1

Using a mixed methods research design to deconstruct the nature of low academic

performance in primary schools facing exceptional challenge within the Republic of

Trinidad and Tobago

Jerome De Lisle

School of Education, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine

Abstract

MacBeath et al. (2005) defined schools facing exceptionally challenging circumstances as

institutions confronted by complexity resulting from higher levels of poverty, disadvantage,

and turbulence among student, parent and staff, thereby threatening school performance. In

the Trinidad and Tobago primary school system, this definition was operationalized by

locating poorly performing schools located in disadvantaged areas that also experienced

higher numbers of economically disadvantaged students. Overall, the study employed an

explanatory sequential mixed methods research design, with a quantitative Phase I project

and a mixed methods Phase II project. The Phase I project was designed to identify and

characterize schools facing exceptional challenge and Phase II was a multi-site case study of

three selected institutions, two single-sex and urban, one co-education and rural. The Phase II

project used an embedded qualitative-dominant mixed methods design, with multiple-

methods. However, qualitative themes were given priority. Metainferences were of three

kinds: unique to one method, corroborative, or contradictory. It was not possible to resolve all

contradictory findings, pointing to findings providing different lenses on the phenomenon.

Overall, the evidence suggested that mechanisms and processes associated with “exceptional

challenge” as operationalized in Trinidad and Tobago were complex and context dependent.

Sustainable school improvement would require not just leadership training but also integrated

services and interlaced interventions targeting the multiple levels and multiple deficits.

Key words

Mixed Methods

Schools facing challenge

Poverty concentration

School effectiveness and improvement

National Assessments of Educational Achievement

2

Using a mixed methods research design to deconstruct the nature of low academic

performance in primary schools facing exceptional challenge within the Republic of

Trinidad and Tobago

Rationalizing the concept of “challenging context” in the South

Schools confront a variety of external contexts, some more challenging than others

(Harris et al., 2006; Levin, 2006; Michalak, 2009). These different contexts impinge on the

very nature and purpose of schooling, the pathway to successful school improvement,

essential processes such as leadership and teaching-learning, and the attainability of national

targets set for school improvement (MacBeath et al., 2005; Jacobson, 2008). For schools

within countries of the developing world, data from international assessments suggest that

variations in contexts are much higher (Mullis, Martin, Kennedy, & Foy, 2007). These

variations are attributable to uneven national development, the absence of policies fostering

equity, and the insufficiency of essential human and physical resources.

There is a large body of work on the relationship between contexts of poverty and the

underperformance of schools in the United States, Canada, and the UK (Ylimaki, Jacobson &

Drysdale, 2007). However, the issue has not been extensively studied within small

developing states. Such a study can address the transferability of key school effectiveness

constructs contexts (Harber & Muthukrishna, 2000). Trinidad and Tobago provides an

especially interesting case for investigating the nature of challenging contexts. Although now

classified as a high-income country, the legacy of unequal development has persisted. This

inequity has been identified as a notable problem in the English speaking Caribbean and in

Trinidad and Tobago (World Bank, 1993; World Bank, 1995).

Poverty concentration in Trinidad and Tobago schools arises from both geographic

location and the operation of the education market (De Lisle et al., 2009). At the primary

school level, there are various choice options in the education market, including private,

denominational or government institutions. However, private schools are not necessarily the

preferred choice among the socially advantaged because public schools can be equally high

performing. The great majority of public primary schools are, in fact, managed by the

different denominations (MacKenzie, 1991). The existence of this complex education market

has a downside with many low performing primary schools being vilified and rejected. The

Ministry of Education has recently labelled some schools as “underperforming” based on the

number of low performing students in the high stakes Secondary Entrance Examination.

Several labels have been used to describe schools performing below expectations

within accountability systems. However, not all descriptors give adequate attention to the

issue of context. One approach might be to label such schools as “ineffective” or

“underperforming” (Van de Grift and Houtveen, 2006; Houvteen et al., 2007). Muijs et al

(2004) focused more on context in the label “schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged

areas”. The label “high poverty-low performing” (HP-LP) is perhaps one of the more useful

because it captures both comparative underperformance and context. High poverty contexts

might refer to a variety of challenging contexts, with multilingual (Pretorius & Currin, 2010)

and urban dimensions (Jacobson, 2008). Ainscow, Muijis and West (2006) used the term

“schools facing challenge” to describe schools confronted by location, history, and pupil and

parental attitudes. MacBeath et al. (2005) added an important dimension of schools at the

extreme end of the continuum of contexts, with “exceptionally challenging” defined as

conditions of poverty, disadvantage, and turbulence among student, parent and staff that is

significantly higher than that of other schools.

3

Evidence and context within the Anglophone Caribbean

Policy formulation in Caribbean education systems has traditionally suffered from the

lack of high-quality, contextualized data. This lack of “indigenous knowledge” includes

evidence from both empirical data and qualitative case studies. Crossley (2008)

recommended the use of qualitative approaches to gather contextualized evidence within

small states. However, given the possibility of significant variations across geographic

location, case studies have limited utility. High quality evidence in the Caribbean requires

both generalizable data and information to elucidate the black box of operations. One

approach might be to use multi-site case studies and multistage purposeful random sampling

(Onwuegzubie & Collins, 2007). However, prior information on the characteristics of

institutions and communities must come from a large-scale quantitative study (Teddlie & Yu,

2007).

In the past decade, large-scale achievement data have only been available from public

examinations in the Anglophone Caribbean (World Bank, 1993). When used in evaluating

system performance, however, this type of data is limited because of the strong shadow

education market (Mizala, Pilar & Urquiola, 2007). Public examinations also do not provide

standards-referenced data to answer the question, “how good is good enough?” Only in the

last decade, have monitoring assessments been introduced into some Anglophone Caribbean

islands (UNESCO, 2008). Trinidad and Tobago installed a new national assessment system in

2004 designed to better to monitor achievement standards. From 2005, both norm-referenced

and standards-referenced data on education districts, schools and students were provided.

The context and design of the study

To operationalize “exceptional challenge” among primary schools in Trinidad and

Tobago, a measure of school performance was developed using the numbers of students at

different achievement levels in Language and Mathematics national tests administered at

Standards 1 and 3. Also obtained was a measure of community economic and social

disadvantage called the Basic Needs Index and the percentage of students experiencing

economic disadvantage in the school. The socioeconomic composition of the schools was

estimated from the percentage of the school population entitled to free school meals. Schools

in the category of exceptional challenge scored below 240 on the API, reported a free school

meals index of above 90, and are situated in communities with a BNI of below 50.

The overall purpose of the study was to identify schools facing exceptional challenge

and to deconstruct the nature of underperformance in these schools. Deconstruct means to

dismantle and analyze antecedents and consequences. Thus, the study was designed to gather

deep insight into the nature of low achievement within schools facing exceptional challenge

and to elucidate factors contributing to low school underperformance. The three research

questions guiding this study were:

(1) What are the locations and institutional characteristics of schools facing

exceptional challenge? (QUAN)

(2) What is the nature of key processes and systems, such as teaching-learning,

leadership, and the parent-school-family interface? (QUAL/MIXED METHODS)

(3) How do the contextual factors impinge on organizational efficiency and academic

achievement? (MIXED METHODS)

Design of the study

The overall mixed methods design was sequential explanatory, with quantitative and

qualitative data collected in two consecutive phases within the study (Ivankova, Creswell &

Stick, 2006). The design of the overall programme is illustrated in Figure 1. Using the

framework of Morse & Niehaus (2009), the Phase I and II components were separate

4

Overall Mixed Methods Programme Design: Sequential Explanatory. Theoretical Thrust: Quantitative

PHASE I Project:

Quantitative Study of

secondary databases for all

477 primary schools in

Trinidad and Tobago

To identify schools facing exceptional

challenge

Phase II Project: Mixed Methods Qualitatively-Driven Embedded Study of three school sites designed to elucidate nature of underachievement in different challenging

contexts

Integrated analysis of nature and factors involved in

challenge

research projects within an overall mixed methods research programme. Although Phase I

was a mono-method quantitative study, Phase II was a qualitatively driven embedded mixed

methods study of underachievement at each school site. The theoretical thrust for the overall

programme was deductive. The theoretical drive of the Phase I project was deductive and the

Phase II mixed methods study inductive. The projects were sequential, with priority given to

the quantitative Phase I.

Figure 1: Overall Mixed Methods Programme Design

Rationale for the mixed methods research design

The rationale for the mixed methods design in the overall programme and in the Phase

II project was explored by considering the different purposes of mixing identified by Greene,

Caracelli, and Graham (1989). As shown in Table 1, the five purposes are triangulation,

complementarity, development, initiation and expansion. The complementary framework

proposed by Bryman (2006) extends and complements this framework. In the overall

programme, the main purposes were complementarity and development, with the qualitative

component in Phase II designed to enhance and illustrate the nature of processes within the

schools identified as exceptionally challenging. The qualitative component in the Phase II

project sought new frameworks while extending the breadth and range of inquiry.

Sampling strategy

The overall sampling strategy was sequential mixed method with multilevel sampling

used for Phase II (Teddlie & Yu, 2007). In Phase I, Census data 1 was obtained for all 477

primary schools in Trinidad and Tobago. The criteria used to select the schools facing

exceptional challenge were (1) 90% of the student population receiving free school meals and

(2) and API of under 150. A short list of six schools was developed and visits were made to

each school. The final list of three schools in Phase II was chosen based on criteria that

captured the variations for composition (coeducational/single-sex) and geographic location

(urban-rural). The schools came from two educational districts, which accounted for 74 of the

159 schools classified as “under academic watch” using the API rubric. All three schools

were enrolled in the Government’s Performance Enhancement Project for low performing

schools. The two urban schools (School A-Female and School B-Male) had populations just

over 100 (118 in both schools), but in the rural school, which catered for pupils from a small

very isolated village, the school population was just 41. In Phase II, probability samples were

obtained for some surveys and purposive samples used for interviews, observations and some

surveys.

5

Table 2: Rationale and purposes for mixed method design used to investigate challenging

schools in Trinidad and Tobago Primary Purpose of Mixing – Greene, Caracelli, & Graham (1989)

Programme/

Project

Additional Purposes – Bryman (2006)

1. Complementarity -sought

elaboration, enhancement,

illustration, and clarification of

the results from one method

with the results from the other

method.

Overall

Programme MM Completeness- A more comprehensive account of

the area of inquiry was provided.

Process- quan provided an account of structures but

qual provides sense of process

Different RQs- quan and qual each answered

different research questions

Explanation qual used to help explain findings

generated by the other

Sampling – quan used to facilitate the sampling of

respondents or cases.

Context - qual provided contextual understanding

coupled with generalizable, externally valid findings

in quan.

Diversity of views – quan uncovered relationships

between variables and qual revealed meanings

among research participants

Illustration - Used qual to illustrate quan findings.

2. Development –sought to use

the results from one method to

help develop or inform the

other method.

Overall

Programme MM

3. Initiation sought the discovery

of paradox and contradiction,

new perspectives of

frameworks, the recasting of

questions or results from one

method with questions or

results from the other method

Phase II MM Unexpected results - quan or qual generates

surprisingly results only explained by other.

Enhancement –Findings of quan or qual

augmented by gathering data using qual or qual.

Different RQs- quan and qual reach answered

different research questions

4. Expansion -sought to extend

the breadth and range of inquiry

by using different methods for

different inquiry components.

Phase II MM

5. Triangulation -sought

convergence, corroboration, and

correspondence of results from

the different methods.

Phase II MM

Instrumentation

In Phase II semi-structured interview schedules were prepared for individual and

focus group interviews with leaders, teachers and parents. Both structured and unstructured

observation methods were used. For teaching and learning, the Instructional Practices

Inventory was used to assess the nature of teaching and learning (Painter & Valentine, 1996).

Video and photographs from two of the three sites supplemented field notes, which contained

descriptions of teaching-learning events. Parents and teachers in the focus group were

required to complete survey questionnaires. Teachers completed questionnaires on collective

teacher efficacy and group organizational citizenship behaviour. Questionnaires were also

administered on student engagement to both students and teachers of all target classrooms.

The student engagement questionnaires included items from existing instruments on student

engagement (OECD, 2003).

6

Table 2: Distribution of schools facing exceptional challenge in the eight education districts of Trinidad and Tobago

Educational

District

Administrative Regions Urban-

rural

Exceptionally

Challenging

Context

Ownership Multigrade Status Classified by

Ministry as

Low

Performing No. % Gov’t Denom Full Partial Multi-

grade

POS & Environs City of Port of Spain Urban 5 13.9 1 4 4 1 0 5

Diego Martin Suburban 1 5.3 0 1 1 0 0 1

San Juan /Laventille Suburban 3 7.3 2 1 2 1 0 3

Victoria City San Fernando Urban 4 14.3 1 3 1 2 1 2

Princes Town Rural 4 3.0 0 4 1 2 1 3

Penal/Debe Rural 1 3.6 0 1 0 1 0 0

St. George East Arima Borough Urban 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tunapuna/Piarco Suburban 3 5.7 1 2 0 2 1 2

Caroni Chaguanas Borough Urban 1 4.0 0 1 1 0 0 1

Couva/Tabaquite/Talparo Rural 5 8.5 1 4 1 4 0 3

St. Patrick Point Fortin Borough Urban 2 10.0 2 0 2 0 0 1

Siparia Rural 2 6.1 0 2 2 0 0 1

North Eastern Sangre Grande Rural 7 17.1 2 5 0 3 4 5

South Eastern Mayaro/Rio Claro Rural 3 14.3 0 3 1 1 1 0

Tobago Tobago -- 5 15.2 2 3 1 3 1 0

46 9.6 12 34 17 20 9 27

7

Procedures and Analyses

A merged database was created for all primary schools in the country. This database

was analyzed using SPSS 13.0. Means and standard deviations were reported along with a

comparison of means from schools classified as “exceptionally challenging” and “normal”

schools. The principals of the chosen schools were contacted and a formal meeting held with

staff. The field assistants then accessed the schools and gathered data twice a week for two

months. For the data gathered in Phase II, priority was given to the qualitative data. Survey

data from the purposive samples (focus group interviews) were included but reported under

the dominant qualitative themes (Tashakorri & Teddlie, 1998; Morse & Niehaus, 2009)

Findings

(1) What are the locations and institutional characteristics of schools facing exceptional

challenge?

Forty six schools were classified as experiencing exceptionally challenging external

contexts. Of these schools, only 27 were classified as underachieving by the Ministry of

Education. Of the schools facing exceptional challenge, 12 were government-owned and 34

were denominational. The majority of schools (29) were either multi-grade or partially multi-

grade without a full complement of staff for every class. For the 46 schools classified as both

facing challenge and performing poorly, the majority were in the urban areas of Port of Spain

and Environs (9), Victoria (9), in Northern Eastern (7).

Table 3: Characteristics of schools facing exceptional challenge compared

School Characteristics Exceptionally

Challenge

Rest of

Schools

p-

value

Effect

size

1. % receiving free lunch 101.27 67.64 .000 .154

2. Mean Academic Performance Index 192.50 281.30 .000 .221

3. Mean % below 30% 28.77 14.19 .000 .105

4. Mean Eleven Plus % score (2001-2004) 42.50 54.65 .000 .090

5. % meeting & exceeding standards in Language (Std. 3) 25.81 52.27 .000 .119

6. % meeting & exceeding standards in Maths (Std. 3) 13.72 35.87 .000 .082

7. Years of teacher experience 15.94 9.63 .007 .015

8. % Teachers with A-Levels 25.00 24.16 .699 .000

9. % Teachers with basic training (teachers’ college) 79.50 86.52 .001 .023

10. % Teachers with 1st Year University (Cert. Ed.) 9.63 11.05 .426 .001

11. % Teachers with Degrees 6.60 5.56 .345 .002

12. Student/teacher ratio 11.90 16.69 .000 .072

13. School size 107.48 280.58 .000 .067

Effect Size Benchmarks = Small (0.01); Medium (0.06); and Large (0.14)

Table 3 compares 13 characteristics of 46 for both school types. Of the 13 variables,

10 showed significant differences. No differences were found for teachers with A-Levels and

teachers with partial or full degrees. Schools facing exceptional challenge performed more

poorly in national assessments (Mean API=192.50; P-value=.000, Eta Squared=.221), the

mean SEA score (Mean=42.50; P-value=.000; Eta Squared=.090), and had larger number of

students below the 30% remedial score (P-value=28.77; P-value=.000; Eta Squared=.105).

The greatest deficiency appeared to be in Language, with the difference between the mean

percentage meeting and exceeding standards in exceptionally challenged schools

(Mean=25.81 cf Mean=52.27) much lower. The effect size for the difference in Language

(Eta Squared=.119) was larger than that of Mathematics (Eta Squared=.082). The schools

facing exceptional challenge were generally smaller (Mean=107.5; P-value=.000; Eta

8

Squared=.067) with smaller class size ratios (Mean= 11.90; P-value=.000; Eta Squared

=.067).

(2) What is the nature of key processes and systems, such as teaching-learning, leadership

and organization, and the parent-school-family interface?

The parent-school-family-interface

Location

The dominant theme at all sites was the influence and nature of the school’s context.

Schools A (Boys) and B (Girls) were in a disenfranchised urban community in the capital city

of Port of Spain and school C was located in a disadvantaged community located within an

isolated rural agricultural area. Although the economic situations in the communities were

varied, the majority of families in these schools worked in low paying menial jobs. All

twenty-one families interviewed in the focus group reported manual father occupations, such

as labourer, gardener, and handyman. The majority of mothers were homemakers or

employed in low-level jobs such as cleaning. Nine of the twenty-one fathers had either no

education or primary school as the highest level. Based on the survey data, family sizes were

relatively small, but larger in the rural school. In the urban school, however, children might

have several stepsiblings in other homes.

Despite the proximity of the communities to major towns, the school and

communities remained isolated and this was often reflected in the students’ lack of

experiences. Nine of the twenty-one focus group families never or occasionally carried their

children on visits to major cities or towns. The urban boys’ school was unique in drawing

students from a wide range of economically disadvantaged communities in the Port of Spain

and Diego Martin areas. In the case of the rural school, the community was isolated because

of the quality of roads and distance from the main traffic ways. This made it expensive for

transport in and out of the area and with large family sizes; it was often prohibitive for all

siblings to go to the better quality schools outside the village.

Views of Parents and Teachers compared

Parents generally had neutral or negative views of the institutions. The majority of

parents in the rural school focus group believed that standards in the schools had declined

considerably as one parent expressed:

But now the standard of the school [has declined]. There [was a good] principal in the

school at the time [and after him], [they] break down everything in the school. I would

say [that] because I know. I passed by all my other schoolteachers before [there] was a

total breakdown of the school. Up to now, the school can’t catch itself and I [am] sure

[that] a lot of parents who [are here, if they] want to speak the truth -- they would say the

same thing.

Despite their low educational level, parents were aware of specific teaching-learning

deficits, including inattention to language and language development, as discussed within a

parent focus group:

Parent 1: I wish . . . [the] children . . . here [had] learn[t] to read and that is a big

problem [for] me, that is a [very] big problem.

Parent 2: You know the [other] children-they [are] coming home [everyday] with a

paragraph [to] read. Well, they don’t have that here at all. I don’t know if the other class

does . . . it but I never [saw] my daughter [bring anything home to read]. She doesn’t

bring [her] reading book [home] and she [does not] write. She [is in] std 5. I mean you

have to [read at that stage].

9

Parent 3: Standard 5 [does not get] reading or spellings. [They] right to say [that]. Well

we have nothing too] in the Standard 4 because my daughter, she [is] in Standard 4 [and]

she could read well and she could spell [well] because [has to] help the other one[s], and

so you [can] understand [that] they need more spelling and reading.

The parents’ concerns centred especially upon the examination classes of Standards 4 and 5,

which prepared students for the entrance into secondary school. Perhaps, parents were

conscious that poor language skills at this stage could severely hinder the students’ chances at

success, both in the examination and in the secondary school.

Parents and teachers had different perspectives on homework and reinforcement, with

teachers blaming the parents as noted by the following teacher:

Well, I can only speak about this culture. It’s what I’m dealing with right now. There’s a

total and complete lack of parental support. You will see it and hear of it as you go along

in the other classes. I don’t give home work. I have stopped it because it’s an exercise in

frustration . . . so whatever recapping we do, [we do] in the class. [They] come in the

morning and we try and work [and] they would retain [the information] to a certain point.

But the reinforcement at home [is not there]. There is no support network at home. There

are different issues [like] the television on all day, they next to a bar, they didn’t have any

electricity.

The principal of the rural school acknowledged this lack of connection between school and

community; indeed, he regarded it as the greatest challenge for further progress of the

schools, admitting:

Well, I think one of the greatest challenges would be that people in the community have

lost confidence in the school. I think that’s our biggest challenge and so therefore what

you find happening is that people are taking their children and sending them to schools

outside of [the area] as in [nearby location]. I think another challenge would be that our

school has not been producing pupils that go to secondary school and do an entire five

years there because we have a high secondary school dropout rate.

Overall low expectations for the students from school personnel stemmed in part from

the realization that the school had not been the first choice for many parents. This, teachers

felt, influenced the attitude of both parent and child to school work. As one of the leaders in

the urban school pointed out:

You know parents who are not interested in work send their children here. There are

those who are interested [and] try to get in[to] the better schools first. And they might

come here as a last resort and then when they go to these good schools, now they would

give them some attention like when they fail there.

These opposing views pointed to a lack of trust between community, parents, and teachers.

Even though the urban girls’ school had established a “less harmful” reputation, generally all

three schools maintained a distrustful view of parents. Thus, at the urban schools, staff often

bemoaned the lack of parental involvement and even blamed parents for much of the situation

at hand, as one school leader in the urban school expressed:

Education Leader: Well, in the community, it’s more or less the attitude of the parents. .

. and the interest . . . They don’t push the children school wise and they’re not too

interested in the children’s schoolwork. As such, they give no assistance to the children in

10

[their] schoolwork at home. And even when we have meetings, class meetings, when you

[would] expect, well every parent [to] come you might get about a two thirds for the

most.

Moderator: [Is that] in every class?

School Leader: Yes, in most classes, yes

Moderator: So the [level of] parental involvement, [don’t] teachers have no control over

that

School Leader: No.

The child’s experience

Children in the rural community reported having fewer books at home than children

in the urban community, with no child reporting more than 100 books in the rural

community. Comparing the urban schools, pupils from the girls’ school had more books at

home, with 29.3% having 100 or more books compared with 16.7% for the boys. However,

some books were well below the reading age of the children. No student in the rural school

had a computer at home and 61.9% of the urban girls’ school pupils and 53.5% of the urban

boys’ school pupils reported the same. This finding is important because 14 of the 21 focus

group parents said they rarely accessed the library in their area or visited areas of cultural

interest such as museums. It is just as well that children in the focus group claimed that they

had little help with their schoolwork at home.

Overall, 26 of the 99 students felt like outsiders in the school, but at this age group,

the majority of students had a relatively positive view of the school. However, 12 of the 14

students in the rural school claimed to feel bored. The same number felt that their parents

wanted them to go to another school, reflecting the community’s lack of trust. Feelings that

their parents wanted another school were also strong in the urban boys’ school but almost

absent in the female urban school (B). Parental expectations were overwhelmingly positive in

the rural school but in the urban school, some students reported low parental expectations.

Such low expectations were more common in Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science than

in Reading and Writing.

Teachers and Teaching-Learning

Qualifications

None of the teachers was from the school’s community. In school A, all 4 teachers in

the focus group possessed a Teacher’s Diploma, with 6 to 10 years experience. Two teachers

had undergraduate degrees. In school B, six teachers participated in the survey. Three had

between 21-25 years experience, one had 11 to 15 years, and two had 6-10 years. However,

only one had an undergraduate degree. For school C, three of the six teachers had additional

academic qualification at the lower level and two had undergraduate degrees. Four of the six

had professional training. Four of the six teachers had been teaching for at least 15 years.

Thus, contrary to the findings in the secondary data, teachers in these schools were relatively

well trained and experienced.

The critical issues of preparation and attendance

The most critical issues in the teaching-learning environment were student attendance

and attitude towards schoolwork. Daily attendance by students was never acceptable in most

schools, as noted by the principal of the urban boy’s school:

On the roll we have 114 … sometimes you have people leaving, sometimes you have

people coming the average attendance a day is let’s say 85 out of that 114 so I don’t

know how you would really rate that that’s 85/114 that what probably about 80%

somewhere round there between 70 and 80%

11

In the rural school, teachers observed that some students only came for the school meals. It

might also be that low attendance was part of the school and community culture, although

one teacher felt that this was beginning to change:

There was a time where on a Friday you had nobody in school at all. Now that has started to

change, they start coming to school. It have (sic) some of them who would come to school

like once for the week, twice for the week, [but] all that has started to change [as we] try to

incorporate more of the community into the school and the school in the community

In school A, the attendance of students was much lower in Standard 1, but increasing

in Standards 3, and 5. In all 3 schools, teachers believed that few students were not well

prepared. Of the 33 students directly assessed in Standards 1, 3 and 5, as many as15 did not

turn in work on time and 14 did not complete work with 100 percent efficiency. Although 24

of the 33 students were eager to learn and 22 were confident about their ability to participate,

19 of the 33 did not persist when given difficult tasks. For school B, students in the 3 classes

surveyed were rarely considered withdrawn or not engaged. However, preparation for school

and attendance were significant problems in Standard 1.

School B provided school level data on student attendance for the year 2007. The

figures varied from 58% to 84%. The lowest periods of attendance were in the months of July

(58%), December (67.6%) and September (77%). School C reported high engagement and

positive behaviours in the four classes sampled. Teachers reported more positively on the

learning behaviours of students in School C, with 18 of 25 regarded as completing and

turning work in on time and 20 of 25 as eager to learn. The students of school C were also

more likely to persist on difficult tasks (19 of 25). Still, attendance was very poor at the

infants’ level.

Although class sizes were small, observation suggested that there was (frequently)

limited one-to-one interaction in classrooms. More often than not, instruction was pitched at

the entire class. Even when teachers used instructional aids, teaching was never authentic and

rarely constructivist, with off-task behaviours very high. Observational data on four classes in

School B indicated that students were frequently disengaged, engaged on worksheets without

teacher assistance, or engaged in seatwork with some teacher assistance. None of the

observed classes in this school reported students as engaged in instruction on authentic

project work or in active conversations as they constructed knowledge.

Leadership and organization

A lack of vision

In all three schools, leadership was lassiez-faire, with little focus on instructional

improvement and student success. Surprisingly, none of the principals possessed a Bachelor’s

degree in Educational Administration, the current minimum qualification for primary school

principals in Trinidad and Tobago. In schools B and C, the principals had some leadership

experience. Leadership by the principal of the rural school was very lax, even negligent

fearing that teachers would transfer out of the school, a shad happened in the past. He readily

admitted:

And another challenge we have [here] is to try to keep the teachers happy here so that

they would want to remain and the children would benefit from that kind of stability. I

think those are the challenges that I that I would consider major challenges.

However, turnover of staff was a challenge for leadership in both urban schools and

especially in school A, high turnover had impacted strong on leadership influence.

12

Although school leaders claimed to lack support from the school’s community, for the

urban schools, there were several city businesses involved in resourcing and funding student

development programmes. The rural school was formally enrolled in the Caribbean-wide US

funded school improvement exercise. Although resources were abundant on paper, the

principals wanted greater psychological support and presence from the Ministry of Education

and the Denominational Board. In a sense, then, the leaders and staff felt isolated and

abandoned, powerless to effect change, as the principal of one of the urban schools described:

Physical resources in terms of charts and books and things like that [are] fairly accessible

but in terms of human resources, [that is a] major problem. As I say, we need guidance

counsellors here because you would cringe to hear some of the stories from some of these

children here. And again I feel they just don’t want to come to [this area] because they

hear [where it is situated]. When we inquired [of other nearby schools], they had

counsellors. And we are right around the corner. We [are] in walking distance and

nobody is assigned to this school to deal with those problems.

On observation, however, principals were more inclined to engage in social and

bureaucratic activities as their administrative duty, but generally did little monitoring or

evaluating. In part, this was because of the turbulence of the school environment and the need

to provide psychological support to teachers. Observation of the principals’ daily tasks

suggested that little was done to protect teaching and learning time. Indeed, daily activity in

the school was often disjointed and unfocused. Largely, this reflected the leaders’

philosophies, which rarely focused upon teaching-learning. Instead, principals saw

themselves as social engineers, keeping harmony and peace and thereby fostering stability.

One principal described what she understood her leadership to be:

Well, I guess that’s what I see my role as: being [a] motivator both to students and staff

[and] being able to relate to staff and students and parents. Being able to resolve disputes

amicably again children and staff [and] being a role model again for both staff and

students . . . that’s it in a nut shell.

Classes in all three schools were very small, most well below 20 students and there

was only one of each class in the school, but none was multi-grade. All schools had sharply

declining rolls, even School B, which reported the highest API score. The annual data for this

institution showed that the school population had declined consistently each year from 140 in

2002-2003 to 108 in 2006-2007. The decline in roll was also apparent at the other sites

suggesting that parents were not inclined to enrol their children in these failing institutions.

The early grades were poorly attended by both students and teachers and most of the efforts

were focused upon the upper school with the Eleven Plus examination. Field assistants

observed that teaching time was an issue in all schools and especially for the rural school,

where classroom teaching started late and ended early.

(3) How do the contextual factors impinge on organizational efficiency and academic

achievement?

The relationship between the different variables identified at the three study sites are

explored in Figure 1. As shown, the dominant theme was the impact of the economically and

socially disadvantaged school community. In the rural school and in the girl’s school, the

school’s community was the actual physical community but in the urban boy’s school, the

school community was drawn from the immediate environment and several high poverty

communities in the area. The nature of the community had a direct impact upon both the

13

governance and leadership of the school. Principals’ philosophies of leadership and

leadership in practice were all aimed at managing the turbulent environment.

Figure 1: Model of recurring processes, interfaces, and sub-systems in schools facing

exceptional challenge in Trinidad and Tobago

Thus, poverty, poor nutrition, and social problems dominated all aspects of school life.

Teachers believed that they lacked training in dealing with social issues and special needs.

Thus, arguably, teachers’ perceptions of leadership and governance were also influenced by

the intensity and frequency of the problems that occurred in this environment. In the urban

schools, the interviews indicated that teachers were very reluctant to accept postings in this

school. In a sense, then, the schools did the best with what was available to them. There were

multiple interventions in all three schools, with homework centres, adult reading

programmes, and early school reading programmes in the rural school; however, these

interventions were not co-ordinated and therefore failed to impact on the problems.

Discussion and Implications

The methodology and findings in this study were inextricably linked, with the use of

multiple methods and methodologies in Phase II, a key strategy in capturing the phenomenon

of (under)achievement as a complex issue in the social system (Rogers, 2008; Xu, 2009).

Such an approach supports the qualitative philosophy of holism (Morse & Chung, 2003). One

might even argue for a tradition of using mixed methods to gain added insight into issues like

ECONOMICALLY & SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED SCHOOL COMMUNITY

LEADERSHIP IN THE SCHOOL

TEACHERS-------------TEACHING/LEARNING-----------STUDENTS

LOW ACHIEVEMENT

Ministry of Education Denominational

Education Board

Intervention programmes

Low Supply of

high quality

experienced

teachers

High Poverty

Many Social Problems

Parental Involvement

Low Parental Education

LOW PERFORMING SCHOOL

Not Focused upon

14

poverty and vulnerability within social systems (Lucke et al., 2001; Shepard et al., 2002).

Arguably, elements and antecedents of achievement are found across multiple levels and sub-

systems. Consequently, the data collection strategy required information from multiple actors

(Goldenberg, Gallimore, & Reese, 2005).

Table 4: Findings and meta-inferences in the challenging school study Relationship

Between Findings

Description of meta-inference Implications for Research/Policy Making

1) Corroboration/

Expansion/

Enhancement

1. Low performing urban and rural schools

face different challenges.

1. School improvement plans must

consider the context and location of the

school.

2. The free school meal and basic needs

quantitative indices accurately capture the

socioeconomic status of the school

population.

2. Greater use might be made of

demographic and other indices in

planning support and targeting aid for

schools.

3. Social and economic disadvantage

operated through several mechanisms:

limited family resources, lack of access to

experiences, and higher absenteeism. The

alienating response of the school

magnified these deficiencies.

3. Integrated education, health, and social

services are required along with a

retraining of staff to serve low-income

communities.

2) Conflicting/

Contradictory

1. The quality of teachers was not always

related to poor teaching (QUAL) although

underperformance was correlated with

teacher quality in the QUAN.

1. Teacher training programmes might

focus on reorientation of teachers

rather than simply providing skills.

2. There was a moderate correlation between

resources and school performance in the

QUAN. However, observation and

interviews confirmed that schools were

well supplied with teaching resources,

although they were not always used in the

classroom (observation QUAL).

2. Simply providing more resources

might not be enough to improve

schools, integrated services and

interventions, teacher reorientation and

on-site training should be necessary.

3. Teachers reported high levels of

collective teacher efficacy. However, in

the observational and interview QUAL

data, low expectations/efficacy was

evident, but these beliefs were deflected,

rationalized or justified.

3. Quantitative measures of individual

and collective teacher efficacy do not

always capture low expectations or

belief systems of local teachers. This

critical variable should be addressed in

teacher training and school reform.

4. Lack of parental concern was cited as a

problem by most teachers in the site

survey and interviews, but interviews with

parents suggested that they were very

concerned about the schools’

underperformance, but had limited access

to opportunities for resolution.

4. Parents must be given a greater say in

school and community arrangements

for enhancing performance. Integrated

parental education and outreach

programmes should be set up.

3) Unique to

methodology

1. The observation QUAL data revealed that

inauthentic, low- quality classroom

teaching was a major factor in low school

performance.

1. Teacher training should be integrated

with the provision of resources and

focus on the nature of teaching-

learning and low engagement among

children from low-income

communities.

2. The interview QUAL data revealed that

poor nutrition and student absenteeism

were significant factors in limited

learning opportunity.

2. The school feeding programme might

be extended by the inclusion of

breakfast for schools with high social

and economic disadvantage.

3. The QUAN data revealed that some

schools performed adequately despite

high levels of social and economic

disadvantage.

3. Best practice might be disseminated

and shared, allowing schools to learn

from or emulate each other.

15

Although the use of multiple qualitative methods and multiple methodologies

provided complex and rich data, some information was contradictory. Contradictory data

might be regarded as a challenge to integrating or merging (Plano-Clark et al., 2010). There

were several apparent contradictions in the data within Phase II (between the qualitative and

quantitative and between the qualitative methods) and between Phase I and Phase II

quantitative and qualitative). It was not always possible to resolve these differences as

suggested in Creswell and Plano-Clark (2010). It might be that contradictory findings provide

multiple perspectives on a complex issue and useful for policy-making.

There were, in fact, three kinds of relationships between the findings from different

methods and methodologies. As shown in Table 3, findings might corroborate or expand as in

triangulation. Some findings were conflicting, however, because they represented a different

perspective or provided a clearer view of an issue and some findings were unique to the

particular methodology. For example, although the quantitative data suggested that there

were fewer trained teachers in schools facing exceptional challenge, in reality the situation

was often more complex than that. The staff of the rural school included several highly

qualified teachers although this did not seem to alter their approach to teaching in this school.

Table 4 also summarises the policy-making implications derived from the different

types of meta-inferences. Although all the schools were involved in various kinds of

individual interventions, these different programmes were neither focused nor explicitly

linked together. Linking can achieve reinforcement across and within the school and

community. For example, teaching resources might be linked to specific training on

constructivist teaching. Likewise, the early childhood interventions might be linked to the

adult literacy classes in the community. Additional interventions and services are required,

including integrated services to deal with the economically and socially disadvantaged

communities. Programmes and policies to address student absenteeism must also be

established.

Although several international studies have focused on the leadership component in

improving schools in challenging contexts (Jacobson, 2008), it seems more useful in the

context of Trinidad and Tobago to ensure coordinated efforts by the education districts and

other support services external to the school in effecting school improvement in these

contexts. This relates to the level of autonomy in school sites, the complex nature of the

contextual variables, and the quality of personnel available for leadership. Even if committed

informed leadership were available, turnaround will prove quite a difficult task for these

schools. Fostering collective responsibility and better integration with the community

therefore emerge as critical goals.

References

Ainscow, M., Muijs, D., & West, M. (2006). Using collaboration as a strategy for improving

schools in complex and challenging circumstances: What makes the difference?

National College for School Leadership. Retrieved from http://networkedlearning.ncsl.org.uk/knowledge-base/research-papers/using-collaboration-as-

a-strategy-for-improving-schools-in-complex-and-challenging-circumstances.pdf

Bryman, A. (2006) Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?

Qualitative Research 6(1), 97-113

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods

Research (2nd

Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crossley, M. (2008). The advancement of educational research in small states. Comparative

Education, 44(2), 247-254.

De Lisle, J., Keller, C., Jules, V., & Smith, P. (2009). When choosing might mean losing: A

Mixed method study of secondary school choice in the Republic of Trinidad and

16

Tobago. Caribbean Curriculum, 16(1), 131-176.

De Lisle, J., Smith, P., & Jules, V. (2010). Evaluating the geography of gendered

achievement using large-scale assessment data from the primary school system of the

Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. International Journal of Educational Development,

30(4), 405-417.

Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., & Reese, L. (2005). Using mixed methods to explore

Latino children's literacy development. In T. Weisner (Ed.), Discovering successful

pathways in children’s development: new methods in the study of childhood and

family life (pp. 21-46). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Government of Trinidad and Tobago (2006). Vision 2020 operational plan 2007-2010. Port

of Spain: Ministry of Planning.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework

for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11

(3), 255-274.

Harber, C., & Muthukrishna, N. (2000). School effectiveness and school improvement in

context: The case of South Africa. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,

11(3), 421-434.

Harris, A., Muijs, D., Chapman. C., Russ, J., & Stoll, L. (2006). Improving schools in

challenging contexts: Exploring the possible. School Effectiveness and School

Improvement 17(4), 409-425.

Hemming, P. J. (2008). Mixing qualitative research methods in children’s geographies. Area,

40 (2), 152-162.

Houtveen, T., van de Grift, W., Kuijpers, J., Boot, M., Groot, F., & Kooijman, H. (2007).

Improving underperforming schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed At

Risk, 12(4), 36-381.

Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed methods sequential

explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3-20.

Jacobson, S. (2008). Leadership for success in high poverty elementary schools. Journal of

Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 23(1), 3-19.

Kairi Consultants. (2007). Analysis of the Trinidad and Tobago survey of living

conditions. Port of Spain, Trinidad: Ministry of Social Development.

Levin, B. (2006). Schools in challenging circumstances: A reflection on what we know and

what we need to know. School Effectiveness and School Improvement , 17(4) 399-

407.

Lucke, J., Donald, A. M., Dower, J. A. F., & Raphael, B. (2001) Considerations in the

design of a mixed-method cluster evaluation of a community programme for 'at-risk'

young people. Evaluation, 7(1), 110-113.

MacBeath, J., Gray, J., Cullen, J., Cunningham, H., Ebbutt, D., Frost, D., Steward, S. &

Swaffield, S. (2005). Schools facing exceptionally challenging circumstances: Final

report. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.

MacKenzie, C. G . (1991). Denominational primary schooling: The case of Trinidad and

Tobago. International Review of Education, 38(2), 211-226.

Michalak, J. M. (2009). Making a difference in challenging urban schools: Successful

principals. European Educational Research Journal, 8(3), 386-396.

Mizala, A., Pilar, R., & Urquiola, M. (2007). Socioeconomic status or noise? Tradeoffs in the

generation of school quality information. Journal of Development Economics, 84, 71-

75.

Moe, C. (2009, November 14). Ministry moves to assist underperforming schools. Trinidad

Guardian Newspaper. Retrieved from

17

http://guardian.co.tt/news/general/2009/11/14/ministry-moves-assist-

underperforming-schools.

Morse, J.M., & Chung, S.E. (2003). Toward holism: The significance of methodological

` pluralism. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3). Retrieved October 15,

2003 from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/2_3final/html/morsechung.html

Morse, J.M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut

Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving schools in

socioeconomically disadvantaged areas: A review of research evidence. School

Effectiveness and School Improvement,15(2), 149–175.

Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Kennedy, A. M., & Foy, P. (2007). PIRLS 2006 international

report: IEA’s Progress in International Reading Literacy Study in primary schools in

40 countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center,

Boston College.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2003). Student

engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation. Results from PISA

2000. Retrieved from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/35/33689437.pdf.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. T. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling

designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281-316.

Painter, B., & Valentine, J. (1996). Instructional practices inventory. Columbia, MO:

Missouri Center for School Improvement, University of Missouri.

Plano Clark, V. L., Garrett, A. L., & Leslie-Pelecky, D. L. (2010). Applying three strategies

for integrating quantitative and qualitative databases in a mixed methods study of a

nontraditional graduate education program. Field Methods, 22(2), 154-174.

Pretorius, E.J., & Currin, S. (2010). Do the rich get richer and the poor poorer?

The effects of an intervention programme on reading in the home and school

language in a high poverty multilingual context. International Journal of Educational

Development, 30(1), 67-76.

Rogers, P. J. (2008). Using programme theory for complicated and complex programmes.

Evaluation: The International Journal of Theory, Research & Practice, 14(1), 29-48.

Shephard, M. P., Orsi, A. J., Mahon, M. M., & Carroll, R. M. (2002). Mixed-method research

with vulnerable families. Journal of Family Nursing, 8, 334-352.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and

quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal

of Mixed Methods Research 1(1), 77-100.

UNESCO. (2008). Education for all global monitoring report 2008: Education for All by

2015. Will we make it? Paris: Author.

Van de Grift, W., & Houtveen, T. (2006). Underperformance in primary schools. School

Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 1–19.

World Bank (1993). Caribbean region: access, quality, and efficiency in education.

Washington, DC.: Author

World Bank (1995). Trinidad and Tobago: Poverty and unemployment in an oil based

economy. Report No. 14382-TR. Country Department III. Country Operations II Latin

America and the Caribbean Region. Washington, US: Author.

World Bank (1995). Trinidad and Tobago: Poverty and unemployment in an oil-based

economy. (Report No. 14382-TR.Washington, DC: Author.

Xu, S. (2009). Inquiry from the outside and the inside: A mixed method study of university

18

underachievement in China. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 15/1-

2(155-173)

Ylimaki, R. M., Jacobson, S. L., & Drysdale, L. (2007). Making a difference in challenging,

high-poverty schools: Successful principals in the USA, England, and Australia.

School Effectiveness & School Improvement,18(4), 361-381.