension reports provided information
regarding the location of their occurrence, nor the individual characteristics of the
student perpetrators and/or victims.
Astor and associates (2009) believe that pinpointing the exact location of
each student violation is important to the development of effective interventions.
These researchers also believe that identifying the specific characteristics of
perpetrators and victims – such as their age, race and gender - is vital to defining
specific problems, and related causes and solutions (Astor et al., 2009). Hence,
these researchers suggest that the identification of the location of victimization
and related student characteristics is a pre-requisite to developing effective
responses. These responses could vary from increasing supervision, to
developing a peer assistance leadership program, to altering the physical aspects
of the school (Astor, et al., 2009).
Based on the above information, one can conclude that the reporting of
school crime and violence is necessary to identify the challenges impacting
students and staff on or around the school grounds, and to develop effective
responses. When education leaders fail to meet this legal responsibility, then one
222
needs to find better ways to help them succeed in this undertaking. Perhaps one
way to do this is to approve state legislation that allocates financial resources to
County Offices of Education to hire School Safety Compliance Officers, and
make them responsible for helping schools to comply with related state laws.
Since one of the current legal responsibilities of County Offices of Education is to
provide support services to school districts, this suggestion seems to be a good fit
(Los Angeles County Office of Education, 2009)..
School level factors
According to Astor and associates (2009), school level factors include the
development of school-wide awareness, responses to violence, school climate,
and peer groups. Unlike other approaches that focus on the individual, the focus
of these efforts is mainly the school setting. Astor and associates (2009) believe
that when the school is the primary focus of school safety, school authorities are
eventually compelled to exercise effective leadership to ensure the health, safety,
and success of students and staff. These leadership responsibilities include
sharing ownership, responsibility, and accountability with teachers, counselors,
support staff, parents, students, police officers, and community leaders in defining
and solving related school violence, and student failure problems. A vital step in
these leadership efforts is to focus personal and group talents on developing
school-wide, comprehensive school safety plans.
As documented in chapter IV, the Benchmark and Program Improvement
middle schools have established Comprehensive School Safety Plans that are in
223
compliance with most of their related legal requirements (California Education
Code, Section 32282, 2008). Despite these strengths, their leaders’ major
shortcoming is the failure to conduct public meetings to share their plans with
their school’s external stakeholders. Although faculty surveys at both of the
above schools show that an overwhelming majority of teachers acknowledged
awareness of their school safety plans, follow-up staff interviews revealed that the
majority of parents, teachers, and support staff have not seen these plans and thus
they do not know their specific goals and objectives, nor their personal roles and
responsibilities in helping to realize them.
Another concern manifested by interviewees at both of the above schools
is that these safety plans do not include policies and procedures on street gangs,
hate, cyber-bullying, and threats, which are important problems impacting their
students and staffs. To address this concern, interviewees suggested that each of
these policies should specify the responsibilities of school administrators,
teachers, counselors, support staff, students, and parents in preventing or
curtailing these problems on or around the school grounds. Through these
actions, school authorities could indeed share formal ownership, responsibility
and accountability.
Another shortcoming that was shared by interviewees at the above schools
is the lack of proper training of school administrators, teachers, support staff, and
parents in addressing crime and violence challenges. For example, interviewees
suggested that, as part of safe schools planning, staff members that are part of
224
their school’s Incident Command System (ICS) need to be trained on how to
exercise their incumbent responsibilities. Because both schools are located in
communities experiencing serious hate/gang/violence challenges, school
authorities particularly need to engage in planning on site, reality-based exercises,
and actualize their respective ICS responsibilities. The primary purpose of these
exercises should be to test ICS effectiveness and learn lessons on how to
minimize shortcomings and maximize strengths.
School-wide safety initiatives are essential to increase awareness,
understanding, and action among students, educators, support staff, police
officers, and parents. As noted above, the Benchmark and Program Improvement
middle schools are doing a decent job in developing comprehensive school safety
initiatives, and integrating them into their overarching school culture. However,
the ultimate measure of their effectiveness is based on the academic success of
their students. Although all students have unique characteristics, they also share
many commonalities that can help educators to measure their effectiveness in
improving student safety and achievement. The next section focuses on the
individual characteristics of students.
Individual factors
Individual factors address race, gender, age, and the physical
characteristics of students (Astor & Benbenishty, 2005). These factors are
exemplified by research showing that boys are more prone to engaging in school
violence than girls; younger students are more likely to report victimization than
225
older students; and victims of bullying tend to be shorter and weaker than those
their age, while bullies are usually taller and stronger (Center for Disease Control
and Prevention, 2000; Olweus, 1993). Other research also shows that African
and Hispanic American teen-age boys are more likely to join street gangs and
become victims of them, while minority teen-age girls are less likely to do this
(Hutson et al., 1995).
According to the demographics of the Benchmark and Program
Improvement middle schools, roughly 95 percent of its students are Hispanics. Of
these, approximately 55 percent are females, while 45 percent are males. In
addition, virtually all of them come from indigent families and thus qualify to
receive free or reduced meals at school. Students at these schools also report
harassment, drug abuse, possession of weapons on the schools grounds, and ten
percent of all students at these schools identify themselves as members of local
street gangs (California Healthy Kids Survey, 2008). In fact, according to the Los
Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (2009), many of these students have had a
family member shot or killed by local gang members. These students thus
possess serious, diverse needs that educators must address, in order to help them
to succeed at school.
As part of this study’s Chapter I, it was noted that Hawkins and Catalano
(1996) believe that the growth and development of all students are impacted by
multiple risk factors that can derail their academic success. To counter these risk
factors, they advocate for the development of protective factors, which include
226
pro-social standards that are consistently reinforced at home, at school, and in the
community; bonding with role models who hold these beliefs, such as exemplary
peers, parents, teachers, and police officers; opportunities for students to be
responsible at home, at school, and in the community; skills in problem-solving,
reading, and communication; and recognition for individual efforts (Hawkins &
Catalano, 1996). This study did not address deeply the individual risk factors
impacting students at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools.
However, this study did reference the California Healthy Kids Survey (2008),
which was taken by all 7
th
grade students at both of these schools. This survey
confirmed the existence of the above-mentioned risk factors related to crime and
violence at school. This survey also noted that most students at these schools
have a high degree of school connectedness, possess great resilient skills, and feel
successful at school (California Healthy Kids Survey, 2008).
School authorities are thus encouraged to identify the individual
characteristics of their students and focus on developing individualized education
plans that meet their needs. At the above schools, focus group members and
interviewees communicated that their schools have also infused character
education into their academic classes, and is reflected daily through the symbolic
leadership of their mascots, and in classroom rules for student conduct.
Examples of these rules include: We will be on time; we will be responsible by
bringing books, paper, and pencil; we will show courtesy and respect to our
227
fellow students; we will help students who are being bullied by getting adult help,
or speaking out; and we will be honest in doing our work.
Building on the above protective factors, Packer and Goicoechea (2000)
conclude that the school is a community of practice that contributes to the
development of the student’s and teacher’s identities, and ultimately impacts the
transformation of students and their social environment. These researchers
emphasize that student learning requires participation in relationships and
community activities that lead to the mutual transformation of the person and the
environment (Packer & Goicoechea, 2000). In this light, the next section
addresses the external factors impacting students and staff at school.
External school factors
Factors outside the school include dysfunctional parents, family poverty,
community context, ethnicity and culture (Astor & Benbenishty, 2005). As stated
in previous chapters of this study, students attending the Benchmark and Program
Improvement Middle schools live with poor and dysfunctional families, in
communities that are severely impacted by drugs, gangs, and violence (Los
Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, 2009). School authorities are thus required
to understand these external factors, in order to address the health, safety, and
academic needs of their students. Specifically, educators are compelled to
understand how the home and community environments impact a student’s
education.
228
Focus group members and interviewees at the Benchmark and Program
Improvement middle schools agreed that the school must be a safe haven, where
students and staff feel safe. Although the communities surrounding these schools
are impacted by continuous acts of drug/gang/hate violence, interviewees noted
that these schools are sanctuaries that teach students how to stay away from drugs,
gangs and crime. For example, interviewees emphasized that school authorities
are committed to keep the gang presence away from the school grounds. This
work includes discouraging students from manifesting gang-related dress attire,
tattoos, graffiti, and other mannerisms.
Interviewees at both middle schools also stated that another significant
problem impacting their schools is Internet safety. Student threats or harassment
directed against other students or teachers that where once limited to the school
grounds are now being expanded into cyberspace via the Internet. Thus,
interviewees at these schools recommended training educators on effective
Internet strategies that can be used to address these challenges effectively.
The increasing presence of computers at school, along with the ever-
present use of the Internet pose new environmental challenges that need to be
addressed by educators at school. These new realities require new approaches to
ensure the safety of students and staff. Hence, these new realities compel
educators to understand the impact of the external environment on student
learning and achievement.
229
Based on the above narrative, school authorities at the Benchmark and
Program Improvement middle schools showed great courage in addressing most
of the above factors, which are part of Astor’s (2009) theoretical framework on
school safety. Specifically, as theoretical implications, school authorities at the
Benchmark middle school have excelled in developing a culture of safety and
support that begins with having competent leaders, a clean campus, students in
uniform, and a multi-disciplinary school safety team that is proactive in
addressing related issues. At the Program Improvement middle school, its leaders
have also done an excellent job at keeping the school grounds clean, monitoring
student compliance with school uniforms, and meeting as a team to address safety
concerns. At this school, however, the daily student referrals for misbehaving in
class, and the constant presence of police patrol cars in front of the school
reinforce a perception that it is not 100 percent safe. Although there is plenty of
room for improvement in addressing each of Astor’s (2005) factors at both middle
schools, as part of answering Research Question One, the efforts of their
administrators, teachers, and support staff show that a safe and supportive school
environment is indeed a major factor that can influence the academic success of
students.
Theoretical Model On Educational Excellence
This study examined Marzano’s (2003) theory on educational excellence,
and its actualization at Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools.
This theory claims that, to maximize student achievement, one must cultivate
230
related school, teacher, and student level factors. Hence, this theory primarily
addresses Research Question One that centers on understanding how a middle
school that is located in a high-risk environment achieves high academic
performance. Research Question Two, which focuses on identifying the
leadership factors that contribute to improve school safety and student
achievement, is also infused as part of exploring this theory. The following
narrative addresses each of this theory’s factors in sequence, beginning with those
that focus on the school.
School level factors
Marzano (2003) presents five school level factors that his research shows
are essential for student achievement. In order of importance, these factors are (1)
a guaranteed and viable curriculum; (2) challenging goals and effective feedback;
(3) parental and community involvement; (4) a safe and orderly environment; and
(5) collegiality and professionalism. If any of these factors is not addressed, then
he claims that a school’s level of educational excellence is diminished (Marzano,
2003).
This study’s faculty surveys, focus groups, interviews, and observations at
Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools revealed that all of the
above school level factors were addressed at both of these schools. Some of these
factors were referenced more than others, and their implementation and
effectiveness also differed from one school to another. For example, faculty
members confirmed that their schools give a high priority to setting high
231
academic and behavior goals; engaging in improving curriculum and teaching
practices; using multiple learning approaches in instruction; and providing
continuous staff development to meet the unique needs of students. By contrast,
they admitted shortcomings in assessing the developmental assets of students and
staff; including a health and resiliency curriculum; and involving parents,
students, and staff in the development of school safety and academic programs.
Under a safe and orderly environment, interviews and observations
revealed that both schools are indeed clean, safe, and orderly. However, the
Program Improvement middle school’s constant student misbehaviors and the
presence of police personnel on the school grounds create a perception of disorder
and insecurity that impact how teachers, students, and parents see the school’s
environment. Since this school is in school improvement, it also must address the
misperception that it reflects a culture of educational failure. To change this
misperception, school leaders have done a decent job in working with school
safety and school improvement teams to be more proactive in addressing related
student safety and academic challenges, and improving the school’s climate.
On school collegiality and professionalism, interviews and observations at
the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools revealed that their
leaders are committed to strengthen school connectedness between students and
their teachers by promoting caring relationships between them. Faculty members
at the Benchmark middle school noted that this school is doing poorly in this
endeavor, whereas faculty members at the Program Improvement middle school
232
stated that their school is doing better. Similarly, these schools’ leaders have
prioritized the implementation of school-wide Professional Learning
Communities to help needy teachers improve their instructional leadership. At
the Benchmark middle school, Professional Learning Communities have been
integrated into its school culture for the over a decade, and thus they are very
effective. By contrast, at the Program Improvement middle school, Professional
Learning Communities have only been implemented for the past three years, and
thus their effectiveness is still at its early stages of development.
Teacher level factors
Researchers in public education have proven that the most important
factor affecting student learning is the teacher (Wright, et al., 1997). Marzano
(2003) further claims that the most effective teachers are those who use research-
based instructional strategies, classroom management techniques, and classroom
curriculum design in a fluent, seamless fashion. This section discusses these
factors and their impact at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle
schools.
Educators at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools
stated that school leaders need more training in best practices in instructional
leadership to help teachers improve their teaching practices in the classroom.
These practices include exemplifying high expectations; aligning standards-based
curriculum, instruction and assessments; high standards; discipline; and high
engagement between teachers and students. At the Benchmark middle school, the
233
district superintendent noted that all teachers are required to comply with the
following eight steps of instruction: (1) Analyze student achievement data; (2)
abide by the school’s 36-week instruction calendar; (3) participate in weekly
focus groups to discuss students’ progress; (4) provide student tutoring that
compliments academic enrichment; (5) participate in staff development training;
(6) meet weekly with their Professional Learning Community to share knowledge
and improve instruction; (7) monitor student progress; and (8) help each other to
improve their class work.
At Program Improvement middle school, interviewees added that this
school’s classrooms are clean, well-organized, safe, and high quality learning
environments, where students are fully engaged in their school work and highly
competent teachers use standards-based instruction and diverse teaching strategies
to maximize student learning. According to its Principal: “In each classroom,
teachers use technology – a laptop and an LCD projector – to facilitate teaching
and student learning. Teachers also move throughout their classrooms answering
students’ questions and verifying their understanding of classroom assignments.”
To verify teachers’ use of sound instructional strategies, this researcher
engaged in classroom observations at the Benchmark and Program Improvement
middle schools. According to Marzano (2003), the top instructional strategies,
include identifying similarities and differences, summarizing and note-taking,
reinforcing effort and providing recognition, homework and practice, non-
linguistic representations, collaborative learning, setting objectives, and providing
234
feedback. Based on limited observations and class walkthroughs, this researcher
confirmed that these strategies are indeed being implemented at the above
schools; however, their effectiveness varies. As mentioned in this study’s
Chapter IV, teachers at the Benchmark middle school are excelling in their
implementation of these strategies, whereas many teachers at the Program
Improvement middle school are experiencing difficulties.
Marzano (2003) believes that effective teachers are those that know how
to use diverse instructional strategies, such as engaging students in teams to help
each other accomplish class assignments. He also believes that effective teachers
are those that know how to manage their classrooms by establishing and enforcing
rules and procedures, carrying out disciplinary actions, maintaining effective
relationships with their students, and sustaining an appropriate mental set
(Marzano, 2003). These practices are important to prevent student misbehavior
from evolving into violence and becoming a threat to the health and safety of all
students (Furlong et al., 2002). According to interviews and observations at the
Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools, teachers at these schools
are known for implementing the above strategies. However, teachers at the
former school have a higher success record than those at the latter school.
The ultimate goal of teacher-level factors is to maximize standards-based
instruction that ensures student achievement. This includes teaching students in
exemplary ways that motivate them and challenge them to explore their hidden
potentials. According to USC Professor Larry Picus: “The ability of teachers to
235
really help children learn and master the education material hinges on their ability
to individually spend time with each child, to really understand each child’s
needs, and focus instruction on these specific needs, during parts of the day”
(Rossier School of Education, 2009).
This study confirmed that teachers are essential to the education of
students; however, it also found that they are not sufficient. As mentioned in this
section, student needs must also be identified, understood, and addressed in order
to maximize student achievement. In this regard, the next section addresses
student-level factors.
Student level factors
Research in public education shows that, whereas schools account for only
20 percent of the variance in student achievement, student background
characteristics account for the other 80 percent (Marzano, 2003). Understanding
students’ background characteristics is therefore very important to help improve
their achievement levels. Marzano (2003) specifically identifies home
environment, learned intelligence, and motivation, as the three vital student level
background characteristics that can help improve student achievement. This
section focuses mainly on home environment, and minimally on learned
intelligence and motivation.
Under home environment, the socio-economic status of a student’s family
is deemed to be one of the best predictors of student achievement (Charters,
1963). Researchers have also discovered that a student’s home atmosphere has
236
the greatest influence on his or her academic achievement (White, 1982).
According to Marzano (2003), home environment is composed of the following
three elements: (1) Parent expectations and parenting styles; (2) communication
about school; and (3) supervision.
Educators at the Benchmark middle school confirmed that a substantial
percentage of its teachers believe that this school involves parents, students, and
staff in developing programs; recognize and build on the school’s ethnic and
cultural richness; promote caring relations with students; and empower students to
take responsibility for personal and school safety. By contrast, faculty surveys
from the Program Improvement middle school confirmed that this school has
higher response rates for the involvement of parents, students and staff in
developing programs, and promoting caring relations with students. On the other
survey areas mentioned above, the response rates were similar.
Educators at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools
additionally agreed that, to maximize effectiveness in instruction, teachers must
develop a strong connectedness with students. According to the principals at both
middle schools, this connectedness must manifest utmost caring, respect, and
integrity. A caring that exemplifies an unconditional commitment to cultivate the
best in humans; respect that acknowledges and affirms the worth of self and
others; and integrity that shines through when one’s thinking and speaking
correspond with one’s actions.
237
Educators at both of the above middle schools also stated that their schools
have active Parent Teacher Associations that foster parent involvement in their
children’s education. They added that, at both of these schools, parents are
treated as partners. Through these partnerships, they emphasized that parents
learn to help educators in identifying, confronting, and solving problems to
maximize student achievement.
Regarding the impact of poverty on a student’s education, recent research
has proven that the socio-economic status of a student’s family is one of the best
predictors of his or her achievement (Marzano, 2003; Charters, 1963).
Accordingly, because over 75% of all students attending the Benchmark and
Program Improvement middle schools come from families living in poor home
environments, this study also addressed the impact of poverty on student
achievement at the above schools. However, due to this study’s limitations, its
findings were not included in Chapters IV and V.
This study also explored ways to address the needs of English learners at
the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools. As stated in this
study’s Chapter IV, failure to meet these students’ needs could easily evolve into
misbehaviors that could threaten the health and safety of students and staff.
Therefore, to prevent this from happening at both of these schools, interviewees
recommended building on the strengths of the English learner’s native language,
nurturing this language to help transition their learning into the new English
238
language, and using diverse education approaches to maximize student
engagement.
In addition, this study explored ways in which the Benchmark and
Program Improvement middle schools address the needs of Special Education
students. Interviewees at both of these schools recommended using strategies that
build on each Special Education student’s individualized education plan (IEP),
and help engage and accept him or her a valued member of the class.
Interviewees added that, if a Special Education student has a shortcoming during
class, then educators should work with this student and his or her parents, and
encourage him or her to try again, improve, and feel better. They emphasized
that education requires taking these students into account and helping them to
improve their knowledge and skills to succeed at school and in life.
In general, to maximize the learning and achievement of all students,
interviewees at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools
recommended that teachers engage students in hands-on, experience-oriented,
collaborative activities, such as creating science experiments, designing cardboard
space stations, or building California missions."" These activities would allow
students to get out of their chairs, work in teams, and help each other complete
assignments." Through this work, they could build mutual respect and trust, feel
good about themselves, and motivate each other to continue doing better
schoolwork." They also supported requiring teachers to recognize and praise
student achievement in front of class, and thus provide positive behavior support.
239
In summary, this study addressed aspects of Marzano’s (2003) school,
teacher, and student level factors being implemented at the Benchmark and
Program Improvement middle schools. Although it addressed each of these
factors in a broad and general manner, the research methods used at both of these
schools, and the triangulation of their respective findings, revealed that indeed all
of Marzano’s (2003) factors are necessary to address the individualized needs of
students, and to cultivate their academic achievement. Thus, this conclusion
answers Research Questions One and Two. Accordingly, principals at middle
schools located in high-risk environments are required to engage their respective
leadership teams in addressing each of the above factors to ensure school safety,
and achieve educational excellence (Marzano, 2003).
Practical Implications
In America, according to the United States Department of Education
(2009), its public schools are presently experiencing serious manifestations of
crime and violence. In the spectrum of school realities, these manifestations vary
from student engagement in graffiti, drug abuse, harassment and cyber-bullying to
physical fights, shootings, and killings (United States Department of Education,
2009). These problems particularly impact students and educators attending local
urban public schools across this country. To address these problems, each state
has developed creative crime and violence prevention, intervention, and
suppression strategies. This study focused on examining the challenges
confronting two California middle schools, which are located in high-risk
240
community environments. Specifically, it explored the role of principal
leadership in fostering a safe and supportive learning environment, and in
developing a culture of educational excellence. The following narrative explores
this study’s practical implications, and provides recommendations to address them
effectively.
Exemplify Extra-ordinary Principal Leadership
In schools located in high-risk community environments, principals have
an affirmative duty to prevent the victimization of students and staff (California
Constitution, 2009; California Education Code, 2009). For example, in schools
located in communities infested with drugs, gangs, and crime, if gang members or
sexual predators are plotting to harm students, principals are expected to
anticipate this harm, and work with other professionals to prevent it from being
manifested. To ensure the health, safety, and success of students and staff,
principals are required to represent the best of their intelligence, courage,
competence, and loving kindness. In this caring light, principals are similarly
required to teach students and staff how to connect with each other to foster
mutual respect, trust, and responsible thinking and behavior. Based on this
study’s focus groups, interviews, and observations, the principals of the
Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools are credited for
exemplifying the extraordinary leadership that improved safety and student
achievement at their schools. Despite these improvements, however, interviewees
241
suggested that there is still plenty of room to continue changing their schools’
goodness into enduring greatness.
Develop and Share School Board Policies and Procedures
At the practical level, this study revealed that many teachers, parents, and
students at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools are not
aware of their respective school’s existing policies and procedures on safety and
achievement, and their individual responsibilities. Therefore, school principals
need to invest time developing specialized trainings for all teachers, parents, and
students and address these needs. Furthermore, based on the dangerous
environments surrounding their schools, these principals need to secure assistance
in developing new school board policies and procedures on street gangs, hate-
motivated behaviors, cyber-bullying, and threat assessment and management,
which presently do not exist at their school districts. These policies should be
designed to address prevention, intervention, and suppression approaches in each
of these areas. These policies should also specify the responsibilities of
administrators, teachers, students, and parents in addressing these challenges
effectively. Most important, these policies need to be integrated into respective
Comprehensive Schools Safety Plans (Astor, et al., 2005).
Improve Training on School Safety, Instruction, and Achievement
School principals at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle
schools need more preparation to address the challenges of safety, instruction, and
achievement confronting their schools. In particular, they need training to
242
improve their professional capacity to develop effective multi-disciplinary
approaches that connect and address these three areas effectively. Based on this
study’s interviews with these principals, they acknowledged that their university
training did not prepare them to address these three areas effectively. Therefore,
they have learned through personal trials and tribulations to develop best practices
in these areas. These realities need to be addressed through professional
development training that goes from awareness and understanding in these areas
to implementation, and evaluation.
This study’s findings also revealed that the principals at Shively and Sierra
Vista Middle Schools have established comprehensive plans on school safety and
academic improvement, which are in compliance with related state laws, yet
many teachers and parents are not aware of their existence. In better case
scenarios, where teachers and parents are aware of these plans, they have not been
trained in understanding and exercising their corresponding responsibilities. For
example, despite these plans’ compliance with emergency preparedness laws,
staff members who are part of their school’s Incident Command System have not
been trained in understanding and practicing their respective responsibilities.
Hence, to prevent potential lawsuits for negligence in meeting these
responsibilities, principals are encouraged to address the above needs in a timely
and effective manner.
Regarding student achievement, leaders at the Benchmark and Program
Improvement middle schools need assistance to sustain their successes and
243
address their shortcomings in aligning standards-based curriculum, instruction,
and assessment. Although teachers and students at the Benchmark middle school
are performing adequately in the California Standards Test, there is always room
for improvement. In fact, in 2008, this school experienced hundreds of student
office referrals that were due to student misbehavior in its classrooms. Thus,
teachers at this school could benefit from more training in classroom management
and constructive discipline to reinforce student pro-social behaviors. Since this
school has effective Professional Learning Communities integrated into its
education culture, its leaders should build on their strengths and sponsor
specialized trainings that reinforce their abilities to address the safety and
academic challenges confronting needy teachers.
At the Program Improvement middle school, which is in its fifth year in
program improvement, its leaders need to be more proactive in anticipating
student safety and academic challenges, and developing effective policies,
programs and practices. Its use of data on student attendance, discipline, and
achievement to quantify these challenges and to develop corresponding
interventions is a step in the right direction (Marzano, 2008). However, outside
assistance from experts at the Los Angeles County Office of Education and local
universities needs to be secured to help its teachers maximize personal and
collective effectiveness. As part of these collaborations, principals need to
participate in continuous instructional leadership training that can help them
sharpen their knowledge and skills in this discipline. They also need to be more
244
proactive in conducting classroom walkthroughs to monitor and evaluate
instruction, and provide timely feedback and support to needy teachers. Since this
school also has Professional Learning Communities, their faculty members need
to be trained in effective practices that can assist them to improve student safety,
instruction, and academic achievement.
Establish New Collaborations to Address the Special Needs of Students
Leaders at the Program Improvement middle school have an urgent need
to secure continuous professional support to help its teachers address the
shortcomings of English learners and Special Education students. Since these
student populations are the ones keeping it in the category of program
improvement, it follows that their needs must be addressed effectively to get it out
of this situation. As part of this work, school leaders need to develop better multi-
disciplinary approaches to engage the disengaged students and their parents. For
example, in addressing difficult cases, they need to cultivate better relationships
with representatives from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and the
Department of Children and Family Services to conduct a better personalized
assessment of each student’s language and special needs, and develop effective
interventions. Most important, if this school is to get out of program
improvement, then its school leaders need to refocus their attention on
strengthening the training of teachers to teach students how to expand their
learning capabilities, and assist them in developing the English and Math skills
necessary to raise their scores in the California Standards Test. Although teacher
245
interviewees at the Benchmark and Program Improvement middle schools stated
that they do not believe in limiting education solely to teaching students how to
pass a high stakes test, and be judged solely on the test scores of needy student
sub-groups, they need to go along with the winds of education change, or they
could become victims of them. For example, the federal Race To The Top grant
program, which is expected to provide major grant awards to needy school
districts, is designed to reward school districts that hold their teachers accountable
for their students’ academic achievement (United States Department of Education,
2009).
Amend the NCLB Act of 2001 to Strengthen the Role of School Principals.
An amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is necessary to
emphasize the practical recruitment, hiring, training, and development of
exemplary school principals. Based on the findings of this research study,
principal leadership is vital to help teachers and support staff to improve school
safety and student achievement. Therefore, to transform Program Improvement
schools into high performing institutions, federal education officials need to make
the evolving No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 more practical by including a
comprehensive amendment that addresses the role of school principals
In summary, school leaders need to exercise effective leadership to work
with political allies and secure the financial resources needed to realize the above-
mentioned practical work. Above the current financial crisis impacting education
in California, school leaders need to focus on developing effective collaborations
246
with the private sector, public foundations, and federal government initiatives. To
take this work from its theoretical framework to its practical one, for the sake of
our children’s education, school leaders need to exemplify their best efforts in
thinking, behavior, and achievement.
New Research
In the fields of school leadership, safety, and student achievement, new
research is needed to examine best practices in related pre-service and in-service
university initiatives. New research also needs to examine the effectiveness of
related university pre-service education programs that are designed to develop
excellent school principals, teachers, and counselors. New research also needs to
explore the role of a university education in helping existing educators to address
the leadership, safety and achievement challenges of program improvement
schools. Unlike this research study, there is a need to conduct broader studies that
encompass a greater number of program improvement elementary, middle, and
high schools. Like this study, related similarities and differences also need to be
identified, discussed, and shared with other educators working at needy schools.
This section addresses the above suggestions.
On pre-service education practices, new research could explore the best
approaches American universities use in teaching university students how to
develop, implement, and evaluate effective educational leadership, safety, and
achievement initiatives. For example, this new research could examine the best
practices universities use to integrate school safety into the pre-service
247
requirements of administrative, teaching, and counseling credentialing programs.
If there are program gaps in addressing school safety, then this research could be
used to identify related causes and solutions
On in-service education practices, new research could explore how
universities train existing principals, teachers, and counselors to address the needs
of program improvement elementary and secondary schools, which are located in
high-risk community environments. Research can focus on elementary, middle,
or high schools individually, or on a cluster composed of all these school levels.
A key focus should be to evaluate these educators’ effectiveness, by examining
the implementation of their knowledge, skills, and practices in leadership, school
safety, and student achievement.
In a time of war against the evils of terrorism, school leaders are
compelled to prioritize the safety and security of students and staff. This work
includes maximizing the use of their school safety plans to address related
violence prevention, intervention, and suppression challenges. Specifically,
school administrators, teachers, counselors, and police personnel must be trained
on best practices that can be used to address these challenges effectively. For
example, to strengthen emergency preparedness and response operations, school
leaders must be trained to be adept in using their school’s incident command
system. Excellent understanding and use of this system during an emergency are
vital to ensure the health and safety of students and educators. Thus, these
emergency aspects of safety must not be under-estimated.
248
Conclusion
The initial hypothesis of this study was that leadership and school safety
are important factors that impact student achievement. As part of addressing this
hypothesis, this study’s findings specifically revealed that extraordinary principal
leadership is the overarching theme that facilitates the creation of a safe and
supportive learning environment, and the development of a culture of educational
excellence. These findings addressed this study’s two research questions by
identifying the leadership, school, teacher and education factors that help middle
schools, which are located in high-risk environments, improve safety and achieve
high academic performance.
This study was also guided by three landmark theories on leadership
development (Bolman & Deal, 2003), on school safety (Astor et al., 2005), and on
student achievement (Marzano, 2003) respectively. Each of these theories was
used to provide a supportive framework for this study’s findings and their three
major themes. Accordingly, findings under theme one showed that school leaders
maximize their leadership effectiveness when they use structural, political, human
resource, and symbolic frames to confront education challenges (Bolman & Deal,
2003). Findings under theme two concluded that school leaders that document
their school’s victimization realities, and address their school, individual, and
external factors are more effective in ensuring school safety than those that do not
(Astor et al., 2005). And, findings under theme three illustrated that school
leaders that address their school, teacher, and student level factors are effective in
249
developing a culture of educational excellence (Marzano, 2003). These three
theories and their corresponding themes thus proved to be mutually supportive in
improving principal leadership, school safety, and student achievement.
The ultimate goal of this study was to answer its two research questions.
Accordingly, this study identified the leadership, safety, and achievement factors
that can help a middle school that is in a high-risk environment realize high
academic achievement. This study also specified the role of effective principal
leadership, as the major factor that assists to improve school safety and student
achievement at the participating middle schools. Although this study only
focused on two middle schools, this researcher hopes that its findings are useful in
helping needy middle schools and others to improve their respective work in
leadership, safety, and achievement.
In summary, to ensure a safe and supportive learning environment, school
authorities are required to exercise leadership. If this is done effectively, then
they can focus on helping teachers to teach, and students to learn and achieve at
the highest education levels. This study concludes that the exercising of effective
principal leadership is specifically necessary to ensure school safety and student
achievement.
250
REFERENCES
Ackerman, P.L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process,
personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227-257.
Astor, R.A. and Benbennishty, R. (2005). School Violence in Context: culture,
neighborhood, family, school and gender. NY: Oxford University Press
Astor, R.A., Meyer, H.A., Benbenishty, R., Marachi, R., & Rosemond, M.
(January, 2005). School Safety Intervention: Best practices and programs.
Children & Schools, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 17-32.
Barton, P. E., Coley, R. J., & Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Order in the classroom:
Violence, discipline, and student achievement. Princeton, NJ: Policy
Information Center, Educational Testing Service.
Bassett Unified School District. (2007). District Profile. Retrieved on July 25,
2008 from www.bassett:k12.ca.us/index.
Bazeley, P. (2004) Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches to
research. In Buber, R., Gadner, J. & Richards, L. (Eds.), Applying
qualitative methods to marketing management research. UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Benchmark middle school’s School Accountability Report Card. (2008). Valle
Lindo School District. Retrieved on June 27, 2008 from
www.vallelindo.k12.ca.us/
Blum. R.W., McNeely, C.A. & Rinehart, P.M. (2002). The Untapped Power of
Schools to Improve the Health of Teens. Minneapolis, MN: Center for
Adolescent Health and Development, University of Minnesota.
Boersma, F.J. & Chapman, J.W. (1982). Teachers’ and mothers’ academic
achievement expectations for learning disabled children. Journal of School
Psychology 2, 216-225.
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, choice
and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2006). The Wizard and The Warrior: Leading with
passion and power. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
251
Bowers, L., Smith, P.K. & Binney, V. (1994). Perceived family relationships of
bullies, victims, and bully victims in middle childhood. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 11 (2). 215-232.
Brewer, D.J. & Stacz, C. (1996). Enhancing opportunity to learn measures in
NCES data. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Brownfield, D. (1987). Father-son relationship and violent behavior. Deviant
Behavior 8, 65-78.
Bucknam, R.B. (1976). The impact of EBCE: An evaluator’s viewpoint. Illinois
Career Education Journal, 33 (3), 32-36.
Burns, J.M. (2003). Transformational Leadership. New York, NY: Atlantic
Monthly Press.
California Assembly. (1999). Assembly Bill 557: California Student Safety and
Violence Prevention Act of 2000. California Assembly Publications.
California Code of Regulation, Section 2400-2450. (1998). SEMS regulations.
Sacramento, CA: State of California Publications.
California Commission On Teacher Credentialing. (1995). Final Report on
Creating Caring Relationships to Foster Academic Excellence:
Recommendations for reducing violence in California schools.
Sacramento, CA: CTC Publications.
California Constitution, Article I, section 28 (c ). (2008). The Right to Safe
Schools. Retrieved on October 10, 2008 from www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/wa
California Department of Education. (2008). Accountability and Progress
Reporting. Retrieved on September 22, 2008 from
www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ar/
California Department of Education. (2008). California Safe Schools Assessment
Report: 1999-2000 Results. Sacramento, CA: Author.
California Department of Education. (2008). Persistently dangerous schools.
Retrieved on August 5, 2008 from
cde.ca.gov/spbranch/safety/nclb/usco.pdf
California Department of Education. (2002). Safe Schools: A planning guide for
action. Sacramento, CA: Author.
252
California Education Code, Section 32594. (1997). Comprehensive School Safety
Plans. Sacramento, CA: West Group Publications.
California Education Code, Section 48900. (2007). School crime reports.
Sacramento, CA: West Group Publications.
California Education Code, Section 8607. (1998). Standardized Emergency
Management System. Sacramento, CA: West Group Publications.
California Education Code, Section 48900.2. (1992). Hate violence. Sacramento,
CA: West Group Publications.
California Government Code, Section 8607. (1998). Standardized Emergency
Management System. Sacramento, CA: West Group Publications.
California Penal Code, Section 220. (2008). Hate crimes. Sacramento, CA:
West Group Publications.
California Penal Code, Section 422. (2008). Terrorist Threats. Sacramento, CA:
West Group Publications.
California Penal Code, Section 628. (2008). School crime reports.
Sacramento, CA: West Group Publications.
California Senate. (1990). Senate Bill 2460. California Senate Publications.
California Senate. (1993). Senate Bill 2264. California Senate Publications.
California Senate. (2000). Senate Bill 1542, Chapter 366. California Senate
Publications.
Carnine, D. & Kameenui, E.J. (1992). Higher Order Thinking: Designing
curriculum for mainstream students. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Catalano, R.F., Haggerty, K.P., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C.B., & Hawkins, J.D.
(September, 2004). The Importance of Bonding to School for Healthy
Development: Findings from the Social Development Research Group.
The Journal of School Health, 74(7), 252-261.
Cattell, R.B.(1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth, and action (Rev. Ed.).
Amsterdam: North Holland Press. (Original work published 1971)
253
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2000). Youth risk behavior
surveillance: United States, 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2002). Surveillance Summaries.
MMWR, 51 (SS-4), 1-21.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). School Associated Deaths
from 1999 to 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
Charters, W., Jr. (1963). The social background of teaching. In N.L. Gage (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 270-294). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Christenson, S.L., Rounds, T. & Gorney, D. (1992). Family factors and student
achievement: An avenue to increase students’ success. School Psychology
Quarterly, 7 (3), 178-206.
Chubb, J.E. & Moe, T.M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools.
Washington, D.C.: The Brookins Institute.
Cohen, J. (1987). Parents as educational models and definers. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 49, 339-349.
Collins, J. (2005). Good to Great in the Social Sectors. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Columbine Grand Jury. (2004). Report on the columbine high school shootings.
Columbine, Colorado.
Cornell, D.G. (2006). School Violence: Fears versus facts. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Covey, S.R. (1989). The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful
lesson in personal change. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Inc.
Covington, M.V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on
motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
254
Cross, S., Cantor, D., Burr, M., Hagen, C.A., Hantman, I., Mason, M.J., Siler,
A.J., Von Glatz, A., and Wright, M.M. (2002). Wide Scope, Questionable
Quality: Three Reports from the Study on School Violence and
Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New
York: Harper Row.
Curham, J.R. (1998). Young Negotiators: Communication, problem solving,
conflict resolution, & life skills. Cambridge, MA: Program for Young
Negotiators.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Wood, G. (2008). Democracy At Risk: The need
for a new federal policy in education. Washington, DC: The Forum for
Education and Democracy.
Deal, T.E. & Peterson, K.D. (1990). The principal’s role in shaping school
culture. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Education Research and Improvement.
Dembo, B. & Seli, H. (2007). Motivation and Learning Strategies for College
Success: A self-management approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
and Associates.
DeVoe, J.F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Miller, A., Noonan, M., Snyder, T.D., &
Maum, K. (2004). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2004 (NCES
2005-002/NCJ205290). U.S. Departments of Education and Justice.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Dwyer, K., Osher, D. & Wagner, C. (1998). Early warning, timely response: A
guide to safe schools. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Eastin, D. (2008). Political Report Card. Miller-McCune Magazine, May Issue,
pp 47-50. Retrieved on August 20, 2008, from http://www.miller-
mccune.com.
Evertson, C.M., Emmer, E.T., Clements, B.S., Sanford, J.P. & Worsham, M.E.
(1984). Classroom management for elementary teachers. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Flanary, R.A., & Simpson, J.H. (2008). Educational Leadership Policy Standards:
ISLLC. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
255
Furlong, M., Austin, G., Huh-Kim, J., Skager, R. (2002). Violence and Safety
Among California Youth: Eighth Biennial Survey of California Students
in Grades 7, 9, and 11. Sacramento, CA: California Attorney General’s
Office.
Furlong, M. J., Morrison, G. M., Cornell, D., & Skiba, R. (Eds.). (2004). Issues in
School Violence Research. New York: Haworth Press.
Gazzaniga, M.S. (1992). Nature’s mind: The biological roots of thinking,
emotions, sexuality, language, and intelligence. New York: Basic Books.
Hacienda-La Puente Unified School District. (2007). Synergy Site Profile.
Sacramento, CA: National . Retrieved on September 8, 2008 from
www.urbanschools.org/district-profiles/
Hanson, T.L.(2003). Are students health risks and low resilience assets and
impediment to the academic progress of schools? (California Healthy Kids
Survey Factsheet 3). Los Alamitos, CA: WestEd.
Harber, C. (2004). Schooling as Violence: How schools harm pupils and
societies. New York, NY: Routledge-Falmer.
Hawkins, D. & Catalano, R.F. (1996). The Social Development Model: A theory
of anti-social behavior. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Heifetz, R., Grawshow, A., and Linsky, M. (2009). The Practice of Adaptive
Leadership. Harvard Business Press. Lawenda, MD.
Heifetz, R. & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership On the Line: Staying alive through
the dangers of leading. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Hellman, D.A. & Beaton, S. (1986). The pattern of violence in urban public
schools: The influence of school and community. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 23, 102-127.
Herman, J.L., Klein, D.C. & Abedi, J. (2000). Assessing students’ opportunity to
learn: Teacher and student perspectives. Educational Measurement:
Issues and Practice 19 (4), 247-265.
Heurnstein, R.J. & Murray, C. (1984). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and class
structure in American life. New York: The Free Press.
256
Hill, N. (2000). The Law of Success in Sixteen Lessons. Hollywood, CA:
Wilshire Books Co.
Hutson, H.R., Anglin, D., Kiriacou, D.N., Hart, J., and Spears, K. (1995). The
epidemic of gang-related homicides in Los Angeles County from 1979
through 1994. The Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol.
274, No. 13, p. 1031.
Hunter, M. (1984). Knowing, teaching, and supervising. In P. Hosforrd (Ed.),
Using what we know about teaching (pp. 169-192). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department. (2002). The columbine school shooting
investigation. Columbine, CO: Author.
Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: The Free Press.
Kanof, M.E. (2003). Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention: DARE long term
evaluations and federal efforts to identify effective programs. Washington,
DC: General Accounting Office.
Klem, A.M., & Connell, J.P. (September, 2004). Relationships Matter: Linking
Teacher Support to Student Engagement and Achievement. Journal of
School Health, 74(7), 262-273.
Kounin, J.S. (1983). Classrooms: Individual or behavior settings? Micrographs
in teaching and learning. (General series 1). Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University, School of Education.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus Groups: A practical guide for applied research.
Second Edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Lannie, A.L., & McCurdy, B.L. (2007). Preventing Disruptive Behavior in the
Urban Classroom: Effects of the good behavior game on student and
teacher behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 30 (1): 85-98.
LeDoux, J.E. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of
emotional life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Libbey, H.P. (September, 2004). Measuring Student Relationships to School:
Attachment, Bonding, Connectedness, and Engagement. Journal of
School Health, 74(7), 274-283.
Lilienfeld, S.O. (2007). Psychological treatments that cause harm. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 2, 53-70.
257
Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicano, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations. (2008). Hates Crimes
Report of 2007. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Los Angeles County Office of Education. (2007). Managing A School Crisis:
Using the Standardized Management System. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. (2008). City of Industry Station’s
Crimes Report. Retrieved on July 2, 2008 from www.lasd.org
Lynam, D.R., Milich, R., Zimmerman, R., Novak, S.P., Logan, T.K., Martin, C.,
Leukefeld, C. & Clayton, R. (1989). Project D.A.R.E.: No effects at 10-
year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 67,
No. 4. University of Kentucky.
Maslow, A.H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review
50: 370-396.
Marzano, R. (2009). Designing and Teaching Learning Goals and Objectives.
Bloomington, IN: MRL.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., and McNaulty, B. (2008). School Leadership that
Works: From Research to Results. Bloomington, IN: MRL.
Mathews, J. (1988). Escalante: The best teacher in America. New York, NY:
Henry Holt & Co.
Mayer, D.P., Mullens, J.E., Moore, M.T. & Ralph, J. (2000). Monitoring school
quality: An indicator’s report. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of
Education: National Center for Education Statistics.
Mayer, G.R. (1995). Preventing anti-social behavior in the schools. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 467-478.
Murray, N.G., Low, B.J., Hollis, C., Cross, A.W. & Davis, S.M. (2007).
Coordinated school health programs and academic achievement: A
systematic review of the literature. Journal of School Health, Vol. 77, No.
9, pp. 589-600.
258
Nansel, T., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R., Ruan, W., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P.
(2001). Bullying Behaviors Among Unites States Youth: Prevalence and
association with psychological adjustment. American Medical Association,
285, 2094-2100.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Indicators of School Crime and
Safety. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Public School Practices for
Violence Prevention and Reduction: 2003-2004. Washington, DC: United
States Department of Education.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation At Risk:
The imperative for education reform. Washington, D.C.: USDOE.
Retrieved on August 20, 2008 from ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/title.html
National School Boards Association (1993). Violence in the Schools: How
America’s school boards are safeguarding our children. Alexandria, VA:
Author.
National School Safety Center (2005). School-Associated Violent Deaths.
Westlake Village, CA: Author.
No Child Left Behind Act. (2002). Retrieved on June 5, 2008 from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/nochildleftbehindact/html
Nuthall, G. (1999). The Way Students Learn: Acquiring knowledge from an
integrated science and social studies unit. The Elementary School Journal,
99 (4), 303-341.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying In Schools: What we know and what we can do.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Orfield, G., Losen, D., Wald, J., & Swanson, C.B. (2004). Losing Our Future:
How minority youth are being left behind by the graduate rate crisis. New
York, NY: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
Osterman, K.F. (Fall, 2000). Students’ Need for Belonging in the School
Community. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 323-367.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand
Oakes, CA: Sage Publications.
259
Piaget, J. (1971). Genetic Epistemology (E. Duckworth, Trans.). New York:
Norton.
Program Improvement middle school’s School Accountability Report Card.
(2008). Hacienda-La Puente Unified School District. Retrieved on June,
28, 2009 from www.hacienda-lapuenteusd.k12.ca.us/
Resnick, M.D., Bearman, P.S., Blum, R.W., Bauman, K.E., Harris, K.M., Jones,
J., Tabor, K., Beuhring, T., Sieving, R.E., Shaw, M., Ireland, M.,
Bearinger, L.T., &Udry, J.R. (September 10, 1997). Protecting
Adolescents from Harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study
on Adolescent Health. Journal of he American Medical Association,
278(10), 823-832
Robitaille, D. (1993). Curriculum frameworks for mathematics and science.
Vancouver, Canada: Pacific Educational Press.
Rolfhus, E.L.& Ackerman, P.L. (1999). Assessing individual differences in
knowledge: Knowledge, intelligence, and related traits. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91 (3), 511-526.
Rosenau, J.S. (1998). Familial influences on academic risk in high school: A
multi-ethnic study. (Doctoral dissertation, Temple, University, 1998).
(UMI No. 9911056)
Sanders, W.L., & Horn, S.P. (1994). The Tennessee value-added assessment
system: Mixed model methodology in educational assessment. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education 8, 299-311.
Satcher, D. (2001). Youth Violence: A report of the Surgeon General.
Washington, DC: United States Department of Health and Human
Services.
Schools Moving Up (2008). Retrieved on May 10, 2008 from
www.schoolsmovingup.net
Scheckner, S., Rollins, S.A., Kaiser-Ulrey, C., & Wagner, R. (2002). School
Violence in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness.
Journal of School Violence, 1: 5-54.
Seligman, M.E. P. (1991). Learned Optimism. New York: Knof.
Sierra Vista Middle School. (2007). Synergy Site Profile. Sacramento: CA:
National Institute for Urban School Improvement.
260
Stage, S.A. & Quiroz, D.R. (1997). A meta-analysis of interventions to decrease
disruptive classroom behavior in public education settings. School
Psychology Review, 26 (3), 333-368.
Steinkamp, M.W. & Maehr, M.L. (1983). Affect, ability, and science
achievement: A quantitative synthesis of correlational research. Review
of Educational Research, 53 (3), 369-396.
Stephens, R.D. (1990). School Safety Check Book. Malibu, CA: Pepperdine
University Press.
Sulllivan, K. (2000). The anti-bullying handbook. NY: The Oxford University
Press.
Tangri, S. & Moles, O. (1987). Parents and the community. In V. Richardson-
Koehler (Ed.) Educator’s handbook: A research perspective (2
nd
ed., pp.
519-550). New York: Longman.
The Forum for Education and Democracy. (2008). Democracy At Risk: The
need for a new federal policy in education. Retrieved on August 5, 2008
from www.forumforeducation.org
United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26.
Secured on October 25, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/unive
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). 2004-2005 School-
Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study. Retrieved on September
10, 2008, from www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvd/YVP/S
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Backround and brief history of ESEA.
Retrieved on June 5, 2008 from
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/Guidance/ptl.hmtl
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Exemplary and Promising Safe and Drug
Free Schools. Retrieved on September 1, 2008 from ed.gov/results.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Improving America’s Schools Act of
1994. Retrieved on June 5, 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/IASA/html
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Goals 2000. Retrieved on June 5, 2008
from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Goals2000/html
261
U.S. Department of Education. (October, 2002). No child left behind: A desktop
reference: Unsafe school choice option. Retrieved February 1, 2006, from
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/reference/9e29532.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Principles of Effectiveness. Retrieved on
June 5, 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/principlesofeffectiveness/html
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Readiness and Emergency Management
for Schools. Retrieved on September 1, 2008 from ed.gov/results.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Safe Schools and Healthy Students
Initiative. Retrieved on September 1, 2008 from www.ed.gov/results.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Safe Schools Act of 1994. Retrieved on
June 5, 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/safeschoolsact/html
Voss, L.D. & Mulligan, J. (2000). Bullying in school. Questionnaire study in a
cohort. British Medical Journal, 320 (7235), 612-613.
Vossekuil, B. Fein, R., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The
final report and findings of the safe school initiative: U.S, Department of
Education.
Wei, H. & Williams, H. (2004). Relationship Between Peer Victimization and
School Adjustment in Sixth Grade Students: Investigating Mediation
Effects. Violence and Victims, 19: 557-571
White, K.R. (1982). The relationship between socio-economic status and
academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin 91 (3), 461-481.
Wilkinson, D.L. & Fagan, J. (2001). What we know about gun use among
adolescents.Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4, 109-132.
Wollman, N. Yoder, N. & Brumbaugh, J.S. (2005). Trends in homelessness, and
dropout data suggest a society at risk. IN: Manchester College.
Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P. & Sanders W.L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context
effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67.
Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., Van Tarwijk, J. & Admiral, W. (1999).
Interpersonal relationships between teachers and students in the
classroom. In H.C. Waxman & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), New directions for
teaching practice and research (pp. 151-170). Berkely, CA: McCutchan.
262
Appendix A
INDICATORS OF SCHOOL CRIME AND SAFETY: 2007
LIST OF SECTIONS AND INDICATORS
Section Indicator
1. Violent Deaths 1. Violent deaths at and Away from School
II. Non-Fatal Student Victimization 2. Incidence of Victimization at School and Away
from School
3. Prevalence of Victimization at School
4. Threat and Injuries with Weapons on School Property
5. Teachers Threatened with Injury or Physically Attacked
by Students
III. School Environment 6. Violent and other Crime Incidents at Public Schools and
those Reported to Police
7. Discipline Problems Reported by Schools
8. Students’ Reports of Gangs at School
9. Students’ Reports of Drug Availability on
School Property
10. Students’ Reports of Being Called Hate-Related Words
& Seeing Hate Graffiti
11. Bullying at School
12. Teachers’ Reports of School Conditions
IV. Fights, Weapons & Illegal Substances 13. Physical Fights On School Property and Anywhere
14. Students Carrying Weapons on School Property
15. Students’ Use of Alcohol on School Property
16. Students’ Use of Marihuana on School Property
V. Fear & Avoidance 17. Students’ Perceptions of Personal Safety at School
18. Students’ Reports of Avoiding School Activities or
Specific Places in School
VI. Discipline, Safety, and Security 19. Serious Disciplinary Actions Taken by Public Schools
Measures
20. Safety and Security Measures Taken by Public
Schools
21Students’ Reports of Safety and Security Measures
Observed at School
263
Appendix B
ADULT / EDUCATOR QUESTIONNAIRE
Question 1: How does a Middle School that is located amid high risk
environments achieve high academic performance?
Component 1: People and Programs
Our Comprehensive School Safety Plan helps us to create a caring & connected
school climate.
How Well Does Our School:
Fully
Developed
Partially
Developed
Not Yet
Developed
1. Involve parents, students, and staff in making
decisions, planning, and implementing
programs?
2. Assess the important developmental assets of
students and staff, such as wellness and health,
positive values, positive identity, social
competencies, and commitment to learning?
3. Recognize and build on the cultural richness of
our school community?
4. Provide ongoing training so staff can meet the
unique needs of the student body?
5. Set high academic and behavior goals?
6. Improve curriculum and teaching practices?
7. Include health and resiliency curriculum?
8. Address multiple learning styles?
9. Promote caring, supportive relationships with
students?
10. Provide opportunities for students to have
meaningful participation in school and
community service?
11. Emphasize critical thinking and respect?
12. Communicate clear standards and
consequences that are consistently and fairly
enforced?
13. Communicate procedures to report
(anonymously) and deal with threats (EC,
Section 48900 (a))?
14.
Empower students to take responsibility for
safety?
15. Train staff on bullying prevention and
tolerance?
16. Provide training for students and staff on the
dangers of drugs and alcohol?
264
Appendix B, Continued
ADULT / EDUCATOR QUESTIONNAIRE
Component 2: Places
Our Comprehensive School Safety Plan helps us to create a physical environment that
communicates respect for learning and for individuals.
How Well Does Our School:
Fully
Developed
Partially
Developed
Not Yet
Developed
17. Maintain classrooms and grounds as clean and pleasant grounds to
meet and learn?
18. Make sure that the school is an important part of the community?
19. Share information about student crimes and truancy with businesses
and law enforcement?
20. Make the campus secure from criminal activity (CPC, Sections
627.2, 627.6; CEC, Section 32211 (e))?
21. Limit places for loitering?
22. Monitor and supervise all school areas?
23. Provide a pleasant eating area and healthy food?
24. Maintain clean and safe bathrooms?
25. Provide adequate lighting in all school areas?
26. Provide students with current textbooks and materials?
27. Maintain a variety of sports facilities and equipment?
28. Provide a well-stocked library?
29. Communicate procedures for security, including a SEMS-compliant
crisis response plan?
30. Deal with vandalism before students return to school?
31. Inventory, identify, and store valuable school property?
32. Provide training for security personnel and staff?
33. Engage students in campus beautification projects?
34. Promote school and neighborhood watch programs?
35. Check that weapons and drugs are not on campus?
265
Appendix B, Continued
ADULT / EDUCATOR QUESTIONNAIRE
Question 2. What are the leadership factors that contribute to improve school safety
and student achievement at respective Middle Schools?
Structural Leadership
Fully
Developed
Partially
Developed
Not Yet
Developed
1. The School Leadership Team is in place.
2. School policies and procedures related to safety,
instruction and student achievement are in
place.
3. All leadership team members have been trained
to understand the policies and procedures
related to safety, classroom instruction, and
student achievement.
Political Leadership
Fully
Developed
Partially
Developed
Not Yet
Developed
4. The school leadership team understands the
roles of internal and external school
stakeholders.
5. The leadership team members know how to use
their power and influence to work with other to
ensure school safety, and maximize instruction
and student achievement.
Human Resource Leadership
Fully
Developed
Partially
Developed
Not Yet
Developed
6. School administrators, counselors and teachers
are well qualified and in compliance with
NCLB.
7. The school leadership team has been trained on
ways to help teachers to improve their
instruction.
8. The school leadership has been trained on the
ways to maximize student learning and
achievement through the development of Small
Learning Communities.
Symbolic Leadership
Fully
Developed
Partially
Developed
Not Yet
Developed
9. The school leadership team uses a merit system
that promotes excellence in teaching and
student learning.
10. All leadership team members represent the
colors and core values of their respective school.
11. The American flag is used as a symbol that
unites all students and staff to promote a unity
of vision, effort and achievement.
266
Appendix C
FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL
FOR SCHOOL SAFETY TEAMS
Name of School:________________________________________________________
Date:______________________________ Time:_____________________________
Names of School Safety Team Members: 1.________________________________
2.____________________________ 3.________________________________
4.____________________________ 5.________________________________
6.____________________________ 7.________________________________
8.____________________________ 9.________________________________
10.___________________________ 11._______________________________
Name of Recorder:______________________________________________________
Name of Facilitator:_____________________________________________________
Focus Group Questions:
Research Question I:
1.1. How does a middle school located in a high risk community achieve high academic
performance?
1.2. What role does school safety play in fostering student achievement?
1.3. What do you think is a significant student safety problem at this school and what do you
recommend to address it?
1.4. What must school authorities do to support student assessment and instructional
leadership in the classroom?
1.5. What must teachers do to engage the disengaged student and maximize student
achievement?
Research Question II:
2-1. What is your definition of exemplary school leadership?
2-2. What do you believe is the most important quality of an excellent school leader?
2-3. What do you believe school leaders must do to maximize school safety and student
achievement at your middle school?
2-4. What do you believe are the training needs of teachers to address school safety and
student achievement?
2-5. What must school leaders do to engage parents and community leaders to ensure school
safety and student achievement?
267
Appendix D
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Question 1: How does a Middle School that is located amid high risk environments
achieve high academic performance?
Q1/ Please share your background.
Q2/ Are you the first member of your family to attend and graduate from college?
Q3/ What do you believe is the difference between an effective middle school and an ineffective
one?
Q4/ If I were to walk into your middle school, what would I see?
Q5/ If I were to walk into any of your classrooms, what would I see?
Q6/ What do you think are the most effective components of an effective middle school?
Q7/ To clarify an assumption, can you please share your definition of education?
Q8/ What do you think is a top instructional strategy that can help EL teachers maximize the
effectiveness of their EL instruction?
Q9/ What do you think is a top instruction strategy that can help Special Education teachers
maximize their teaching of Special Education students?
Q10/ What do you believe is a top strategy that can help middle school students maximize their
learning?
Q11/ Do you think middle school students learn the same today, in comparison to the middle
school students during your teen-age years?
Q12/ Based on your knowledge of poverty and its negative impact on poor students, what do you
believe is an effective strategy to counter its effects on student achievement?
Q13/ Based on your knowledge of Comprehensive School Safety Initiatives, please share your
views on the role that school safety plays in a student’s education?
Q14/ Based on your knowledge of Coordinated School Health, please share your views on the
role that school health plays in a student/s education?
268
Appendix D, Continued
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Question 2. What are the leadership factors that contribute to improve school safety and
student achievement at respective Middle Schools?
Q15/ What is your definition of exemplary school leadership?
Q16/ What do you believe is the top quality of an exemplary school leader? Why?
Q17/ Based on your school leadership experiences, please share a personal weakness and how
you transformed it into a strength.
Q18/ Based on your knowledge of school safety, what must a middle school leader do to improve
the school’s social, cultural and physical environments?
Q19/ As an exemplary leader, how do you engage the disengaged middle school teacher?
Q20/ As an exemplary leader, how do you engage the disengaged middle school student who
happens to be an English Learner?
Q21/ As an exemplary leader, how do you engage the disengaged middle school parent, who
happens to be the parent of an English Learner?
Q22/ Do you believe the NCLB’s Adequate Yearly Progress success measurements are
reasonable for all students?
Q23/ As we contemplate the future, what do you believe leaders of program improvement schools
must do to improve student achievement?
Q24/ Regarding your educational legacy, what do you believe is your greatest contribution to
education?
Q25/ Do you have any last comments or clarifications that you would like to make regarding any
of the previous questions?
269
Appendix E
OBSERVATION FORM
ON CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT AND INSTRUCTION
Name of School:____________________________________________ Date:_______
Name of Teacher:______________________________ Grade________ Time:_______
Classroom Number:______________ Name of Observer:_________________________
Component Observed Not Observed
Evidence
1. Teacher holds students to high expectations for
their academic work and their behavior.
2. Classroom rules are posted and followed by teacher and students.
3. Classroom rules and consequences are
consistently and fairly enforced by teacher.
4. Teacher promotes caring, supportive relationships among students.
5. Students are engaged in standards based instruction.
6. A variety of instructional strategies are evident.
7. Teacher addresses multiple learning styles.
8. Student work is reflective of grade level standards and is current.
9. Students have opportunities to respond in a variety of ways.
10. Teacher checks for understanding throughout the lesson.
11. Teachers differentiate instruction to meet the
needs of students in the classroom.
12. For English Learners, teacher makes effort to
ensure that the content is presented in a comprehensible manner.
13. Standards and objectives, along with rubric and
student work, are posted on classroom walls.
14. Teacher provides students clear, relative feedback in a timely manner.
15. Students are on task.
270
Appendix F
OBSERVATION FORM
ON SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
Name of School:______________________________________ Date:_________
Name of School Principal:______________________________ Time:_________
Name of Observer:_______________________________________________________________
Component Observed Not Observed
Evidence
Structural Leadership
1. The School Leadership Team is in place.
2. School policies and procedures on safety,
instruction and student achievement are in place.
3. All leadership team members have been trained
to understand the policies and procedures on safety,
classroom instruction, and student achievement.
Political Leadership
4. The school leadership team understands the
roles of internal and external school stakeholders.
5. The leadership team members know how to use their
power and influence to work with others to improve school
safety, instruction and student achievement.
Human Resource Leadership
6. The school leadership team has been trained to help
teachers improve their instruction.
7. School administrators, counselors and teachers
are well qualified and in compliance with NCLB.
8. The school leadership has been trained on the ways
to maximize student learning and achievement through the
development of Small Learning Communities.
Symbolic Leadership
9. All leadership team members represent the colors and core values of the school.
10. The school leadership team uses a merit system
that promotes excellence in teaching and student learning.
11. The American flag is used as a symbol that unites
all students and staff to promote a unity of vision,
effort and achievement.
271
Appendix G
FACULTY SURVEYS AT BENCHMARK AND PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT
SCHOOLS:RESPONSES TO RESEARCH QUESTION ONE, PEOPLE & PROGRAMS
Benchmark MS Program Improvement MS
(N – 21) (N – 15)
FD PD ND FD PD ND
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
1. Involve parents, students 4 20 15 71 2 10 8 53 7 47 0 0
& staff in developing programs.
2, Assess developmental assets 6 29 15 71 0 0 4 27 10 66 1 7
of students and staff.
3. Recognize and build on the 5 24 16 76 0 0 3 20 6 40 6 40
school’s cultural richness.
4. Training to meet student’s needs 11 52 9 43 1 5 10 66 4 27 1 7
5. Set high academic & behavior goals. 13 62 8 38 0 0 13 87 2 13 0 0
6. Improve curriculum and 14 67 7 33 0 0 10 66 4 27 1 7
teaching practices.
7. Include health and 2 10 16 76 3 14 2 13 8 53 5 33
resiliency curriculum.
8. Use multiple learning styles. 12 57 8 38 1 5 8 53 5 33 2 13
9. Promote caring relations 10 48 11 52 0 0 12 80 3 20 0 0
with students.
10. Provide opportunities for 7 33 13 62 1 5 6 40 8 53 1 7
school / community service.
11. Emphasize critical 14 67 7 33 0 0 10 66 5 33 0 0
thinking and respect.
12. Use clear standards and 14 67 6 29 1 5 12 80 2 13 1 7
enforced them consistently.
13. Use procedures to report 12 57 8 38 1 5 9 60 5 33 1 7
and deal with threats.
14. Empower students to take 8 38 13 62 0 0 6 40 8 53 1 7
responsibility for safety.
15. Train staff on bullying 10 48 9 43 2 10 3 20 9 60 3 20
prevention and tolerance.
16. Training for students on 11 52 9 43 1 5 3 20 8 53 4 27
dangers of drugs & alcohol.
_______________________
Note: FD means Fully Developed; PD means Partially Developed; and ND means Not Developed.
272
Appendix H
FACULTY SURVEYS AT BENCHMARK AND PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT
SCHOOLS: RESPONSES TO RESEARCH QUESTION ONE, PLACES
Benchmark MS Program Improvement MS
(N – 21) (N – 15)
FD PD ND FD PD ND
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
17. Classrooms are clean to learn. 21 100 0 0 0 0 11 73 4 27 0 0
18. School is part of the community. 19 90 2 10 0 0 10 66 3 20 2 13
19. Share student crimes w/ police. 5 24 11 52 5 24 6 40 5 33 4 27
20. Make campuses safe and 16 76 3 14 2 10 10 66 3 20 2 13
secure from criminal activity.
21. Limit places for loitering. 16 76 5 24 0 0 9 60 6 40 0 0
22. Monitor / supervise schools. 18 86 3 14 0 0 8 53 7 47 0 0
23. Have eating area & healthy food. 16 76 5 24 0 0 11 73 3 20 1 7
24. Keep clean & safe bathrooms. 14 67 7 23 0 0 8 53 6 40 1 7
25. Provide lighting in school areas. 19 90 2 10 0 0 9 60 5 33 1 7
26. Provide students current books. 18 86 3 14 0 0 14 93 0 0 1 7
27. Have sports places & equipment. 10 48 11 52 0 0 12 80 3 20 0 0
28. Provide a well-stocked library. 8 38 13 62 0 0 7 47 7 47 1 7
29. Share SEMS procedures. 14 67 7 33 0 0 6 40 8 53 1 7
30. Address vandalism immediately. 17 81 4 19 0 0 9 60 6 40 0 0
31. Inventory/store school property. 19 90 2 10 0 0 9 60 5 33 1 7
32. Train security guards and staff. 6 28 13 62 2 10 5 33 5 33 5 33
33. Sponsor clean campus projects. 4 19 17 81 0 0 6 40 7 47 2 13
34. Use community watch programs. 3 14 14 67 4 19 0 0 6 40 9 60
35. Check that guns/drugs are not 8 38 11 52 2 10 7 47 8 53 0 0
on campus.
_________________________________
Note: FD means Fully Developed; PD means Partially Developed; and ND means Not Developed.
273
Appendix I
FACULTY SURVEYS AT BENCHMARK AND PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT
SCHOOLS: RESPONSES TO RESEARCH QUESTION TWO, LEADERSHIP
Benchmark MS Program Improvement MS
(N – 21) (N – 15)
FD PD ND FD PD ND
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Structural Leadership
1. The school leadership 18 86 3 14 0 0 13 85 2 15 0 0
team is in place.
2. School policies and 18 86 3 14 0 0 11 74 4 26 0 0
procedures regarding safety,
instruction, and student
achievement are in place.
3. Leadership team members 18 86 3 14 0 0 10 66 5 33 0 0
have been trained to
understand the policies and
procedures related to safety,
instruction and achievement.
Political Leadership
4. The school leadership 9 43 12 57 0 0 7 47 7 47 0 0
team understands the role
of the internal and external
school stakeholders.
5. The leadership team 12 55 9 43 0 0 8 53 7 47 0 0
members know how to
uses their power and
influence to work with
others to inure school
safety, instruction and
achievement.
______________________________
Note: FD means Fully Developed; PD means Partially Developed; and ND means Not Developed.
274
Appendix I, Continued
FACULTY SURVEYS AT BENCHMARK AND PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT
SCHOOLS: RESPONSES TO RESEARCH QUESTION TWO, LEADERSHIP
Benchmark MS Program Improvement MS
(N – 21) (N – 15)
FD PD ND FD PD ND
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Human Resource Leadership
6. School administrators, 18 86 3 14 0 0 14 94 1 6 0 0
counselors and teachers
are well qualified and in
compliance with NCLB.
7. School leadership team 14 67 7 33 0 0 11 74 3 20 1 6
has been trained on ways
to help teachers improve
their instruction.
8. School leadership team 14 67 5 25 2 8 12 80 2 12 1 6
has been trained on ways
to maximize student
learning and achievement
through the development of
small learning communities.
Symbolic Leadership
9. School leadership team 10 46 10 46 1 5 8 53 7 47 0 0
uses a merit system that
promotes excellence in
teaching and learning.
10. All leadership team 14 67 6 28 1 5 11 74 4 26 0 0
members represent the
colors and core values of
their school.
11. The American flag is 17 81 4 19 0 0 8 53 5 33 2 12
used as a symbol that unites
all students and staff to
promote a unity of vision,
effort and achievement.
___________________________
Note: FD means Fully Developed; PD means Partially Developed; and ND means Not Developed.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
In America, all students and staff have a constitutional right to attend schools that are safe, secure, and successful. Despite this right, at many public schools, education leaders have failed to ensure the safety and academic achievement of all students. The purpose of this research study is to expand knowledge about the impact of violence on schools, and the leadership strategies that can help improve school safety and student achievement.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Factors including student engagement impacting student achievement in a high performing urban high school district: a case study
PDF
A case study of student engagement in a high performing urban continuation high school
PDF
A case study of an outperforming urban high school: the relational pattern between student engagement and student achievement in a magnet high school in Los Angeles
PDF
A case study of factors related to a high performing urban charter high school: investigating student engagement and its impact on student achievement
PDF
Urban schools that have narrowed the achievement gap: middle school math achievement in an urban setting
PDF
A case study to determine what perceived factors, including student engagement, contribute to academic achievement in a high performing urban high school
PDF
Perceived factors for narrowing the achievement gap for minority students in urban schools: cultural norms, practices and programs
PDF
Closing the achievement gap: breakthrough in the urban high school
PDF
Student engagement in high performing urban high schools: a case study
PDF
The perceptions of cross cultural student violence in an urban school setting
PDF
Closing the achievement gap: successful practices at a middle school -- a case study
PDF
Factors that may lead to an urban high school‘s outperforming status: a case study of an institution‘s achievement in the age of accountability
PDF
Student engagement in a high performing urban high school: a case study
PDF
Student engagement in a high-performing urban high school: a case study
PDF
Effective factors of high performing urban high schools: a case study
PDF
Sustaining success toward closing the achievement gap: a case study of one urban high school
PDF
Narrowing the achievement gap: a case study of an urban school
PDF
Building capacity in urban schools by coaching principal practice toward greater student achievement
PDF
An investigation of students' perceptions and fears before and after transitioning to middle school
PDF
High school math reform and the role of policy, practice and instructional leadership on math achievement: a case study of White Oak Tree High School
Asset Metadata
Creator
Frias, Gus
(author)
Core Title
High performing schools in high risk environments: a study on leadership, school safety, and student achievement at two urban middle schools in Los Angeles County
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
03/05/2010
Defense Date
02/12/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,school leadership,school safety,school violence,student achievement
Place Name
California
(states),
Los Angeles
(counties)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Astor, Ron Avi (
committee chair
), Hocevar, Dennis J. (
committee member
), Long, David (
committee member
)
Creator Email
frias_gus@lacoe.edu,gfrias@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2864
Unique identifier
UC1211455
Identifier
etd-Frias-3519 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-300704 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2864 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Frias-3519.pdf
Dmrecord
300704
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Frias, Gus
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
school leadership
school safety
school violence
student achievement