JES Spring Journal 2006

Journal forEffective Schools

In This IssueThe Scoutmaster’s DilemmaLawrence W. Lezotte and Kathleen M. McKee

Developing District Vision and Mission as Entry-Level SuperintendentsWilliam Berube, Robin Dexter, and Robert McCarthy

Spending and Student Achievement: Policy andSpending Implications for School BoardsLeslie S. Kaplan and William A. Owings

Effective School-Teacher Practices: Case Studies ofthe Achievement Gap Between African Americanand White StudentsEbrahim Maddahian, Penny Fidler, and Kathy Hayes

Spring 2006 Volume 5, Number 1

Spring 20

06

The Journal for Effective Schools

Volum

e 5, N

umb

er 1

Published by theIntermountain Center for Education EffectivenessCollege of EducationIdaho State University

Our MissionThe Journal for Effective Schools provides educators and administrators involved or

interested in the Effective Schools Process with the opportunity to share their research, practice,

policies, and expertise with others.

research practice policies

EXECUTIVE EDITORE. E. (Gene) Davis, Idaho State University

ASSOCIATE EDITORSusan Jenkins, Idaho State University

ASSISTANT EDITORCharles Zimmerly, Idaho State University

PRODUCTION EDITORVicki Fanning, Idaho State University

EDITORIAL BOARDWilliam J. Banach, Banach, Banach and Cassidy, Inc.Ben A. Birdsell, Association for Effective Schools, Inc.Anthony Bisciglia, The Effective Schools ReportGordon Cawelti, Educational Research ServiceJanet H. Chrispeels, University of California – Santa BarbaraDaniel Drake, Cleveland State UniversityTom C. Farley, Effective Schools ConsultantIvan Fitzwater, Management Development InstituteHal Guthrie, Hal Guthrie and Associates, Inc.Larry B. Harris, Idaho State UniversityRonald H. Heck, University of HawaiiEdie Holcomb, National Center for Effective SchoolsDianne Lane, Southeast Center for Effective SchoolsLawrence W. Lezotte, Effective Schools Products, Ltd.Judith March, Effective Resources Associates, Inc.Jerry Mathews, Mississippi State UniversityT. C. Mattocks, Bellingham Public Schools (Massachusetts)Deborah McDonald, International Center for Effective SchoolsJoseph Murphy, Vanderbilt UniversitySteve Nelson, Northwest Regional Educational LaboratoryJohn Pisapia, Florida Atlantic UniversityRobert E. Sudlow, Association for Effective Schools, Inc.John Steffens, University of OklahomaM. Donald Thomas, School Management Study GroupLarry Vandel, Vandel and Associates


Journal for Effective Schools


SUBMISSION DEADLINE for the Fall 2006 Issue:August 15, 2006.

Detailed information concerning the submission of manuscripts can be found on the Internet at http://icee.isu.edu

Articles for potential publication in the Journal for Effective Schoolsmay be submitted on an on-going basis to:

Susan Jenkins, Associate EditorJournal for Effective Schools

Intermountain Center for Effective SchoolsIdaho State University

Campus Box 8019Pocatello, Idaho 83209-8019

SUBMISSION DEADLINE for the Spring 2007 Issue:November 1, 2006.

Detailed information concerning the submission of manuscripts can be found on the Internet at http://icee.isu.edu

Articles for potential publication in the Journal for Effective Schoolsmay be submitted on an on-going basis to:

Susan Jenkins, Associate EditorJournal for Effective Schools

Intermountain Center for Effective SchoolsIdaho State University


Call for A

rticles

Fall 2006 Issue

Call for A

rticles

Spring 2007 Issue

1

Volume 5, Number 1 Spring 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Aim and Scope - Correlates of Effective Schools ...................................................................................... 2

From the Editor ................................................................................................................................................ 3E. E. (Gene) Davis

Invited Articles

The Scoutmaster’s Dilemma................................................................................................................ 5Lawrence W. Lezotte and Kathleen M. McKee

Submitted Articles

Developing District Vision and Mission as Entry-Level Superintendents ..........................................9William Berube, Robin Dexter, and Robert McCarthy

Spending and Student Achievement: Policy and Spending Implications for School Boards ............ 17Leslie S. Kaplan and William A. Owings

Effective School-Teacher Practices: Case Studies of the Achievement Gap Between AfricanAmerican and White Students ............................................................................................................ 35Ebrahim Maddahian, Penny Fidler, and Kathy Hayes

Book Reviews

Linking Teacher Evaluation and Student LearningAuthors - Pamela D. Tucker and James H. Stronge .................................................................... 61

Megh Thapa


2

AIM and SCOPE

The Journal for Effective Schools publishes original contributions in the following areas:●● Research Practice __ Empirical studies focusing on the results of applied educational research specif-

ically related to the Effective Schools Process.●● Educational Practices __ Descriptions of the use of the Effective Schools Process in classrooms, schools,

and school districts to include instructional effectiveness, evaluation, leadership, and policy andgovernance.

●● Preparation of Educational Personnel __ Research and practice related to the initial and advancedpreparation of teachers, administrators, and other school personnel including staff developmentpractices based on the Effective Schools Process.

●● Other __ Scholarly reviews of research, book reviews, and other topics of interest to educators seekinginformation on the Effective Schools Process.

CORRELATES OF EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS

●● A clearly stated and focused mission on learning for all __ The group (faculty, administration,parents) shares an understanding of and a commitment to the instructional goals, priorities, assess-ment, procedures, and personal and group accountability. Their focus is always, unequivocally, on thestudent.

●● A safe and orderly environment for learning __ The school provides a purposeful, equitable, busi-nesslike atmosphere that encourages, supports, allows mistakes, and is free of fear. School is aplace that does no harm to developing psyches and spirits.

●● Uncompromising commitment to high expectations for all __ Those who are leaders empower oth-ers to become leaders who believe and demonstrate that all students can attain mastery of essentialskills. This commitment is shared by professionals who hold high expectations of themselves.

●● Instructional leadership __ Although initially coming from the principal, teacher, or administrator,the goal is to include all participants as instructional leaders as their knowledge expands as a resultof staff development. New insights excite and inspire. In the accountable learning community,everyone is a student and all can be leaders.

●● Opportunity to learn is paramount __ Time is allocated for specific and free-choice tasks. Studentstake part in making decisions about goals and tasks.

●● Frequent monitoring of progress __ Effective schools evaluate the skills and achievements of all stu-dents and teachers. No intimidation is implied. Rather, monitoring often is individualized, withimprovement in learning as the goal.

●● Enhanced communication __ Includes home, school, and community coming together as partners inlearning for all.

* Adapted from Phi Delta Kappa International

3


From the Editor

E. E. (Gene) DavisExecutive Editor

Overview of This Issue

This issue begins with an article by Lezotte and McKee describing the dilemma of a scoutmaster ashe attempts to lead his troop on a hike, taking into account the physical differences and limitationsof the scouts. The authors compare the scoutmaster's dilemma to the challenges that leaders in edu-cation are facing today, noting that the educational landscape is being transformed into somethingvery different from what teachers and administrators have ever known. Lezotte and McKee followwith six principles that should be addressed in order to improve the effectiveness of schools today.

A second article by Berube, Dexter, and McCarthy discusses the development of a district visionand mission as an entry-level superintendent. Faculty members at the University of Wyoming col-laborated with students in educational leadership who were preparing to be superintendents. Thegoal was to research and practice the process of facilitating the development and implementationof a district vision and mission in the role of filling a new superintendent position. This articlediscusses vision and mission by definition, community power, the change process, relationships,systems, and the processes considered when a district receives a new superintendent.

Maddahian, Fidler, and Hayes provide an article that describes a case study methodology that wasemployed to highlight significant differences between two sets of elementary schools, one that hasnarrowed the achievement gap for African Americans, and one in which the achievement gaphas widened. Instructional and pedagogical elements such as school leadership; high qualityinstruction; a positive school and classroom climate; appropriate use of assessment; a shared under-standing and commitment to school improvement; and the implementation of culturally relevant andresponsive education (CRRE) were compared in a large urban school district in the southwestUnited States. The case study findings provide considerable food for thought for educators who areaddressing concerns regarding student achievement.

Following Maddahian, Fidler, and Hayes is an article that will be of interest to school boards andsuperintendents. This article, by Kaplan and Owings, regarding the connection between spendingand student achievement, addresses policy and spending implications for school boards. The authorsmaintain that superintendents and school boards need to understand that money should be spent inschools to get the "biggest bang for the instructional buck."

Completing this issue of the Journal, Megh Thapa from the Northwest Regional EducationalLaboratory in Portland, Oregon, reviews the book entitled Linking Teacher Evaluation and StudentLearning by Pamela D. Tucker and James H. Stronge. Thapa's review suggests that the authors havemade an important contribution by compiling relevant research findings, as well as providing adescription of four distinct and promising evaluation systems.

E. E. (Gene) Davis


From the Editor

4

Future Focus

We appreciate the patience that subscribers showed when it became necessary to suspend publicationof the Fall 2005 issue of the Journal for Effective Schools. Due to problems beyond our control, wewere unable to complete the publication and distribution process. We have extended the subscriptionsof each of our subscribers and hope you awaited this issue with the same anticipation as that of theeditors.

The Editorial Board continues to research whether the Journal should be published in a hard copyversion or published online. The current fiscal crisis in public education argues that a more readilyaccessible journal, at a reduced price, should be available online. An analysis of the cost/benefit of thetwo options continues. Our main concern is that subscribers are able to access the Journal withoutany problems or interruption in service. We will continue to keep you updated on this process.

Editorial Board Changes

Unfortunately from time to time, we lose the expertise of an Editorial Board member. We are usuallyable to acquire a new member who adds depth and breadth to our review panel. Such an occurrenceis upon us at this time.

Retirement from the Board

Dr. Terrell Donicht, an Editorial Board member since the inception of the Journal, is unable tocontinue on the Board due to increased responsibilities in his position as Superintendent of theMcCall-Donnelly School District. We extend our heartfelt thanks for his commitment to the Journalfor Effective Schools and his contributions as an Editorial Board member.

Addition to the Editorial Board

Dr. Dianne Lane, from the Southeast Center for Effective Schools, has agreed to serve on the EditorialBoard. We welcome her efforts to assist us.

5


Lawrence W. Lezotte & Kathleen M. McKee

The Scoutmaster's Dilemma

Lawrence W. LezotteEffective Schools Products, Ltd.

Kathleen M. McKeeEffective Schools Products, Ltd.

The scoutmaster of Woodchucks Troop 234 isabout to take a group of 25 young scouts on aneight-mile hike to a lake for an overnightcamping experience next Saturday. He's led thisparticular hike many times before, but this yearthe Woodchuck Council has made the event acompetition. They have also changed the route tomake it more difficult, one that involves hikingthrough a fairly dense woods and some rockytrail. Troop 234 is scheduled to leave at 10:00a.m. and arrive at the lake no later than 3:00p.m. If they don't make it by 3:00 p.m., theirgroup will be disqualified from the competition.The scoutmaster is concerned about getting allthe boys to the designated spot on time. Here aresome of the facts that cause him concern:

1. Some of the boys in the group naturally walkfast, and others naturally slow.

2. Some of the boys are very excited by the ideaof the hike and the overnight camping; othersare only going because their parents are makingthem.

3. The scoutmaster is virtually certain that eachboy is capable of completing the hike, but he isnot sure that the young man who's leg is in acast and is on crutches can get there by 3:00p.m.

4. Some of the boys are more physically fit andwill be able to cover greater distances withoutresting, while others will need to rest more fre-quently.

5. While most of the boys are sure to be at thedesignated trailhead at or before 10:00 a.m.,three or four of the boys are likely to be late(their parents are not as responsible as they

should be). This means that the group willprobably not have the full five hours to coverthe eight miles.

6. If the scoutmaster places himself at the front ofthe line in order to set the proper pace, he mayleave some of the slower walkers behind. If hesets a pace slow enough to keep all the scoutstogether, the faster walkers will become dis-gruntled, discouraged, turn on the slow walkers,and when they get home, probably complain totheir parents that hiking is boring.

7. If the scoutmaster places himself at the rear ofthe line to be sure that no scout is left behind,the fast walkers may set too fast a pace, getway out ahead, wander off and get lost, but−−technically−−not left behind.

8. The scoutmaster is responsible for every scout;it really doesn't matter whether a scout is lostbecause he was left behind or because he wan-dered off in boredom and frustration. If anyscout fails to reach the lake on time, the entiretroop fails. If that happens, some parents mayget angry and move their children to anothertroop. In addition, the Woodchuck Councilcould replace the scoutmaster or even disbandthe troop entirely.

Faced with this dilemma, the scoutmaster beginsto wonder if he's cut out to lead this troop. He'swilling to work hard at the task, but is in aquandary about how to assure that all 25 scoutsarrive at the lake by 3:00 p.m.

The scoutmaster's dilemma is not unlike thechallenges educational leaders are facing today.Suddenly, the educational landscape has


The Scoutmaster’s Dilemma

6

transformed into something very different fromwhat teachers and administrators have everknown. The element of competition has beeninjected into public schooling through school ofchoice. The K-12 route has been made more dif-ficult with higher standards. Educators must nowbe accountable for seeing that all children masterthese higher standards, regardless of the dif-ferences and disadvantages they bring to theschoolhouse door. And if one subgroup of studentsfails to meet Adequate Yearly Progress, the entireschool is labeled as needing improvement−−aeuphemism for failing. Further failure results inever-more-serious sanctions, with parents beingable to move their students to other schools andthe possible removal of the principal. Yes, theworld has changed dramatically in terms of itsneeds and expectations for educating today’syouth. Unfortunately, public education has not.Why? The reason is simple:

Principle 1: The Current System of PublicEducation Is Ideally Suited to Produce theResults It Is Now Producing.

Make no mistake, the current system is as pro-ductive−−maybe even more so−−than it has everbeen throughout its proud history. Since it isfunctioning so well, one might ask, then justwhat is everyone complaining about? Theunfortunate fact is this:

Principle 2: The Current Results the PublicEducation System Is Producing Are Not theOnes This Country Needs or Wants.

What is causing this obvious disconnect? Thislarge and growing gap between current resultsand societal needs is driven by two macro changesin society, both beyond the control of theschools. The first change is the increasingdiversification of the children of this country;today there are more minorities, more Englishlanguage learners, and more poor and disad-vantaged students than ever before. The second

change is the global technological revolution,which is redefining the very nature of workavailable to adults in the United States. Thisredefined work requires both different and higherskill levels.

Clearly, one does not have to be the proverbialrocket scientist to realize that the diversificationof the public school customers is not going tostop or even slow down. If anything, it is goingto increase for the foreseeable future. Likewise,it does not require a rocket scientist to concludethat the genie known as the global technologicalrevolution is not going to crawl back into thebottle. Again, if anything, the global technologicalrevolution is going to increase both in its speedand inconclusiveness.

These powerful new forces impact every sectorof society. Given the inevitability of these forces,and the demand for improved student learningfrom government, business, higher education,and parents alike, the options available to publiceducation are limited.

Principle 3: The Educational System MustChange in Response to the Changing Society.

To ignore these forces and embrace the statusquo is to accept the fate, not of an endangeredspecies, but of an extinct species. One mustassume that most public educators are not readyto go the way of the dinosaur. And yet, given thepowerful inertia of the system-in-place, it is notunreasonable to wonder if schools can change inresponse to the powerful forces acting uponthem. Is successful and sustainable schoolreform even possible? The answer to the ques-tion is yes, if the conditions are right.

In considering how one might go about changingthe school, two possible approaches come tomind. First, there is the bottom-up approach tochange. In this case, the top of the system-in-place simply waits for those at lower levels in

7


Lawrence W. Lezotte & Kathleen M. McKee

the system to demand that the schools change inresponse to the outside forces. The otherapproach is referred to as the top-down approach.In this case, one would look to the leadership ofthe system-in-place to demand that the schoolchange. Which course of action would seem tohave the greater promise of success?

It is recognized that the system-in-place, knownas the public school system, was never designedto successfully teach a high-standards curriculumto the ever more diverse students. Therefore, oneknows that changing the school response tosuccessfully confront the new educational realitiesof the 21st century will require systems change.History indicates that systemic reforms of the typeneeded by education today rarely bubble-up fromthe bottom of the system. And yet, the researchon the top-down strategy of change has shownthat mandated change, without participantbuy-in, won't last. What, then, is the alternative?

Principle 4: Simply Put, Sustainable SchoolReform and the Very Survival of PublicEducation Requires Effective Leaders WhoCan Create and Manage a Process for ChangeThat Inspires Commitment and Action FromOthers.

Leadership, however, is not enough to createsustainable change. As Ron Edmonds said manyyears ago, "We have found schools that hadeffective leadership that were not yet effectiveschools, but we have never found an effectiveschool that did not have an effective leader."In other words, when it comes to school effec-tiveness, Ron knew that leadership is a necessary,but not sufficient condition. Leaders must have atheory of action or framework that provides acomprehensive approach to change.

The history of school reform clearly indicatesthat successful and sustainable school reformcannot be done piecemeal. For example, the

purchase of a new program alone is not likelygoing to make much change in student success.Likewise, staff development that takes the formof an event is not likely to make much differenceeither. Don't misunderstand, new programs, newstrategies, and staff development may wellcontribute to sustainable school reform . . . butonly if each is part of a comprehensive approachto change. More and more schools and districtsare coming to this realization as they fail to makeAdequate Yearly Progress year after year, orsucceed in reaching their goals one year, but notthe next.

Schools and districts must adopt a big pictureapproach to reform that is collaborative andinclusive, data-driven, research-based, andfocused on both quality (high standards) andequity (for all students). One proven theory ofaction is the Effective Schools ContinuousSchool Improvement Process. This frameworkprovides an excellent vehicle through which theleader can create the kind of continuous andsustainable improvement called for in today'seducational environment. This model for changeis inclusive and collaborative, and will help theleader inspire the stakeholders to commit to avision of a preferred future. It is a multifacetedframework that integrates systems thinking, totalquality management concepts, and over threedecades of Effective Schools Research that hasfocused on what works in schools.

Principle 5: Effective Leadership CombinedWith a Proven Theory of Action orFramework Can Accomplish the SeeminglyImpossible.

Within this context, effective leadership is centraland essential. Unfortunately, leaders who canmanage such sweeping change are in shortsupply in public education. And given thedaunting challenges ahead and the imminentretirement of many seasoned educational leaders,


The Scoutmaster’s Dilemma

8

this shortage will only get worse. Therefore,schools and districts must identify, train, nurture,and mentor qualified individuals to fill the cur-rent and growing void of leadership. Current andaspiring educational leaders seeking to becomemore effective change agents in their schoolsneed the following:

● A clear, compelling vision of a preferredfuture, supported by clearly understood beliefsand values

● An understanding of what leadership is and isnot, of various approaches to leadership, andhow leadership must change as the organizationgrows−−against this backdrop, leaders mustalso have opportunities to assess their leader-ship abilities and skills, and identify areas forneeded additional training and mentoring

● Opportunities to expand and enhance theirleadership skills through increased knowledge,insight, and practical application

● Familiarity with a model for continuous andsustainable change that can provide the contextand structure within which leader knowledgeand skills can be applied and tested

Few educators−−or non-educators, for thatmatter−−would challenge the notion that thestakes are very high for this country when itcomes to school reform. The majority of thosewho have thought about the monumental task of

improving public education so all children canbe successful would agree that leadership is acritical component. Given what's at stake forchildren and the nation, one must challengeevery educator with this question: Can we findenough individuals who understand and arecommitted to meeting the challenge of changingpublic education, who are willing to "step up" tothe role of leader?

Those who understand the need for systemicchange, and have a burning desire to make ithappen, have the first crucial requirements forbecoming effective leaders. The question toevery educator is: Are you willing to "step up" tothe role of leader? If you answered yes, you havetaken the first step in becoming an effectiveleader who can initiate, manage, and monitorpositive, successful, and sustainable changeleading to improved student learning andachievement.

Principle 6: Our Children and Our SchoolsDeserve Nothing Less.

Authors Note: This article is adapted fromStepping Up: Leading the Charge to ImproveOur Schools, by Dr. Larry Lezotte and KathleenMcKee, available from Effective SchoolsProducts, Ltd. 1-800-827-8041 www.effectiveschools.com

9


William Berube, Robin Dexter, & Robert McCarthy

Developing District Vision and Mission as Entry-Level Superintendents

William BerubeUniversity of Wyoming

Robin DexterUniversity of Wyoming

Robert McCarthyUniversity of Wyoming

Abstract

A new superintendent's first charge is to ensure that the district has a vision and mission in place thatis understood and practiced by faculty, administration, and parents. It is crucial that these stake-holders, as a group, share an understanding of, and a commitment to, the instructional goals,priorities, assessments, procedures, and personal and group accountability of the district. TheEducational Leadership Program at the University of Wyoming worked with students preparing to besuperintendents in order to research and practice how to facilitate the development and imple-mentation of the district vision and mission as a new superintendent. This process relates to theEffective Schools Research that emphasizes the need for schools to have a clearly stated and focusedmission on learning for all. The focus is always unequivocally on the student. This article discussesvision and mission by definition, community power, the change process, relationships, systems, andthe processes considered when a district receives a new superintendent.

Starting out in a new superintendency offersmany questions and challenges. The followingare the biggest questions:

● Where will I start?● Where will we go as a community?● How do we get there?● How will I get people on board?

Identifying a direction the district seeks to follow,and writing a mission statement to guide thejourney, is a vital task. Determining a missionthat encompasses a school district, while incor-porating the culture and personality of thecommunity, sets the foundation for the evolutionof the school district.

As a part of the superintendent selection process,the district's search team looks for a matchbetween a candidate's philosophy and vision for

a district, and the district's own philosophy andvision. The newly appointed superintendent hasalready filled a need, or needs, that the searchteam prioritized in their selection, to includecharacteristics and the personal philosophy of aleader that matched or were required by per-ceived needs of the community. What must occurnext is development of a process that involvesthe community so that all stakeholders arefocused in the same direction−−a shared visionfor the education of their children, focused onquality instruction and student learning. Visionand mission, as well as core values, are essentialto developing personal and systemic direction(Elmore, 2002; Fullan, 2001).

The need to focus on the vision and missiondevelopment process may be dependent on thestatus or legitimacy of the existing vision andmission in the district. The depth of the process



10

may vary for each superintendent and district.Also, this work is but one component of the newsuperintendent's entry plan, or plan for beginningthe job (Neely, Berube, & Wilson, 2002).

Vision and Mission: What Are They?

The terms vision and mission are often usedinterchangeably with many different inter-pretations. Which one comes first? The questionhas been debated over and over and is importantfor the new superintendent.

The mission of the district is its shared purpose.It is a product of the vision that is shared by thedistrict and the community. The mission for theschool district is a constant, guiding decisionsand change models. When created andestablished, the mission statement becomesfoundational for the school district, and guidesand directs all present and future endeavors. It isa statement that serves as the primary compassbearing, and is resilient enough to persist even indifficult and uncertain times. A functioningmission provides real time, dynamic, individual,and organizational purpose with direction.

When determining a mission for the educationcommunity, core values and moral purposebecame very relevant. The moral purpose guidesthe stakeholders and asks them to reflect on theirown moral purpose. It asks questions about whatthe group, as a district, believes and their focusand mission as a district. Values need to beidentified along with a shared vision. The stake-holders need to become active participants, anddiversity needs to be honored throughout theprocess of creating a community mission. Theprocess of developing vision and mission is anopportunity to observe and learn, to listen andcommunicate, and to build relationships.

Vision, like mission, has many definitions andinterpretations. A vision is a mental image

intended to organize or categorize experiences.Both visions and concepts function to givemeaning to present experience and permit thosewho hold them to more effectively control futureexperiences (Schlechty, 2001). According toTollett (2002), the vision is a mental picture ofsuccess. Tollet also emphasized that vision is thefuel that allows common people to attainuncommon results. The vision is changing,moving, and evolving as the specific needs of thedistrict change (Elmore, 2002; Waters, Marzano,& McNulty, 2003). Vision can allow one toidentify to the community where the districtstands and where the district needs to go.

Strange attractors involve experiences or forcesthat create a focus for the energies and commit-ment of employees. Think of a strange attractoras a series of experiences that will galvanize orattract the deep energies and commitment ofmembers in an organization to make desirablethings happen. A vision, for example, can act asan attractor, but only when the vision is shared atall levels of the organization, and only when thevision emerges through experience, therebygenerating commitment (Fullan, 2001).

The comprehensive project of school improve-ment requires clarity of vision, breadth of view,and a determination to overcome inevitableobstacles that permit others to participate withconfidence (Danielson, 1996). This visionreflects the hopes and dreams, the needs andinterests, and the values and beliefs of everyonethat has a stake in the school. It may be safe tosay that the district vision is the desired state orimage, and that the mission is the purpose orpath to achieving the vision. Whatever therelationship between the two, vision and missionare both important to the new superintendent andthe district.

Sergiovanni (1990) identified the characteristicsof a mission that influence the direction of the

11



district, as well as the decisions made by par-ents, teachers, students, administrators, andschool boards. These characteristics included thefollowing:

● Stated clearly enough so that stakeholders canunderstand the mission

● Accessible enough so that the mission can beachieved

● Important enough to reflect the shared corevalues and beliefs of the stakeholders

● Powerful enough to inspire and touch people● Focused enough so that it clearly defines what

is important and what is not ● Characterized by consonance and not contra-

dictory● Encourages cooperation and not competition● Includes a cooperative purpose that supports

people working together and sharing groupachievement

● Difficult enough to evoke challenge and causepeople to persist

● Resilient enough to stand the test of time● Not easily changed

School and Community Power Bases:Authority, Power, and Influence

Determining direction, as a new superintendent,is one of the most important tasks a super-intendent must take on at the onset of a newjob. Attaining the support and dedication of thecommunity to share the vision is where the workbegins. Understanding the moral and culturalvalues of the district will enable the super-intendent to move the educational processforward in a focused and positive manner.Understanding the sources of authority, power,and influence in the community will enable thesuperintendent to learn how to function in thecommunity and to utilize leaders in directing thecommunity towards the goals and vision of thedistrict (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997).

There are three aspects in reference to authority,power, and influence of which a superintendent

needs to become conscious. First, the new super-intendent needs to get to know those people whoare the power brokers of the community andwho will be influencing or otherwise affectingthem as superintendent. This is done by askingquestions, observing, listening, and becomingaware of the needs of the school district andcommunity.

Getting to know these people and developingpositive relationships with them will enable thesuperintendent to be an effective educationalleader and member of the community. Nurturingrelationships that encompass mutual respect andtrust is the first step in the process of building acommunity that is supportive of its educationalsystem. The second aspect is that the super-intendent uses their authority, power, andinfluence in a manner that will complement theirpersonality and will be perceived as beneficial toothers. The last aspect is that a superintendentshares the power−−allows others to be empoweredand be influential in making decisions with theresponsibility of dealing with the outcomes ofthose decisions.

Understanding the Change Process

The new superintendent needs to be aware ofchange theory and have the capability of creatingthe conditions, which will cause and sustainchange. According to Fullan (2001), change isnot linear, and it happens in rapidity. It has thepotential to bring about creative breakthroughs.It cannot be managed and controlled, but it canbe understood and led. "It is a process, not anevent" (Fullan, p. 40). Making the decisions toinitiate major change in a district cannot bebased solely on data analysis. Change agentsmust consider the human, political, and symbolicelements (Bolman & Deal, 2003).

Relationships, Relationships, Relationships

Developing relationships is essential to the effec-tiveness of the new superintendent. These



12

need to be built upon shared values and beliefs,where caring and respect are mutual, and charac-terized by people working together with the samepurpose (Fullan, 2001). Kouzes and Posner(1987) identified seven essentials to developingrelationships: setting clear standards; expectingthe best; paying attention; personalizing recog-nizing; telling the story; celebrating together; andsetting the example.

Developing relationships built upon values,integrity, and trust are crucial in focusing on apurpose of the school district. It helps to unifypeople into a team heading in the same direction,and it nurtures their collaboration in the processof focusing the community on the vision andmission.

The superintendent has often been expected to bean expert on everything. This is an impossibleresponsibility. Knowledge and power can beshared. The superintendent now has the responsi-bility to build public relations and support withthe community, staff, teachers, and students tomodel shared accountability. Today, a super-intendent search focuses upon identifyingsomeone who is committed to buildingrelationships, as well as committed to sharingknowledge in the formation of a collaborativeand collegial community.

Essential in this process is the stakeholderbuy-in. If the administrator disregards a staffmember, it will have a negative consequence,just as it would if a teacher disregards a studentin the classroom. The superintendent needs togive every staff and community member a senseof legitimacy. Building relationships breaksdown barriers and allows the community to worktogether, focused on the same purpose.

The Systemsworld and Lifeworld of Schools

Sergiovanni (2000) borrowed the terms "life-world" and "systemsworld" from the Germanphilosopher and sociologist Jürgen Habermas,

who used these terms to describe two mutuallyexclusive, yet interdependent, domains of allsociety's enterprises from the family to the com-plex, formal organization. Both worlds areimportant and have value in reference to schools.The systemsworld is a world of instrumentalitiesof efficient means designed to achieve ends. Itprovides a foundation for the development ofmanagement and of organization and financialcapital that, in turn, contributes to the develop-ment of material capital, which further enrichesthe systemsworld. The systemsworld is a worldof efficiency, outcomes, and productivity.

Systemworld of Schools

Knowledge of systemsworld is essential for theentry-level superintendent, as it is integrated inthe management systems of schools. Systemshelp schools "effectively and efficiently achievetheir goals and objectives" (Sergiovanni, 2000, p.4). At the district level, the systemsworldincludes reporting requirements, data collection,facilities, curriculum, budgeting, communication,human resources, school board, laws, policies,technology, staff development, accreditation,school improvement, district strategic plan,consolidated grant applications, and fundingresources. These systems at the district levelhave a significant impact on vision and missiondevelopment. Systems at the state and federallevel, such as federal laws, teacher certification,funding models, accreditation, technology, andconsolidated funding, effect district planning anddecision making. Maintaining internal coherenceis difficult when trying to meet state and federalsystem requirements.

Lifeworld of Schools

Lifeworld of the school is incorporated in itsculture, meaning, and significance (Sergiovanni,2000). The lifeworld of the school includes theculture and operating principles of the learningorganization. Sergiovanni (2000) stated thatculture is the essence of values and beliefs; the

13



expression of needs, purposes, and desires ofpeople; and about the sources of deep satis-faction in the form of meaning and significance.The lifeworld provides the foundation for thedevelopment of social, intellectual, and otherforms of human capital that contribute, in turn, tothe development of cultural capital, which thenfurther enriches the lifeworld itself. The district'sculture is determined by the values and beliefs ofthe district, which are expressed through visionand mission. The heart of instruction, and doingwhat is best for students, is associated with thelifeworld and learning organization business.

Through the interplay of the state and federalsystems, school districts lose a large portion oftheir local control. Senge, Kleiner, Roberts,Smith, and Ross (1994) cited that 85% of theproblem when trying to make sustainable changeis due to systems conflict or influx. The newsuperintendent's challenge is to facilitate thedevelopment of a vision and mission thatthrives and is operational within the imposedsystemsworld. It is essential that the vision andmission bridge the lifeworld with the sys-temsworld.

When there is a balance of the lifeworld andsystemsworld of a school, these two worldsengage in a symbiotic relationship, which bringstwo dissimilar elements together in a way thatbenefits both. Both have equally valuable stand-ing. This occurs when the lifeworld drives thesystemsworld. However, if the systemsworlddrives the lifeworld, the organizational characterof the school erodes, which may result inmany dysfunctions, including high studentdisengagement and low student performance.Systemsworld conflicts squeeze lifeworldsystems and threaten their effectiveness. Thechallenge of the superintendent is to negotiatewithin the systemsworld while maintaining theintegrity of the lifeworld.

The Process of Developing a Vision andMission

The process of developing a vision and missionpromotes the establishment of relationshipsamong stakeholders, forging a unity and vali-dation of all voices. The very nature of theprocess brings factions together by creatingshared inspiration, thus forming a mental pictureof success. This relationship building will becritical in the successful implementation of thevision and mission. The vision and missionprovides a common language that can be used toclarify the purpose and direction of the district.

Ideally, representatives from all segments of thecommunity are involved in the development ofthe mission statement. The community includesthe students, parents, staff members, and admin-istration, both at the building level and from thecentral office. Each stakeholder is treated as anequal. All brainstormed ideas are accepted as apossible solution. If a unanimous decision cannot be reached, then those who do not agree areasked what it would take to get them to agree. Ifagain a unanimous agreement is not reached,then the group who had resisted would be able tosay that they had their voices heard and will pub-licly support the decision made by consensus.Thus, the process is more important than theproduct. This interest-based agreement processcan be utilized in the process of developing amission statement that is representative of thecommunity.

Small groups work to discuss and identify thevalues, expectations, and aspirations that theyenvision for the school, school district, andschool community. These recommendations aresubmitted to a district steering committee. In theformal planning process, the members of thesteering committee work together to develop adraft of the mission and vision statement of the



14

district. This draft is then disseminated through-out the community for input. Feedback isreceived and modifications and/or changes aremade in the steering committee. The mission andvision statement are submitted to the board forapproval.

Team Building and Group Processing:Developing a Code of Cooperation

Establishing a common mission is essential inorder for the stakeholders to become unified inworking toward a common goal. Team buildinginvolves time to develop productive, professionalrelationships, and networks of support and assis-tance throughout the school. A new superin-tendent, who models and promotes communicationamong the stakeholders, promoting collegialityand collaboration, encourages and facilitatesteam building.

Because every team is made up of individualswho have differing beliefs and values, there is aneed for establishing a process by which thesedifferences can be accepted and the productivityof the group remains intact. Group processingenables a team to determine and utilize operatingprinciples that will enable it to work towards aconsensus.

The Basom Norms (Basom, 2002) were devel-oped for using and gathering data. However, itwould seem that these norms might be applied tothe process of collaboratively developing avision and mission. By regarding these norms asa code of operation and cooperation, a super-intendent can create a basis for collaboration,working as a team, while being focused onspecific needs or goals. The Basom Norms aredefined as follows:

● There is a sense of mutual respect between us.● We take the time to really talk together and

reflect about what each thinks is important.● We listen to each other, even if there are

differences.

● All are accepted and not judged by others inthe conversation.

● The conversation helps strengthen our rela-tionship.

● We will explore questions that matter.● We develop shared meaning that was not there

when we began.● I will learn something new or important.● It will strengthen our mutual commitment.

(Basom, 2002)

Group processing does not necessarily involveall members all the time. However, those whochoose not to participate in the decision-makingprocess must agree to abide by the decisionsmade in their absence. Sufficient consensusmeans that at least 80% of the group is willing tocommit and act. It also means that the othergroup members agree not to sabotage decisionsmade and actions taken. Sufficient consensusrelies on both dialogue and discussion for effec-tiveness (Garmston & Wellman, 1999).

Summary

The vision of a school district is the dream ofwhat the district can become. The mission is howto accomplish the dream. The overall purpose ofa school district is reflected in its mission. It isthe gateway for guiding decisions and changemodels, reflecting the core values and moral pur-pose of the community. Understanding the moraland cultural values of a district enables a leaderto move the educational community in a focusedand positive manner.

Vision and mission statements are uniqueproducts created from the coming together ofdiverse ideas and attitudes. However, there arecommon characteristics to which vision andstatements can achieve. The vision and missionof the district should reflect high ideals and stan-dards. Thus, the vision and mission substantiatethe moral purpose and worth of the organization.

15



Fullan (2001) described moral purpose asactively pursuing a greater good. Only whenvision is joined with action can change reshapethe culture of the learning community.

The written vision and mission should be wellarticulated and easily understood by all con-stituents. The language should convey a clearunderstanding to every audience. The districtmay choose to produce a written statement thatis short, precise, and easy to recall. The keyvariable as described by Edmonds (1979) is theproportion of adults in the school communitywho know, understand, and can communicatethe organizations major purpose.

Beyond the written message seen hanging onthe walls, printed on district letterhead, or pub-lished in school handbooks, the incidentalbenefits resulting from the experience ofdeveloping a mission and vision provide thefoundation for lasting cultural change within alearning community. The power is in theprocess of the development and implementationof the mission and vision. Incidental benefitsinclude relationship building, validation ofindividual ideas, and the development of acommon language.

REFERENCES

Basom, M. (2002, November). Extraordinary people - extraordinary results. WyomingSchool Boards Association Newsletter.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development.

Edmonds, R. R. (1979, October). Effective schools for the urban poor. EducationalLeadership, 15-18, 20-24.

Elmore, R. F. (2002, May). Hard questions about practice: Beyond instructional leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8).

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Garmston, R. J., & Wellman, B. M. (1999). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing collaborative groups. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997, Jan/Feb). The work of leadership. HarvardBusiness Review, 75(1), 124-134.

Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Neely, R., Berube, W., & Wilson, J. (2002, October). The entry plan. School Administrator.

Schlechty, P. C. (2001). Shaking up the schoolhouse. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Smith, B., & Ross, R. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2000). The lifeworld of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1990). Value-added leadership: How to get extraordinary performance in schools. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.

Tollett, D. (2002, November). Creating a vision for your district. Paper presented at the Wyoming School Boards Association Convention, Casper, Wyoming.

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 yearsof research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

William Berube is a Professor in theDepartment of Educational Leadership atthe University of Wyoming. His areas ofspecialization are school law, district and



16

school culture, personnel, human relations, anddecision making. Robin Dexter is an AssistantProfessor in the Department of EducationalLeadership at the University of Wyoming. Herareas of specialization are leadership for ruralschools, instructional leadership, and schoolimprovement. Robert McCarthy is an AssistantProfessor in the Department of EducationalLeadership at the University of Wyoming.His areas of specialization are middle school

education, labor relations and negotiations,scheduling and budgeting, school restructuring,and career planning.

Correspondence concerning this article shouldbe addressed to Dr. William Berube, Professor,University of Wyoming, Department ofEducational Leadership, Dept. 3374, 1000 E.University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071Email: [email protected]

17


Leslie S. Kaplan & William A. Owings

Spending and Student Achievement: Policy and Spending Implications for School Boards

Leslie S. KaplanNewport News Public Schools

William A. OwingsOld Dominion University

Abstract

In a climate of high public accountability for student learning, superintendents and school boardsneed to understand that money should be spent in schools to get the "biggest bang for the instruc-tional buck." Reviewing Effective Schools Research and studies on educational spending and studentachievement can help educational leaders focus their resources appropriately.

Introduction

"Student achievement is the ultimate measure ofeducational value" (Lashway, 2002, p. 1).

School boards "provide the crucial link betweenpublic values and professional expertise"(Resnick, 1999, p. 6).

Today's superintendents and school boardsfind themselves in a dilemma. The federal NoChild Left Behind Act of 2001 requires annualstudent achievement testing and demonstratedAdequate Yearly Progress in reading and mathfor all student subgroups. Local newspaperspublish each school's achievement results; andthe community knows how well (or not) itsschools are performing by these empiricalmeasures. Meanwhile, the state educationalagency sets educational standards, and individualschools deliver instruction. As a result, localschool boards find their authority and flexibilityrestricted when setting learning goals, hiringteachers, or operating the district. Given thesenew realities, superintendents are helping localboards define their new role in improving stu-dent learning and assuring that the communityreceives educational value from its schools by

emphasizing Effective Schools Correlates andresearch on spending and student achievement.

With what Carver called the "ironic combinationof micromanagement and rubber stamping aswell as . . . tradition-blessed practices that triv-ialize the board's important public policy role"(2000, p. 1), school boards usually leave studentlearning to the educational professionals. Boardsdo not exist to run schools but to govern thosewho do. In this corporate model, with operationalresponsibility only for their own activities−−suchas setting agenda and conducting meetings−−boards govern by developing policies that definedesired ends and acceptable means of reachingthem. Superintendents work within theselimits; and boards evaluate superintendents'performance accordingly.

In today's high accountability climate, however,the public expects superintendents and schoolboards to take concrete and dynamic leadershiproles in improving student learning through theirpolicies and decisions. The National SchoolBoards Foundation (1999) announcement thatschool boards' primary goal must be to improvestudent academic achievement and the NationalSchool Boards Association's adoption of student



18

achievement improvement as its major objective(Speer, 1998) have focused board attention onteaching and learning results as a test of theirown effectiveness. School board effectivenessbegins, therefore, with what Lezotte and Jacoby(1992) called a clear and focused mission for aculture of learning for all students.

Helping school boards use this clear and focusedmission to positively impact student learningrequires that district leaders understand how andwhere school board actions on spending canmake meaningful differences in studentachievement. As Rice comments, ". . . whileschool board members are not professionaleducators, they have important responsibilitiesrelated to teaching and learning . . . and thelearning environment. Their job is to work withthe superintendent to create the conditions for aprofessional learning community to thrive so thatall schools can generate results for children"(2000, p. 2).

This article describes the current thinking andresearch on financing student achievement with-in the context of Effective Schools Correlates.Moreover, it shows where school boards andtheir spending policies and practices make thegreatest measurable positive impact on studentachievement.

School Board Policies Can Impact StudentAchievement

Today's school boards risk being judgedunsuccessful if they do not develop policies andsupport, oversee, and evaluate programs specif-ically aimed at improving or producing highstudent academic achievement. Through policyfocus on hiring and developing instructionalleadership; creating a school and district-wideclimate of high expectations for success; fre-quent monitoring and communication of studentprogress; and building strong home-school

relations that actively nurture student learning;school boards and superintendents foster asuccessful school community. Although theresearch is limited (Goodman, Fulbright, &Zimmerman, 1997; National School BoardsFoundation, 1999), school board policies canmeasurably influence student achievement.

The National School Boards Associationemphasizes using policy alignment as a means toaffect student learning. McKay and Newcomb(2002) noted that boards, who are ultimatelyaccountable for student achievement, should takea systems approach that ensures consistencyamong goals, plans, resources, capacity, incen-tives, and assessments. School board support forimproving student learning can come throughestablishing a clear and focused mission forexcellence, advocating for that vision by mobi-lizing public support, providing adequateresources, directing resources where they can dothe most good, and holding programs and peopleaccountable for the instructional leadershipnecessary for success.

Likewise, according to Elmore (1993), definingan appropriate role for local school districtsinvolves providing checks and balances to stateand federal actions, adapting state reforms tolocal conditions, mobilizing local support, andserving as a creative and innovate source.Although Elmore's research found uneven per-formance and weakness in influencing teaching,he found that active district involvement couldstimulate reform activity at the school level.

Meanwhile, Goodman et al. (1997) studied 10districts in five states and found that districtswith quality governance tended to have greaterstudent achievement as indirectly measured bydropout rates, the percentage of students goingto college, and aptitude test scores. While theresearchers described the quality factors−−beginning with a clear focus on student

19



achievement and policy−−they did not, however,describe how they measured the quality variablesor how the quality variables were empiricallylinked to student achievement.

In another study, the Iowa Association of SchoolBoards (2001) found that certain board attitudes,knowledge, and behaviors are correlated withstudent achievement and are key parts of a cul-ture of improvement. Boards in high achievingdistricts fully invest themselves in the climate ofhigh expectations for success. They believe thatall children have the capacity to achieve, do notaccept student limitations as unchangeable, andunderstand how key school reform elements suchas shared leadership and data-driven decisionmaking are operating in their districts. This beliefdifference appears, as well, through the districts'administrators and teachers. Although based ona very small sample (six schools), the studysuggested that board actions are key parts of aculture of improvement. Land (2002) noted, aswith the Goodman et al (1997) study, that theIowa study did not analyze whether or howstrongly each individual board difference wasrelated to students' academic achievement.Likewise, McCarthy and Celio (2001) found thateducators in Washington schools who fail tomake progress on state standards cited little dis-trict level performance pressure, and theboards seemed disengaged.

Unfortunately, to mobilize and direct neededresources, educational leaders must first chal-lenge the popular but mistaken idea thatincreased funding does not affect studentachievement. Knowing a brief history behind thecurrent school spending and student achievementdebate provides a context for informed decision-making about spending school funds.

Popular Misconceptions in Understanding theRelationship Between School Funding andAchievement

In 1966, the Coleman Report changed the pub-lic's attitude about education spending. Federallyfunded as a part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,the Coleman study focused on racial segregationand educational inequality by examining schools'physical facilities, curriculum, teacher charac-teristics, and student achievement as measuredby standardized test scores. The study alsofactored in student self-attitudes and academicgoals, socioeconomic status, and parent edu-cation levels.

Politicians and social scientists originally mis-interpreted the findings of Coleman’s (1966)study as saying that schools had little impact onstudent achievement outside of the students'family background. The study appeared to saythat educational inputs (student-teacher ratio,funding resources, teaching practices, quality ofschool facilities) did not contribute much tostudent achievement (outputs). Instead, parentaleducation and affluence had more impact onstudents' learning in school than anything theschools or teachers did in the classroom. In brief,the students of affluent, well-educated parentsbecame smarter in school, while the economi-cally disadvantaged students of poorly-educatedparents did not. Arguably, Coleman's report maywell have been the impetus for researchers tostudy what is now known as the characteristics ofEffective Schools.

Less well know studies, such as Welch (1966)and Johnson and Stafford (1972), concurrent withColeman (1966), indicated positive connectionsbetween school spending and student outcomes.



20

Instead of using student achievement on a standardized test as the output variable, theseeconomists examined the individuals' later earn-ings in the labor force and found a significantassociation between adult earnings and schoolspending. Likewise, Verstegan and King (1998)stated that these positive findings have beenstrong and consistent over time. Unfortunately,the widespread media play of Coleman's studyseriously overshadowed the others with differentfindings.

In this vein, researcher Hanushek (1981, 1996)published meta-analyses of existing studies andfound that the relationship between spending andstudent achievement was neither strong nor con-sistent given the way the government currentlyfunded education. With titles such as ThrowingMoney at Schools and The Case for EqualizedMediocrity: School Finance Reform WithoutConsideration of School Performance, Hanushekincited public and policy opinion againstincreased education funding.

Similarly, William Bennett (1993), U.S.Secretary of Education from 1985 to 1988,openly challenged public education funding,citing his own per pupil spending study and SATscores to justify that education spending wasunrelated to student achievement. He concludedthat the states with the highest SAT scores−−Iowa, North and South Dakota, Utah, andMinnesota−−spent low amounts per pupil.Students could show high academic achieve-ment, Bennett concluded, without high schoolfunding levels. Public education did not needmore money, he logically asserted, in order toassure student learning gains.

Regrettably, the Secretary's misleading argumentomitted the essential fact that these five mid-western states have a very low percentage ofSAT-taking students: only those few elite stu-dents seeking admission to highly competitive,prestigious Ivy League schools. They would,necessarily, have high SAT scores and test well

above the mean. In this region, moreover, mostcollege bound students take a different admis-sions test, the ACT. As such, Midwestern SATstudents did not accurately represent the normalnational population distribution, and drawingsuch conclusions about education spending andachievement on that basis was invalid.

On the other hand, appropriately designed andconducted research can inform us aboutspending and student achievement. First, anoverview describes the fallacy of using industrialproduction function studies to draw implicationsabout education spending. Next, the articlereviews research on spending and studentachievement and discusses how several charac-teristics of Effective Schools−−teacher quality,professional development, as well as reducedclass and school size, teacher salaries, and schoolfacilities−−impact student achievement. Together,it illustrates how knowledgeable advocates caninvest limited budget monies with maximumpayoff into those areas with demonstrated con-nections to student achievement gains.

Why the Coleman Study Approach Does NotWork for Education

According to Thompson and Wood (2001), con-clusions about the seeming lack of relationshipbetween spending and student achievement areboth incomplete and unsatisfying. Intuitively, itmakes sense to believe that either increasedspending on education will produce betterstudent achievement or at least not decrease it−−or that spending less money will certainly notincrease student achievement. Alternately, itseems logical that if spending more money doesnot guarantee better student achievement,spending less can certainly harm it. ContinuingSecretary Bennett's faulty logic, however, thebest education would cost nothing−−a conclusionno reasonable person could reach. Sadly, exactanswers surrounding the relationship betweenspending and student achievement remainincomplete and confusing.

21



For example, Edley (1991) and Alexander andSalmon (1995) proposed that production functionstudies such as the Coleman study methodologyare inappropriate models for education. Sucheconomic models for study in industry appli-cations are quite precise. For instance, anindustrial treatment might legitimately examinethe following question:

Given a productivity rate per line worker of15 widgets1 per hour (where P is the produc-tivity rate), what would happen to daily out-put (where O is the daily output), if workingconditions changed by lowering summer airconditioning temperatures on the factoryfloor from 80 degrees to 75 degrees (where tis the temperature)?

The equation might look like this:

P = (t)O

In this case, the workplace temperature would beadjusted, and the increased utilities cost would bemeasured against the anticipated increase inwidget production. If the increased cost resultedin increased profit, the change would occur.

In this example and most industrial situations,the factory's supply of widget parts undergoes asystematic, rigid, quality control check. The pro-duction line does not accept defective widgets.Through many studies, all widget processes areknown to take the same average assembly time.All widget workers work at approximately thesame rate. Workers who produce significantlymore widgets per hour may receive higher payrates. Widget workers who produce significantlyfewer widgets per hour are fired.

Education, unlike industrial productivity models,uses no quality control factors (other than studentage and home address) for the supply of students(product) entering the schooling process. Parentssend us the best children they have. Therefore,

students enroll with varying levels of readinessto get along well with others in an extendedsocial (classroom or playground) situation, withdifferent degrees of reading and math pre-paredness and ability, varying beliefs aboutschools' value in their lives, and wide-rangingfamily backgrounds. Some children come toschool loved and nurtured. Others come toschool abused and neglected. Some arrive daily,prepared to learn while others arrive late or areabsent frequently, unable to benefit from class-room instructional activities.

Moreover, in education, not only does theproduct quality vary, the production process inschools varies. Unlike industry, education'sproduction process is not standardized. Not allstudents move through the same productionprocess. School cultures differ about philo-sophical beliefs concerning teaching and learningand the expectations held for different students.Teacher quality varies from classroom to class-room, school to school, and district to district.Professional development varies in quality andfrequency. School physical conditions vary, thesafe and orderly environment essential to effec-tive teaching and learning may or may not bepresent, class size fluctuates, teacher experienceand education levels differ, and educatorfinancial compensation depends on geographiclocation, job title, responsibilities, years ofservice, and advanced degrees completed anddoes not relate to their student achievementgains. Most importantly, per pupil spendingvaries significantly from state to state and fromdistrict to district; how those funds are applieddoes also.

This is not to say that examining the inputs andoutputs of education (production functionstudies) cannot be useful in our profession.What must be said, however, is that themethods, variables, and outputs examined arecomplicated, not lending themselves to soundbite answers.



22

What valid and reliable information is availableabout spending public monies and the associatedstudent achievement gains? How can publicfunds be best spent in order to promote studentachievement? What characteristics of EffectiveSchools indicate where increased funding mightresult in increased student achievement? Recenteducation finance studies and decades ofEffective Schools literature prove valuable inanswering these questions.

What the Research Shows About Money andStudent Achievement

Overall Spending and Increased Achievement

As mentioned, studies contemporary withColeman's 1966 Report showed positive associ-ations between school spending and workforceearnings. In fact, Baker's (1991) and Hedges,Laine, and Greenwald's (1994) reanalysis ofHanushek's work concluded that money doesmatter to student achievement. Hedges et al.(1994) acknowledged that upon reviewing thedata most often used to deny that resources arerelated to achievement, money does matterafter all. In a study by Cooper et al (1994), alsoconducted at the same time as Coleman's, it wasdetermined that per pupil expenditures, con-trolling for other factors, was significantlyrelated to student outcomes. In addition,Verstegan and King wrote, "This body of workprovides further evidence that school resourceinputs make a difference in improving the educa-tional outcomes of students" (1998, pp. 1-2).

Likewise, many other studies show positiverelationships between increased spending oneducation and student achievement. Fortune andO'Neil (1994), using an improved model forexamining production function studies, foundsignificant increases in student achievement withincreases in instructional expenditures. In addi-tion, Verstegan (1994) observed that overallschool revenue accounted for about one third ofthe variance in school achievement scores.

The data show that increased spending focusedon delivery of quality instruction directly tostudents produces the greatest achievementreturn for the dollars spent. The followingsections provide evidence that increasedspending on teacher quality, professional devel-opment for staff, reduced class size and schoolsize, increased teacher salaries, and improvedschool facilities also produce a significant returnon investment for fostering student achievementgains.

Teacher Quality and Student Achievement

Baker affirmed, "We know what constitutes goodteaching, and we know that good teaching canmatter more than student family backgroundsand economic status" (1991, p. 1). Parents havelong known that teacher quality matters.Concerned, involved, and informed parentsrequest certain teachers for their children wherethis practice is permitted. Research now supportswhat many have known intuitively−−that thequality of the teacher and teaching effectivenessare the most powerful predictors of studentsuccess. In fact, Minner stated "Teacher qualityis not just an important issue facing the nation'sschools: It is the [sic] issue" (2001, p. 33).

Darling-Hammond (2000) found that teacherquality variables, such as full certification andcompleting a major in the teaching field, aremore important to student outcomes in readingand math than are student demographic variablessuch as poverty, minority status, and languagebackground. Formal teacher preparation,according to Darling-Hammond, accounts for40% to 60% of the total variance in studentachievement controlling for the students' demo-graphic background.

Darling-Hammond (2000) confirmed theEffective Schools Correlates regarding teacherquality and teacher effectiveness, and furtheridentifies the following teacher quality factorsrelated to increased student achievement:

23



●● Verbal ability●● Content knowledge●● Education methods coursework related to their

discipline●● Licensing exam scores that measure basic skills

and teaching knowledge●● Skillful teaching behaviors●● Ongoing professional development●● Enthusiasm for learning●● Flexibility, creativity, and adaptability●● Teaching experience (those with fewer than

three years experience tend to be less effec-tive, but there appears to be little evidence thatmore than three years produces greater studentachievement)

●● Asking higher order questions (application,analysis, synthesis, and evaluation as opposedto recognition and recall questions) and probingstudent responses

Moreover, value added studies in Texas andTennessee indicated explicitly how much of anachievement difference teacher quality makesin student achievement as measured by stan-dardized test results.2 In the Texas study, Jordan,Mendro, and Weerasinge (1997) estimated thatwhen students are assigned to effective teachersfor three consecutive years, reading scores risefrom the 59th percentile to the 76th percentilefrom grades 4 through 6. On the other hand,scores for students assigned to ineffectiveteachers for three consecutive years droppedfrom the 60th percentile in grade 4 to the 42ndpercentile by grade 6, a 35-percentile pointdecline for students who started at approximatelythe same achievement level three years earlier.

The Tennessee value added study providedsimilar results. Again, Sanders and Rivers'(1996) study showed dramatic differences appearafter students studying three consecutive yearswith effective versus ineffective teachers. Whileno significant differences existed among mathgroups at the start of the fourth grade, by theend of sixth grade, the group assigned to threeconsecutive years with effective teachers had

estimated math scores at the 83rd percentilewhile the group with three consecutive yearswith the ineffective teachers scored at the 29thpercentile.

With NCLB requirements that all subgroupsshow Adequate Yearly Progress, teacher qualityand teacher effectiveness become more crucial.Haycock, Jerald, and Huang (2001) wrote thatdata taken from the 1998 National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP) indicated thateffective teachers make a difference in minorityachievement. For example, on the NAEP Writingtest in grade 8, Texas African American studentsscored 146 points while Arkansas AfricanAmerican students scored 121 points, a 25-pointdifference worth two and one-half years oflearning. Likewise, Latino students in Virginiascored 146 points on the NAEP Writing testwhile Latino students in Mississippi scored 106points, a 40-point difference worth four years oflearning.

At testing time, both Texas and Virginia had beenhigh-stakes testing states for several years beforetesting, using focused and public goals withsanctions for schools and students who did notachieve at predetermined levels. Arkansas andMississippi were not. One can assume that Texasand Virginia teachers felt explicit, clear, andfocused pressures for all students to achieve athigh levels so that even traditionally lowerachieving students mastered the standard cur-riculum and used those effective practices intheir classrooms to bring more children acrossthe bar.

Similarly, Weglinsky's (2000) analyses of 1996NAEP eighth grade math and science scoresdetermined that student, whose teachers eithermajored or minored in the subjects they taught,outperformed their peers by approximately 40%of one grade level. Eighth graders scored 39%higher in math than their peers when taught byteachers who stressed critical thinking skills,such as writing about math. Haycock (1998)


24Spending and Student Achievement: Policy and Spending Implications for School Boards

suggested that teacher content knowledge inEnglish and social sciences may be just asimportant to student achievement.

Such studies concluded that actual teachingperformance−−not just courses taken−−makesa significant difference in student achievement;and teacher education accrediting bodies are nowrecognizing this. Since 2001, the NationalCouncil for Accreditation of Teacher Education(NCATE) (2000) uses a performance-basedaccreditation system that looks more closely atthe teacher candidate's work, subject knowledge,and demonstrated teaching skills, rather thanonly inputs and processes not directly related toclassroom practice. By refocusing attention toinclude actual teaching practices, this nationalstandards organization affirms the EffectiveSchools Correlates that teachers' pedagogy withstudents inside the classroom increases theirlearning and underpins teacher effectiveness andstudent achievement.

Knowing how much high quality teachers andteaching contribute to student achievement,education dollars appear best spent in hiringand keeping the highest quality teachers.Interviewing, hiring, and inducting practices thatinclude looking for the characteristics mentionedearlier; providing a positive school culture andprofessional work environment with a climate ofhigh expectations for all students' success; andimplementing salary structures designed to max-imize hiring, developing, and retaining teacherswho produce the most student learning may bethe best uses of limited education dollars. Theseare clearly characteristics of effective schools.

Professional Development and StudentAchievement

Once employed, professional development playsan important role in strengthening and retainingthe highest quality teachers. New teachers canget better, marginal teachers can improve, andsuccessful teachers can continue to increase their

expertise through well-designed professionaldevelopment programs. As instructional leaders,principals know that quality professional devel-opment programs positively impact studentachievement. Every extra factor that providesteachers with techniques for individualizinginstruction increases student attainment.Weglinsky's (2000) 1996 NAEP data studies alsoindicated that professional development incultural diversity, teaching techniques foraddressing needs of students with limitedEnglish proficiency, and teaching studentsidentified with special education needs arelinked to higher student achievement in math.These customized instructional approaches cre-ate more opportunity to learn for students whoneed varied instructional practices to gainknowledge and skills.

Not all professional development programs,however, are equally effective. Effective profes-sional development programs are practical,on-going, and integral to the school. They fostera staff culture of mutual learning, monitoring,professional confidence, and commitment tocollaboration. Moreover, this adult learning ishighly connected to what teachers actually do intheir classrooms. Professional developmentthat describes specific teaching behaviors andconstructs provides a faculty with a commonlanguage to address teaching and learning col-laboratively. Monroe (1999) noted that onceteachers receive a systematic study of learningprocesses that allow them to reflect and addresstheir own teaching and learning beliefs andpractices, they can analyze and improve whatthey do in the classroom. Given this opportunity,faculty can then address students' learning needsfrom a variety of strategies with a commonlanguage to help all students learn and achievemore effectively.

In other research, Hirsh, Koppich, and Knapp(1998) found that when professional developmentis sustained over time and based on curriculumstandards, teachers are more likely to adopt

25



new and reform-based teaching practices.Subsequently, their students achieve at higherlevels on standardized tests. Having motivationalspeakers address the faculty at the start of theschool may be good for short-term morale, butsuch practices should not be confused with a pro-fessional development program for buildingpositive school culture that has a lasting impacton student learning.

In addition, Scribner (1999) observed thatteachers who have high expectations for successand believe that their instructional practices havea direct impact on student achievement are morelikely to seek out and implement new teachingand learning techniques. Armed with newinformation and invested in their on-going pro-fessional growth, teachers gain confidence abouttheir teaching skills, reflect on their practices,and seek professional colleagues' advice to max-imize student achievement. In short, professionaldevelopment, often cited in Effective Schoolsliterature, can help create a systemic reculturingof teaching for learning within the school.

Reduced Class Size and Student Achievement

Teachers and parents have long known that allelse being equal, smaller class size allows

teachers to spend more time meeting individualstudent needs. Smaller class sizes increasestudent opportunity to learn, may increase class-room safety and orderliness, and often facilitateshome-school communication. California's legis-lature appropriated $1 billion starting in the1996-97 school year to lower class size in gradesK through 3 from almost 30 to 20. New Yorkfollowed suit and in 1999 President Clinton's FY-99 budget included $12 billion to states to reduceK through 3 class size.

Salaries consume the lion's share of educationbudgets. Hiring more qualified teachers toreduce overall class size, building additionalclassrooms for the extra teachers, and providingthe resources associated with each additionalteacher and classroom pose difficult policyquestions for district-level leaders. Does theincreased cost of decreasing class size produceenough achievement gain to warrant spendinglimited resources towards that end or do otherand more cost productive ways exist to increasestudent achievement?

For many years, researchers have studied theimpact of class size on student achievement. Inearly studies, Walberg (1984) seemed to castdoubt about the efficacy of spending money to

Figure 1The Normal Distribution


26Spending and Student Achievement: Policy and Spending Implications for School Boards

reduce class size. One early research reviewexamined 27 alterable variables associated withstudent achievement and found class size to bean ineffective means of improving studentachievement−−ranking 25th of the 27 variableswith an estimated effect size of only 0.09 (Effectsize is a measurement of change in standarddeviation units. Therefore, an effect size of 1.0would mean a difference in scores of one stan-dard deviation). Robinson and Wittebols (1986)also reviewed the class size literature and statedthat from a policy standpoint, reducing class sizemay be a prohibitively expensive method toincrease student achievement.

More positively, Stecher, Bohrnstedt, Kirst,McRobbie, and Williams (2001) described howthe Tennessee study's successfully controlledexperiments of class size reduction in primarygrades showed positive results. The Teacher/Student Achievement Ratio, or STAR, programinvolved over 12,000 students for four yearsusing fully-qualified, experienced teachers and arelatively homogeneous student population. Thishighly controlled longitudinal study indicated

that attending a small class for three consecutiveyears in grades K through 3 is associated withsustained academic benefits in all school subjectsthrough grade 8. Robinson (1990) concluded thatconsecutive years in small classes had the mosteffect on minority and inner-city students.

In an American Educational ResearchAssociation (AERA) report, Zurawsky (2003)indicated that even when students return tonormal-sized classrooms in 4th grade,achievement gains are maintained. Moreover,Nye, Hodges, and Konstantopoulos's (2000)analysis and Robinson's (1990) review andsynthesis of more than 100 class-size studiessuggested that the most positive effect of smallclasses appears in kindergarten to third grade formathematics and reading test scores, with resultsconsistent across schools. In another study,Addonizio and Phelps (2000) reviewed the ben-efits and costs of class size reduction of severalwell-researched studies. Figure 2 shows the costeffectiveness of class size on the effect size ofstudent performance from that study.

0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00

30.0

0

25.0

0

21.4

3

18.7

5

16.6

7

15.0

0

13.6

4

12.5

0

Class Size

Out

com

e

Figure 2Cumulative Effect Size at Various Resource Levels

27



Unfortunately, Robinson's (1990) findings inseveral studies indicated that the advantages ofsmall classes, defined as 13 to 19 pupils, may notcontinue in later school years. Likewise, Stecheret al. (2001) noted that cost effectiveness studiesof various strategies for improving studentlearning indicated that reducing class size has asmall positive effect on achievement comparedto many less costly strategies. Decreased classsize is, at times, associated with an increase inthe cost of additional teachers, and frequently,additional classrooms.

Moreover, lowering licensure/teacher qualityregulations to attract additional candidates oflesser quality could negate the impact of classsize. Stecher et al. (2001) concluded thatCalifornia's class size reduction experienceincreased the teacher workforce by 38% but thedrop in teacher quality disproportionatelyaffected urban districts already challenged bypoverty, overcrowding, and language barriers. Inthis case, more (lower quality) teachers withfewer students did not increase studentachievement.

Although class size has decreased rather consis-tently since 1960, research does not support theexpectations that just reducing class size resultsin greater academic gains. Class size effects varyby grade level, pupil characteristics, subjectareas, teaching methods, and other variables.Nevertheless, research affirms that class sizeappears to matter most for reading and math atthe early elementary years for all students andespecially for at-risk students. Reducing classsize without simultaneously improving teacherand teaching quality appears to be both expen-sive and often ineffective.

Reduced School Size and Student Achievement

Recent substantial grant awards from the Bill andMelinda Gates Foundation to large urban schooldistricts to create smaller schools would lead oneto believe that reduced school size is associated

with increased student achievement. Ideally,smaller schools would have safer and moreorderly climates and positive school cultures;increased interactions and enhanced relationshipsbetween teachers, students, and parents; andadditional opportunities to enact EffectiveSchools characteristics. Recent research fuelsthese grant awards.

In fact, a 2002 study by Ohio researchersJohnson, Howley, and Howley (2002) for theRural School and Community Trust in a eight-state study (Alaska, Arkansas, California,Georgia, Montana, Ohio, Texas, and WestVirginia) found that smaller schools reduce theharmful effects of poverty on student achieve-ment and help students from less affluentcommunities narrow the academic achievementgap between them and students from wealthiercommunities. The implication is that the lessaffluent a community, the smaller the school andschool district serving that community should bein order to maximize student achievement.

Two Education Commission of the States (2004,2005) reports detailed the benefits of reducedschool size. Although the reports found noconsensus on the actual size of a small school,the selected enrollment ranges from 200 to 900students. The reports drew four conclusions.First, as schools got smaller, they producedbetter student performance results in terms ofstudent attendance, test scores, graduation rates,and participation in extracurricular activities.Second, parents also appeared to like the com-munication and participation levels in smallerschools, thereby increasing parent satisfactionratings. Third, teachers appeared to like smallerschools, reporting they felt an ability to make areal difference in student learning. And last, thereport indicated that smaller schools tend to pro-duce a safer learning environment for students.All reflect Effective Schools characteristics.

Certainly, smaller schools appear to be moreexpensive to operate on a per-pupil basis, there-



28

by reducing efficiency. The above-mentionedreport suggests that smaller schools may be morecost effective, however, when considered on acost per graduate basis in that there are fewerdropouts in smaller schools. Furthermore, a2002-2003 Ohio Study (KnowledgeWorksFoundation, 2005) showed that it is possible toconstruct smaller schools on a cost effectivebasis with real economic and social advantagesfor the community.

Further, a 2002 Education Commission of theStates report (De Cesare, 2002) cited six studiesand seven Web sites with research dealing withschool size. Smaller high schools in this study,defined as 600 or fewer students, had higher tra-ditionally-calculated per-pupil costs, but highergraduation rates and lower dropout rates. Again,considering cost per graduate, the operating costswere, therefore, less than in larger schools.

Likewise, Stiefel, Berne, Iatarola, and Fruchter's(2000) study examined more than 140 schoolsand 50,000 students in the New York City PublicSchools. They found ". . . that a combined out-put and cost measure, budget per graduate,shows that small academic high schools havebudgets per graduate similar to those of largehigh schools (greater than 2,000). For smallacademic high schools, this result is due to theirvastly lower dropout rates. Smaller medium-sized vocational schools (600-1200 students) andsmall alternative transfer high schools have thehighest budgets per graduate" (pp. 36-37).

Certainly, means exist for decreasing largeschools' functional size by implementing aschool-within-a-school concept. Smaller schoolsorganized within a larger school may be a cost-efficient way to achieve the benefits of smallerschools. This school-within-a-school approachestablishes a smaller educational unit with a sep-arate educational program within the largerschool; it has its own staff and students, and itsown budget. Several cities, including New YorkCity, Philadelphia, and Chicago, have experi-

mented with this model to downsize largerschools to reap smaller and effective schoolbenefits.

The school-within-a-school must negotiate theuse of common space such as the gym, audi-torium, and playground with a host school, anddefer to the building principal on safety andbuilding operation. The school-within-a-schooloften reports to a district official instead of beingresponsible to the building principal. Ideally, theteachers and students choose to affiliate with theschool-within-a-school.

Raywid (1985) concluded, "The major challengeto schools-within-schools has been obtainingsufficient separateness and autonomy to permitstaff members to generate a distinctive envi-ronment and to carry out their own vision ofschooling" (p. 455). This involves professionaldevelopment and time to develop and enact theireducational vision. In addition, too small doesexist when the school size does not provide thenecessary services and courses to support studentlearning and high achievement.

Teacher Salaries and Student Achievement

To be sure, controversy surrounds the issue ofteacher salaries and student achievement. Manzo(2004) wrote that teachers' salaries have slipped15 percent since 1993 and 12 percent since 1983after adjusting for inflation. Teacher salaries arenow well below those of comparable professions,complicating efforts to attract and keep highlyqualified educators. Although teachers tend toreceive benefits, their health insurance andpensions are not valuable enough to offset thewage differential. Nor do teachers receive paidleave, bonuses, or overtime available in otherprofessions.

Virtually no one doubts that higher salaries willattract brighter, more talented individuals into aprofession. The Teaching Commission (2004), anon-profit group formed in 2003 to improve

29



teaching, recommended raising teacher basesalaries as a means to make the profession'spay more competitive and attract higher qualityteachers. It is logical to surmise that increasedsalaries will, however, expand the potentialteacher applicant pool. While even Hanushek(2000) agreed that increasing teacher salarieswill expand the potential teacher pool fromwhich a district can choose, he added, "But theinfluence on students depends directly on theability of districts to choose the best teachersfrom the expanded pool. Research shows thatthe typical school district does poorly in thesechoices. The combination of these factorsimplies there is virtually no relationshipbetween teacher salaries and studentachievement" (p.1).

Linking empirical evidence of increased teacherquality with higher teacher salaries is difficultbecause most school districts have salary sched-ules based on years of experience, earneddegrees, and extracurricular supplements.Salaries are not based on student learning orachievement.

While some school districts do not do a goodjob in selecting the highest quality teachers, itis false to imply that no relationship existsbetween salary and student achievement. Theevidence is overwhelming that teacher quality isrelated to student achievement. The varied con-founding factors involved, however, make thisrelationship difficult to clearly measure.

The best advice to superintendents is to do allpossible to increase the district's faculty ofquality teachers. Salary is a proven method ofattracting a larger applicant pool. Selecting thehighest quality teachers from that group iscritical to the Effective Schools goal of increasingstudent achievement. Following up with strong,focused, and on-going professional developmentthat is integral to the school climate can keepteachers improving their professional practice,

increasing their classroom success, and improvingteacher retention.

School Facilities and Student Achievement

A school building's design features and envi-ronmental conditions also affect studentachievement and teacher effectiveness. Schoolfacilities include the Effective SchoolsCorrelates of school climate, a safe and orderlyenvironment, opportunities to learn, and aclimate of high expectations for success−−allessential to effective teaching and learning.

Earthman (2002) described studies that show a 5-to 17-percentile point difference in standardizedtest scores for students in good facilities (well-maintained buildings with comfortable roomand hall temperatures, satisfactory lighting,appropriate noise levels, good roofs, sufficientspace) compared with poor facilities (poorlymaintained, too cold or hot rooms, inadequatelighting, high noise levels, leaky roofs, over-crowding) controlling for the student socioe-conomic status (SES).

In addition, Earthman (2002) reviewed manystudies that use appropriate methodology andexperimental controls related to studentachievement and school facilities. He logicallyconcluded that the following are all prerequisitesfor effective learning:

●● A school's acoustic quality that permits stu-dents to hear clearly and understand what isbeing spoken

●● Rooms maintained within the temperature andhumidity tolerances of 67 degrees to 73 degreesand 50 percent relative humidity (to reduceincidence of illness)

●● Above-standard school buildings that providethe suitable learning environment conditions

Older facilities lack many of the building factorsnecessary for proper learning environments,



30

and accordingly, student achievement in olderbuildings is lower than that of students in newerones. Older facilities, in short, greatly reduce stu-dents' opportunities to learn while jeopardizingtheir safety.

In a study of District of Columbia elementaryschools, Berner (1993) found that if a school dis-trict was to improve conditions of its schoolsfrom poor to excellent, student achievementscores would increase an average of 10.9 per-centile points. The percent of students on free orreduced lunch, mean income in the census tract,and the percentage of white students in the cen-sus tract were used to control for SES.

Furthermore, perception often influences (andperhaps creates) reality. Lowe (1990) found thatteachers in buildings in poor condition stated thatthe facility's design and appearance reducedteachers' high expectations for student successand negatively impacted the learning climate andschool culture, while teachers in buildings ingood condition reported the building positivelyinfluenced the learning climate and school cul-ture. Working in substandard buildings or innewer buildings that are poorly maintained orrepaired harms teacher morale and increasestheir work frustration; these attitudes likelytransfer negatively into their classroomexpectations and practices, reducing studentachievement.

Likewise, students in overcrowded schools andclassrooms do not score as high on achievementtests as students in non-overcrowded schoolsand rooms. Corcoran, Walker, and White (1988)reported that overcrowding resulted in highabsentee rates for students and teachers.Additionally, overcrowded schools are oftennoisier and create more paperwork. Stressfuland unpleasant learning and working condi-tions and related negative attitudes diminishschool culture, lower attendance, reducelearning opportunities, and decrease measuredachievement.

Frustrating efforts to improve school facilities,noted Sack (2004), is the rapidly rising cost ofsteel, concrete, and other construction materials−−often between 15 and 30 percent−−that areforcing some districts that are building newschools to seek additional funds, delay projects,or redesign projects. Prices for nearly every con-struction material have been rising at double-digitpercentages, making serious difficulties for the$29 billion annual school construction industry.These realities present severe fiscal, educational,and moral dilemmas for superintendents, schoolboards, and communities desiring to provideeffective schools for all its students and faculties.

Conclusions

Important questions about the impact of schoolfunding on student achievement lie at the heartof school board policy and superintendents'leadership for learning. With Effective SchoolsResearch linked to spending and studentachievement studies clearly affirming thatmonies carefully targeted on enhancing teachingquality, designing appropriate school organi-zation, and providing healthy and comfortablefacilities make a measurable difference in stu-dent achievement, school and community leadersface serious challenges to finding additionalresources to support these essential aspects ofpublic education.

As Carver (2000) observed, "The board's job isnot to run the schools . . . but to determine asthe public purchasing agent what the public isbuying for the next generation" (pp. 4-5). Theboard's job is to determine what results shouldbe obtained, for which learners, at what cost,as well as setting ethical and prudent boundarieswithin which the system runs. The policy impli-cations of spending for student achievementbelong in this context.

Superintendent leadership and empiricalknowledge about a clear and focused mission oninstructional leadership, positive school culture,

31



and teacher and teaching effectiveness related toschool spending can help school boards set poli-cies that positively impact student achievement.Combining Effective Schools Research withresearch on spending and student achievementclearly has policy implications and is a win-winscenario for all stakeholders in public education.

REFERENCES

Addonizio, M., & Phelps, J. (2000, Fall). Class size and student performance: A frameworkfor policy analysis. Journal of Education Finance, 26, 135-156.

Alexander, K., & Salmon, R. G. (1995). Public school finance. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Baker, K. (1991). Yes, throw money at schools.Phi Delta Kappan, 72(8), 628-30.

Bennett, W. (1993). Report card on American education. Washington, DC: American Legislative Exchange Council.

Berner, M. (1993, April). Building conditions, parental involvement, and student achievement in the District of Columbia public school system. Urban Education, 28(1),6-29.

Carver, J. (2000, March). Toward coherent governance. The School Administrator [Web Edition, 1-9]. Available online at www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2000_03/carver.htm

Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Cooper, B., Sarrel, R., Darvas, P., Alfano, F., Meier, E., & Samuels, J. (1994). Making money matter in education: A micro-financial model for determining school-level allocations, efficiency, and productivity. Journal of Education Finance, 20, 66-87.

Corcoran, T. B., Walker, L. J., & White, J. L. (1988). Working in urban schools.Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000, January). Teacherquality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1. Available online at www.epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1

De Cesare, D. (2002, January-February). When it comes to high schools, does size matter? The Progress of Education Reform: School Size, 3(3). Available online at www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/34/31/3431.pdf

Earthman, G. (2002). School facility conditions and student academic achievement (Williams Watch Series: Investigating the Claims of Williams v. State of California). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA, Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access.

Edley, C. F. (1991, Summer). Lawyers and education reform. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28(2).

Education Commission of the States. (2005). School size: Quick facts. Denver, CO: Author. Available online at: www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=/html/publications.asp

Education Commission of the States. (2004). The progress of education reform: School size. Denver, CO: Author. Available online at http://www.ecs.org/html/issue.asp?print=true&issueID=105&subIssueID=0

Elmore, R. (1993). The role of local school districts in instructional improvement. In S. H.Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy (pp. 96-124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fortune, J., & O'Neil, J. (1994). Production function analyses and the study of educationalfunding equity: A methodological critique. Journal of Education Finance, 20, 21-46.

Goodman, R. H., Fulbright, L., & Zimmerman, W. G. (1997). Getting there from here. School board-superintendent collaboration: Creating a school governance team capable of raising student achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service and New England School Development Council.



32

Hanushek, E. (2000, April 3). The truth about teacher salaries and student achievement. The Weekly Standard (Hoover Institution Weekly Essays). Available online at: www.hoover.Stanford.edu/pubaffairs/we/current/Hanushek_0400.html

Hanushek, E. (1996). The quest for equalized mediocrity: School finance reform without consideration of school performance. In LPicus & J. Wattenbarger (Eds.), Where does themoney go? pp. 20-43 (16th Annual Yearbook ofthe American Education Finance Association).Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hanushek, E. (1981). Throwing money at schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1, 19-41.

Haycock, K. (1998, Summer). Good teaching matters . . . a lot. Thinking K-16, 3, 3-14.

Haycock, K., Jerald, C., & Huang, S. (2001, Spring). Closing the gap: Done in a decade. Thinking K-16, 5, 3-22.

Hedges, L., Laine, R., & Greenwald, R. (1994).Does money matter? A meta-analysis of studies of the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 23, 5-14.

Hirsh, E., Koppich, J. E., & Knapp, M. S. (1998, December). What states are doing to improve the quality of teaching. A brief review of current patterns and trends. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Iowa Association of School Boards. (2001, April). The lighthouse inquiry: School board/superintendent team behaviors in schooldistricts with extreme differences in student achievement. Paper presented at the AmericanEducational Research Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA. Available online at http://www.ia-sb.org

Johnson, G., & Stafford, F. (1972, Spring). Social returns to quantity and quality of schooling. Journal of Human Resources, 8.

Johnson, J. D., Howley, C. B., & Howley, A. A. (2002). Size, excellence, and equity. A report

on Arkansas schools and districts. Athens, OH: Ohio University, College of Education, Educational Studies Department.

Jordan, H., Mendro, R., & Weerasinge, D. (1997, July). Teacher effects on longitudinal student achievement. Paper presented at the CREATE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, IN.

KnowledgeWorks Foundation. (2005). Small schools . . . big results. Cincinnati, OH: Author. Available online at: www.kwfd.org/high_school/big_results/htdocs/background.html

Land, D. (2002, January). Local school boards under review. Their role and effectiveness in relation to students' academic achievement(Report No. 56). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR).

Lashway, L. (2002, December). Using school board policy to improve student achievement. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Clearinghouse on Educational Policy Management, College of Education. (ERIC Digest 163)

Lezotte, L.W., & Jacoby, B. C. (1992). Sustainable school reform: The district context for school improvement. Okemos, MI:Effective Schools Products, Ltd.

Lowe, J. (1990). The interface betweeneducational facilities and learning climate in three elementary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Manzo, K. K. (2004). Study finds teachers are losing ground on salary front. Education Week, 24(1), 12.

McCarthy, M., & Celio, M. B. (2001, October). Washington elementary schools on the slow track under standards-based reform. Making standards work. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education. Available online at http://www.crpe.org/Publications/pubpage.html

33



McKay, A. B., & Newcomb, J. P. (2002). Aligning resources for student achievement. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.

Minner, S. (2001, May 30). Our own worst enemy. why are we so silent on the issue that matters most? Education Week, 20(38), 33.

Monroe, J. (1999, June). Learning more about learning improves teacher effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 151-71.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2000, September). NCATE 2000: Performance-based accreditation. NCATE Making a Difference. Washington, DC: Author.

National School Boards Foundation. (1999). Leadership matters: Transforming urban school boards. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Nye, B., Hodges, L.V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2000, Spring). The effects of small class sizes on academic achievement: The results ofthe Tennessee class size experiment. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 37, 123-51.

Raywid, M. A. (1985). Family choice arrangements in public schools: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 435-467.

Resnick, M. A. (1999). Effective school governance: A look at today's practices and tomorrow's promise. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Rice, R. (2000, September). School boards and student achievement. Iowa School Board Compass, 2, 1- 5.

Robinson, G. E. (1990, April). Synthesis of research on the effects of class size. Educational Leadership, 47, 80-90.

Robinson, G. E., & Wittebols, J. H. (1986). Class size research: A related cluster analysis for decision making. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

Sack, J. L. (2004). Costs climb on materials for schools: Construction projects delayed, scrapped. Education Week, 24(1).

Sanders, R., & Rivers, J. (1996, November). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers onfuture student academic achievement.Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, Tennessee Value Added Assessment System (TVAAS).

Scribner, J. P. (1999, May). Teacher efficacy and teacher professional learning: Implications for school leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 9, 209-34.

Speer, T. L. (1998). Reaching for excellence: What local school districts are doing to raise student achievement. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.

Stecher, B., Bohrnstedt, G., Kirst, M., McRobbie, J., & Williams, T. (2001, June). Class-size reduction in California: A story of hope, promise, and unintended consequences. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 670-74.

Stiefel, L., Berne, R., Iatarola, P., & Fruchter, N.(2000, Spring). High school size: Effects on budgets and performance in New York City. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 22(1), 27-39.

The Teaching Commission. (2004). Teaching at risk: A call to action. New York, NY: Reinventing America's Schools. Available online at: http://theteachingcommission.org/press/FINAL_Report.pdf

Thompson, D., & Wood, C. (2001). Money and schools. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc.

Verstegan, D. (1994). Efficiency and equity in the provision and reform of American schooling. Journal of Education Finance, 20, 107-131.

Verstegan, D., & King, R. (1998, Fall). The relationship between school spending and student achievement: A review and analysis of35 years of production function research. Journal of Education Finance, 24(2), 243-62.

Walberg, H. (1984). Improving the productivityof America's schools. Educational Leadership,19-27.



34

Weglinsky, H. (2000, October). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into the discussions of teacher quality (Policy Information Center Report). Princeton, NJ: Milken Family Foundation, Educational Service.

Welch, F. (1966, May). Measurements of the quality of schooling. American Educational Research Association Papers and Proceedings, 56.

Zurawsky, C. (2003). Class size: Counting students does count. Research Points, 1(2). Available online at: http://www.aera.net/gov/archive/r0699-01.htm

END NOTES

1. Widget is a commonly used manufacturingterm to signify a key part of the productionprocess of some item, alternately called a thinga-majig, doohickey, or doodad. 2. Value added studies look at students' ownacademic progress over several consecutiveyears with teachers identified as either highlyeffective or highly ineffective, with future scorespredicted by a numerical formula.3. For an additional resource on teacher qualitysee Kaplan, L. and Owings, W. (2002). Teacher

Quality, Teaching Quality, and SchoolImprovement. Bloomington, IN: Phi DeltaKappa Education Foundation.

Leslie S. Kaplan is an Assistant Principal forInstruction at Dozier Middle School in theNewport News Public Schools, Newport News,Virginia. Dr. Kaplan has written extensively onteacher and teaching quality, principal qualityand student achievement, and school finance.William A. Owings is a Professor and GraduateProgram Director for Educational Leadership atOld Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia.Dr. Owings has also written extensively onteacher and teaching quality, principal qualityand student achievement, and school finance.

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Dr. William A. Owings, Professor,Graduate Program Director for EducationalLeadership, Old Dominion University, Norfolk,Virginia 23529Email: [email protected]

This article is adapted from William A. Owingsand Leslie S. Kaplan’s text, American PublicSchool Finance, Wadsworth, 2006.


35Ebrahim Maddahian, Penny Fidler, & Kathy Hayes

African American students historically scorelower than European Americans on vocabu-lary, reading, and mathematics tests. The con-cept of achievement gap as defined byBlack/White test score differences has beenstudied in a variety of settings with a range ofgoals and objectives (Allen & Boykin, 1991;Boykin & Allen, 2004; Jencks & Philips,1998; Porter, 2003).

Significant progress was made in narrowing theachievement gap between the two groups in the1970s and 1980s, due to the introduction andfunding of programs designed to reduce povertyand improve educational opportunity for all stu-dents. However, since 1988, the achievement gaphas remained stable and significant, and haswidened as the age cohort moves through schoolyears (Denbo & Beaulieu, 2002; Porter, 2003).According to Haycock (2001), by the end of high

school, most Black students fall drasticallybehind White students in reading, math, and sci-ence. Johnson and Viadero (2000a) have arguedthat if the current trend in the achievement gapbetween White and Black students continues, thechance of Black students going to college will behalf that of their White counterparts.

Related Literature

Educational and social researchers have identi-fied a host of social and educational factors thatcontribute to the achievement gap. These can besubsumed under four broad categories, includingvariability in individual abilities, home and com-munity factors, societal conditions, and schoolpractices. The genetics argument put forth byHerrnstein and Murray (1994) has been widelyrefuted by scholars from a range of disciplineswho agree that, simply put, individual attributes

Effective School-Teacher Practices:Case Studies of the Achievement Gap Between African American and White Students

Ebrahim MaddahianLos Angeles Unified School District

Penny FidlerLos Angeles Unified School District

Kathy HayesLos Angeles Unified School District

Abstract

This study represents an in-depth investigation of salient effective instructional activities and peda-gogical practices supported by Effective Schools literature in eight purposively selected elementaryschools from a large urban district in the Southwest. Schools were examined, that have narrowed theachievement gap for African Americans, to see how they are different from those schools in which theachievement gap has widened by comparing instructional and pedagogical elements in both types ofschools. Case study methodology was employed to highlight significant differences between the twosets of elementary schools. Using the school effectiveness literature to establish a heuristic for thestudy, the following factors proved significant in differentiating schools: school leadership; highquality instruction; a positive school and classroom climate; appropriate use of assessment; a sharedunderstanding and commitment to school improvement; and the implementation of CulturallyRelevant and Responsive Education (CRRE).


36Effective School-Teacher Practices: Case Studies of the Achievement Gap Between African American and White Students

such as intelligence and aptitude are notdetermined solely by race or ethnicity (Jencks &Philips, 1998), and race-based differences in IQcan be rendered mute by changes in social andeconomic conditions as evidenced by resultsfrom programs such as Head Start (Grasso,2002). The degree of fluency in English orStandard English may also affect studentachievement because it limits students' ability todemonstrate their potential (Labov, 1972;Piestrup, 1973; Rickford & Rickford, 2000).Barton (2004) identified a host of poverty-related factors such as low birth weight, leadpoisoning, hunger and nutrition, parentavailability, student mobility, class size, andschool safety as possible causes of theachievement gap.

While Phillips, Brooks-Gunn, Duncan,Klebanov, and Crane (1998) argued thatparental education and socioeconomic factorsare not, in and of themselves, good predictorsof student academic achievement; others positthat ineffective parenting, language differences,and high levels of mobility account for lowerlevels of academic achievement among studentsfrom lower socioeconomic backgrounds(Frymier & Gansneder, 1989; Laosa, 1978).The effects of poverty have resulted in lowparental expectations, poor parent-childcommunications, and disorganized homeenvironments, all of which impede the optimumdevelopment and progress of children (Cross& Lewis, 1998; Goodnow, 1988; Holden &Edwards, 1989; Johnson & Martin, 1983).

It is widely believed that low-income urbanparents are reluctant to be directly involved intheir children's education. A large number ofresearchers and educators alike complainabout the lack of participation by AfricanAmerican parents in the education of theirchildren. However, Cook and Ludwig (1998)surveyed more than 14,000 students and

found that African-American parents were asinvolved in their children's education as wereWhite parents with similar socioeconomiccharacteristics. In a survey of AfricanAmerican and Latino students, about two-thirdsof secondary students believed that their parentswere very involved in their education(Maddahian & Lai, 2004).

Solórzano and Solórzano (2004) argued that"educational inequality exists because of theunequal conditions" (p. 198) found in pre-dominantly minority schools, and theseinequalities are rooted in factors such as lowteacher expectations, tracking, ability grouping,and the lack of academic resources.Researchers whose work supports this model,view schools as places where only a selectfew can succeed, where the culture of theWhite middle class is validated and reproduced.They consider schools as environments thatbreed social inequality (Bowles & Gintis, 1976;Foley, 1991; Valdes, 1996; Valenzuela, 1999). Inaddition, minority students are more likely tohave non-certificated and inexperienced teachers,and are less likely to have the opportunity toenroll in advanced courses (Johnson & Viadero,2000b). According to Sanders & Rivers (1998),African American students are nearly twice aslikely to be assigned to the most ineffectiveteachers.

Low teacher expectations for the academic per-formance of their minority students also mayhave contributed to significant achievement gapsbetween minority and non-minority students(Ferguson, 1998a, 1998b; Goode, 1985;Goodlad, 1984; Ladson-Billings, 1994).Tracking students by their academic ability hasbeen severely criticized for restricting studentopportunity to learn because of low teacherexpectations, low course content, poor resources,and weak motivational environments(Alexander, 2002; Carbonaro & Gamoran, 2002;

37


Ebrahim Maddahian, Penny Fidler, & Kathy Hayes

Oakes, 1985). Students of color are over-represented in these types of classrooms.

The congruence between home and schoolculture often predicts student academic achieve-ment. Several researchers have used this model,not to blame minority students or their culture fordisparities in academic success, but to highlightthe discord between their culture and the cultureof the White middle class validated by Americaneducational institutions (Delgado-Gaitan, 1987a,1987b, 1993; Phillips, 1972; Trueba, 1991;Trueba & Bartolome, 1997; Valdes, 1996; Patton,2004). Teachers who are not responsive to thediverse cultures of their students may also limittheir students' potential (Cazden & Mehan, 1989;Irvine & York, 1995; Maddahian & Bird, 2003;Villegas, 1991). Additionally, many poorminority children realize early on that they maynot have the same educational and career choicesas non-minority students. This may result in theirseeking non-academic means of demonstratingcompetency and achievement (Osborne, 2001).The cultural-ecology theory (also known as theconflict model) asserts that, as many AfricanAmericans were brought to the U.S. throughslavery and have endured many years ofoppression, they developed an oppositionalorientation to the larger U.S. society in whicheducational institutions and personnel are seen asthreatening (Ogbu, 2003; Ogbu & Simmons,1998; Schmid, 2001).

In light of the current difficulties experiencedby African American students throughout thecountry, particularly in large urban school dis-tricts, and recognizing that the achievement gapcan be attributed to many causes, it is importantto look more closely at schools in which theacademic performance of these students providedevidence of success, compare those schools to ademographically matched set of schools, andidentify organizational variables or teacherpractices that result in student success. African-American children will continue to attendinner-city schools; however, it is believed thatthere is hope for these schools and the children

they serve. The hope lies within the schoolsthemselves. A number of recent studies haveidentified low-income minority schools inwhich academic achievement is on the rise(Council of the Great City Schools, 2004;Farnsworth, 2004). While educators mayattribute the achievement gap to out-of-schoolfactors, the arena which has the most ability toeffect change is within schools. The study beganby selecting schools with strong evidence of anarrowing, or widening, of the achievement gap.The schools were then matched along demo-graphic and socioeconomic lines, thus enablingthe researchers to attribute student academicperformance to in-school phenomena. TheEffective Schools literature provided the heuristicfor the research.

Theoretical Model

The Effective Schools Research emerged as aresult of Coleman's (1966) equal educationalopportunity survey which stated that thehomes from which children came made a greaterdifference in their academic achievement thandid the schools they attended. A large body ofEffective Schools Research (e.g., Edmonds,1979; Pukey & Smith, 1983; Rutter, Maughan,Mortimore, Ouston, & Smith, 1979; Weber,1971) refuted claims made by the Colemanreport, asserting that, indeed, schools do make adifference. In his meta-analysis of more than 80studies, Wyatt (1996) found that the massiveeffort of educators has not necessarily led tosignificant and sustainable achievement.Additionally, he found that, on the average, onlynine percent of the total variance in studentachievement was attributable to school effects.On the other hand, Wyatt recognized that"School effectiveness is not as shaky as certaincritics would have it, but at the same time notestablished as firmly as some enthusiastic schoolimprovers would treat them" (p. 2). Wyattconcluded that (a) while background variablesare important and account for a significantportion of student outcome variance, schoolscan have a significant impact on students’



achievement, and (b) conclusions made byprevious researchers were suspicious due to thelimitations of statistical techniques available tothem at the time.

The Effective Schools literature does establishthat there are significant differences in studentachievement among schools with similarresources and similar student bodies. It also iden-tifies a number of specific factors advantageousto minority students, especially AfricanAmerican students, such as school leadershipstyle (Solórzano & Solórzano, 2004); high-quality instruction (Druian & Butler, 1984;Levin & Tsang, 1987); a positive school andclassroom climate (Gottfredson, 1990;McKinley, 2003); the appropriate use of assess-ment (McKinley, 2003; Schmoker & Marzano,1999); a shared understanding and commitmentto school improvement (Anson, Cook, & Habib,1991; Denbo & Beaulieu, 2002; Lezotte, 1991);and attention to culturally relevant and responsivepedagogies, especially fair and equitabletreatment of all students (Brookover, Erickson,& McEvoy, 1996; Denbo & Beaulieu, 2002;Irvine & Armento, 2001; Maddahian & Bird,2003; Pasch, Sparks-Langer, Gardner, Starko, &Moody, 1991).

Methodology

It must be taken into consideration that currentresearch designs on school effectiveness studiesusually address the achievement gap either with-in-school or between-schools (Wenglinsky,2004). This study focused on between-schooldifferences in achievement to examine theimpact of overall, school organizational structureand instructional practices. One of the limitationsof this study is that in most elementary schoolswith sufficient numbers of African-Americanstudents for the analysis, there were insufficientnumbers of White students. In schools with fewWhite students, the weighted average academicperformance of African American students by

grade was compared to the weighted average per-formance of district White students by grade.

The main goal of this study was to determinehow narrowing the gap (NG) schools differ fromwidening the gap (WG) schools on importantaspects related to students' achievement. Theachievement gap was measured using norm-referenced scores from the 9th version of theStanford Achievement Test (SAT/9) reading,mathematics, and language arts subtests in 1999and 2002. School-wide average difference scoreswere calculated between White and Black studentsin 1999 and 2002. If the average gap scorebetween these two groups decreased by at leastsix NCE points from 1999 to 2002, while bothgroups were growing, the school was consideredan NG school. If the achievement gap wasincreased by at least six NCE points, then theschool was considered a WG school. A differenceof six NCEs is equivalent to a 0.30 effect size,which is considered a substantively meaningfuldifference in students' achievement.

Design and Procedure

Two sets of schools were matched on demo-graphic variables including ethnicity, percent ofstudents in the free lunch program and in Title I,the percent of English learners at the school, andthe general neighborhood socioeconomic status.Altogether, 32 classrooms, four at each school(two second and two fourth grade classrooms),were selected for two consecutive days of obser-vation during fall 2003. Following the classroomobservations, all 32 teachers were interviewed.In addition to teachers, interviews were also con-ducted with the school principal, the reading andmath coaches, and any other administratordeemed to have a key position in the school.Three meetings (e.g., grade-level, parent/teacher,and faculty meetings) were also observed at eachschool. In addition, archival data and other back-ground information were collected extending upto spring 2004.

39



Effective Schools Correlates

The overarching purpose of this inquiry was tofind the extent of research-based instructionalactivities and school practices as identified by theEffective Schools Research in the two specific

groups of selected schools (NG and WG).Specifically, the researchers intended to examinethese two groups of schools in the following sixgeneral areas. Each area has been defined by anumber of observable criteria listed in Table 1.

Table 1

Selected Effective School Correlates

Observable Criteria

Shared decision makingMonitored instructional process and provided instructionalfeedbackAlignment of instructional approach, state/district standardsand assessmentUse of test as a diagnostic vehicle to guide instructionSchool management and student disciplineAssessment of teacher needs Providing instructional supportPositive school environmentMotivating teachers to learnAcknowledgement of student progress

Clarity of instructional goals and teaching standardsCorrespondence between stated standards and instructionalactivitiesMonitoring student learning Re-teaching difficult concepts Supervision of student learning process Use of students’ home experiences and knowledgeEffective classroom managementInclusion of all students in the instructional processEffective use of instructional timeInstructional conversation and use of alternative instructional strategiesMotivating students to learnProviding positive feedback Indicating high expectation of all students

Instructional Leadership

Correlate

Quality of Teaching andInstructional Activities



Commitment to School

Correlate Observable Criteria

School Climate andCulture

School orderliness, organizational style, safety, and cleanlinessTeacher lesson planningCurriculum developmentWell-defined learning expectationsHigh standard for academic performanceSubject matter proficiencyRecognition of student achievementReinforcement of good behaviorMeaningful parent and community involvementActive staff participation and involvement

Use of Assessment toGuide Instruction

Data-driven instruction and decision makingTeachers use data to access student progressAdjustment of teacher instruction to address gaps in student learningUse of alternative assessment approaches

Observation of classroom practices by school administratorsReview and monitoring of school progressExistence of clear goals for student progressOngoing monitoring of student progress and providingfeedback to students, teachers, and parentsRecognition of teacher and student accomplishmentsExistence of research-based programs and policies aimed atstudent progressFlexibility in implementation of policies and adjustment ofpolicies to teacher and student needs

Culturally Relevant andResponsive Education

A genuine respect for students’ culture and their languageExistence of role-models for minority studentsPrograms dealing with minority issues and their needsPrograms that support low SES and poor students Incorporating students knowledge and experience in teaching and learning processEquity and access to educational opportunities for all students

Data Analyses

Data was collected from 420 hours of detailedclassroom observations and 57 individual inter-views. Interviews were conducted with 32

teachers, 8 school principals, and 17 schoolinstructional administrators. The data were codedusing Atlas-TI software for qualitative analyses.Quantitative analyses were conducted usingSPSS Statistical Software (SPSS, 2004). In

41



addition, school archival data, the personalexperience of the observers from their reflectivefield notes, and separate observational noteswere used to support the findings. For theobservation data, the prevalence score wascalculated. The prevalence score was equal tothe percent of observations that contained clearevidence of observing a particular component.For example, using the interview data, theprevalence score was equal to the percent ofinterviews emphasizing each component of anEffective Schools Correlate. The followingsections present a summary of the findingsusing a mixed methodology that includedboth qualitative and quantitative observations,interviews, and archival data. The findings arebased on a triangulation of all qualitative andquantitative data.

Results

Utilizing a case study methodology (Yin, 2003),the following section presents the study results,highlighting the important differences betweenNG schools and WG schools. Findings for eachcomponent will be offered in a tabular formatfollowed by a review of salient points fromvarious triangulated sources: classroom obser-vations, administrator interviews, teacherinterviews, student achievement, and demo-graphic data.

A significant difference (p < 0.05) was identifiedbetween the teachers' overall years of experience.The average years of teaching experience forteachers in NG schools was 16.4 years, comparedto 8.8 years for teachers in WG schools. Therewas also a significant difference (p < 0.05)between the two groups of schools with regard tothe number of years teachers had been associatedwith their school. In addition, NG teachers hadmore years of service than teachers in WGschools (10.4 years vs. 5.8 years). No importantdifferences were found in the proportion ofteachers who were credentialed at these two setsof schools. Also, no significant difference was

found between the NG school administrators'average years of service compared to WGadministrators.


Research on the relationship between schoolleadership and student performance suggestedthat a significant, positive correlation existsbetween effective school leadership and studentachievement (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty,2003). The link between principal beliefs abouttheir own impact on student achievement,principal behavior and student learning, andperformance has been documented by previousresearch. According to Cotton (2003), principalswho positively influenced student achievementare visible and accessible to students and staffthroughout the school, particularly in instructionalsettings, such as classrooms, labs, and per-formance sites.

In this research study's case studies, there wasmore evidence of instructional monitoring by theprincipals and literacy coaches at NG schoolsthan at WG schools. Principals in NG schoolswere observed frequently visiting the classroomsand interacting with students. In only one WGclassroom was the principal observed visiting theclassroom.

These findings support that positive andsupportive relationships between school admin-istrators and teachers have impacted studentachievement. More administrators at NG schoolsindicated that their staff members supportedthem than did WG administrators (32% vs. 6%).NG school administrators also more often saidthey offered instructional support to teachersthan did WG administrators (69% vs. 58%).Also, teachers at NG schools cited receivingmoral support from administrators and othertypes of assistance, such as conducting class-room demonstrations, mentoring, and receivingsupplemental instructional materials. There wasample evidence of an atmosphere of acceptance



and respect in most of the NG schools where alarge number of teachers were enthusiasticabout their school principal. Phrases such as"wonderful," "like a mother figure," and"extremely supportive" described the relationshipbetween NG principals and their teachers.

An effective instructional leader is aware ofnew and innovative instructional approaches(Solórzano & Solórzano, 2004). When adminis-trators were asked to name instructional factorsimpacting student achievement, NG schooladministrators cited "using concrete lessons,""utilizing differentiation," "following a con-structivist approach," "employing theme-basedlearning," and "teaching critical thinkingskills" as major contributing factors. Onlyone WG administrator discussed teacher effec-tiveness in terms of a specific instructional

strategy, "differentiation." More administratorsat NG schools were involved in alignment ofinstructional programs with standards thanadministrators at WG schools (25% vs. 14%).

Shared decision making, teacher's own instruc-tional issues, and school curriculum wereimportant elements of an effective instructionalenvironment (Cotton, 2003). In NG schools,teachers made instructional program decisionsfrequently and collaboratively, whereas in WGschools, most of the instructional decisions weremade based on the district's mandated guidelines.Instructional decisions were communicated toNG teachers in group meetings devoted solelyto school instructional curriculum, whereas inWG schools, instructional decisions were com-municated to teachers mostly in general schoolmeetings.

Table 2


NG SchoolsComponent WG Schools

Trust and Acceptance

Regularly and systematically

Expressed by 70% of instructionaladministrators

Expressed by more than 90% ofinstructional administrators

Sporadically and infrequently

Expressed by 60% of schooladministrators

Expressed by 75% of instructional administrators

6% of instructional administrators indicated receiving high levels of staffsupport

Instructional decisions weremade by administrators basedon district guidelines

Teachers and administratorsdealt with disciplinary issuesand school management individually

Lower teachers' enthusiasmabout their principals

Monitoring Instruction

Providing Support

Direct and FrequentCommunication

Staff Support

Shared Decision Making

School Management

32% of instructional administrators indicated receivinghigh levels of staff support

Instructional decisions made byteachers frequently and collaboratively

Teachers and administrators dealtwith disciplinary issues and schoolmanagement collectively

Teachers accepted, respected, andtrusted their principals

43



Quality of Teaching and Instructional Services

The investment in teacher quality, more than anyother use of school resources, led to greaterimprovement in student achievement (Ferguson,1991; Haycock, 1998). Good teachers skillfullymanage student behavior and provide a quantityof engaging, academically rich, and connectedactivities for their students. They have highexpectations and faith in their students' abilitiesand they reinforce students' achievements(Pressley, 1998). Teachers at NG schools weremore often observed using a variety of tech-niques to clarify lessons than at WG schools(77% vs. 56%). NG teachers commonly used avariety of media to present lessons (visual maps,overhead transparencies, drawings on the board,posters, and even PowerPoint presentations) tohelp interpret or reinforce their teaching. Verbalclarifications through questions, repetition, andadditional instructions were also observed inmost NG classrooms.

Teachers also checked student understanding oflessons and assignments at NG schools moreoften than at WG schools (90% vs. 53%). Theyfrequently checked student understanding byasking pupils about the task at hand to make surethey understood expectations. For example, NGteachers asked questions such as, "What did Ijust ask you to do?" "What kind of writing are wedoing?" "What will I be looking for in yourwork?" "Can someone tell me how we are goingto fold the papers?" The use of differentiatedteaching strategies was much more prevalent atNG schools than WG schools (80% vs. 50%).NG teachers differentiated instruction by using avariety of strategies with different students inorder to ensure that every student understood thelessons being taught. If the current teachingstrategy was not helpful for particular students,the teachers realigned their teaching strategiesto help students internalize what was beingtaught.

Teachers revised their lesson plans more fre-quently to fit their students' ability levels in NGschools than in WG schools (93% vs. 69%). NGteachers were more frequently found to ask theirstudents questions and include their life experi-ences in their daily lessons before they presentednew material. For example, one NG teacherannounced that before she handed out an activity,she wanted them to know and understand why ina circular track, starting points must be adjusted.

Ms. Stevens sketches a circular track anddraws a line from the inside out and across alllanes and explains that in a race, everyonemust begin from a different point. She asks ifanyone knows why. Kevin says, 'Because theperson inside has a better chance of winning.'Students begin to chat among themselves:'That's why I always want the middle laneduring PE.' Ms. Stevens asks Kevin, 'Why?'Kevin: 'Because the person outside has abetter chance of losing.' The teacher probes,'But why?' Kevin explains that the outside islonger. She approves Kevin's answer and saysthat when they all race their cars, all cars willneed to start from a different point around thetrack. Ms. Stevens draws different startingpoints all around the track she drew on theboard earlier.

Furthermore, there was a significant difference(p < 0.01) between the two groups of teachersin their opinions regarding the level of appro-priateness of the instructional programs mandatedfor use in the eight schools. NG teachers weregenerally more positive than WG teachers (2.0vs. 0.7) on a 3-point scale about the appro-priateness of the instructional program. Fewerteachers in NG schools complained about thepace of the instructional plan such as OpenCourt, and the District Math Program than didteachers in WG schools. Although teachers inWG schools were more engaged with non-instructional school activities than in NG



schools, such as the school beautification com-mittee and the emergency committee, the totalnumber of activities between the two groups ofteachers was not significantly different.

Both quantitative and qualitative findings indi-cated that teachers at WG schools believed theyneeded more resources compared to NG schools.The difference between the two groups wasstatistically significant (p < 0.01). According toteachers, the most frequently needed resources inWG schools were paraprofessionals and trainingin areas other than reading and mathematics.

At NG schools, there was strong evidence ofmutual teacher support in the form of teamteaching. Teachers helped other teachers at gradelevel meetings and received more support fromliteracy and math coaches. There were manyinstances where special education resource

teachers were observed coming into the class-room to support teachers and provide services.Teachers and administrators collaborativelyattended to students who misbehaved.Paraprofessionals played an important role in theclassroom, and teachers and staff were seenhelping orient new teachers to the school.

As illustrated in this section, many teachers, inschools in which the achievement gap hadnarrowed, exhibited higher quality instructionalstrategies than did their counterparts at schools inwhich the gap had widened over the past threeyears. These strategies included: differentiatingtheir instructional style to meet the needs of thestudents, drawing from student experiences toenrich the lessons, frequently checking forcomprehension, and exhibiting a deeper under-standing how to implement the instructionalprograms adopted by the district.

Table 3

Quality of Teaching and Instructional Services


In 90% of observations, teacherschecked for student understanding of what they were taught

In 53% of observations, teachers checked for student understanding

Monitoring Instruction

Using Alternative Teaching Approaches

Use of DifferentiatedInstructional Strategies

Collaborative Teaching

In 77% of observations, teachersused various approaches to clarifythe same lesson

In 56% of observations, teachersused various techniques to clarify the same lesson

In 80% of observations, teachersused differentiated teaching strategies

In 50% of observations, teachersused differentiated teachingstrategies

On-going grade level meetings,special education resources, aswell as collaboration betweenliteracy and math coaches withteachers, was found in theseschools

Less collaboration with instructional coaches, specialeducation resources, and fewergrade level meetings wereobserved in these schools

45



School Climate and Culture and HighExpectations

According to Epstein and Dauber (1993),children were more successful students at allgrade levels if their parents participate at schooland encourage education and learning athome. Clark (1993) demonstrated that parentinvolvement, especially parental attitudes towardhomework, contributed positively to students'mathematics and literacy skills. Cotton (2003)called for creating and maintaining a positive andsupportive school climate that had a highachievement expectation for every child as itscentral tenet. In a positive school environmentteachers and students feel valued and safe; theyare better able to focus on learning and are moremotivated to succeed. Research suggested aconnection between school climate and theextent to which parents and families are involvedin their children's education (Comer & Haynes,1991; Epstein & Dauber, 1993). When schoolscreate a positive school climate by reaching outto families and providing structures for them tobecome involved, the result is effective school-family partnerships. Parents who believe theycan make a difference in their children's edu-cation are more likely to visit and participate inschool activities than those who feel ineffective.Schools serving low-income, ethnically diverseneighborhoods must make greater efforts towelcome families, because those are the parentswho often feel excluded because of differencesin their ethnicity, income, and culture.

Ames (1995) found children's motivation,attitudes toward parent involvement, and per-ceptions of their parents' level of involvement tobe more positive when their parents had receivedfrequent communications from the teachers.They concluded that two-way communicationbetween parents and teachers is a key contributorto children's academic performance. The parentsupports the learning of the child in the home and

the teacher provides high expectations andsupport for the learning at school (Ames, 1995;Chavkin, 1993; Epstein, 1995).

Three out of four NG schools had parents whowere very active at their school sites. Some ofthese parents volunteered in the classroom andhelped teachers on students’ homework. Otherparents organized classroom parties, helped onfield trips, brought donated goods, were presentduring Student of the Month assemblies, andpicked up homework for their absent children.

All four NG schools sent a school newsletterhome to inform parents of school activities. Oneschool communicated with parents twice a weekvia newsletter and one school had a weeklyplanner for the lessons their children would belearning during the week. Two of the four NGschools also boasted strong communityinvolvement and received donations from localbusinesses. In all four schools, students' workwas displayed in the classroom and in the office.

Most of the teachers shared lessons and instruc-tional resources, and all teachers worked closelyto create curriculum. In WG schools, there wassome evidence of communication with parents attwo of these schools, such as parent involvementwith students' homework and communicatingwith teachers after school; however, only twoWG schools sent parents weekly newslettersfocusing on homework and other school-relatedissues. Parents attended a school assembly inonly one WG school. The types of support thatwere generally provided by NG versus WGschool parents included attending meetings/conferences (18% vs. 5%), fund raising (14% vs.10%), and volunteering (29% vs. 18%),respectively. There was no evidence of com-munity involvement in any of the WG schools.

Another aspect of a positive school climate wasevident where school administrators and their



staffs learn, plan, and work together to improvetheir schools. More administrators at NG schoolsoffered moral support to teachers than admin-istrators in WG schools (31% vs. 8%). Teachercollaboration was strong in more of the NGschools than WG schools (3 schools vs. 1school). In fact, three administrators from twodifferent WG schools noted that there were noformal collaborative efforts among their teachersand that teacher collaboration was not strong.

Although no significant differences were foundbetween the opinions of the two groups ofteachers regarding teachers' professionalrelationships and cohesiveness, there seemed tobe a more positive relationship among teachersin NG schools. More NG teachers than WGteachers said there was a strong relationshipamong staff at their school. When asked whatteacher collaboration was like, teachers at NGschools gave the following answers: "I considerthem my family," "Everybody gets along,""Excellent cooperation," and "We have a goodtime working together." Furthermore, a majorityof NG teachers strongly believed that theircurriculum materials helped students while onlya third of WG teachers shared that belief. Whenthe administrators were asked how they feltabout the changes that had been made in theirschools, the views stated by the NG schooladministrators were more positive than WGschool administrators.

Teachers who set and communicate highexpectations for all their students obtain greateracademic performance from those students thanteachers who set low expectations. Students tendto learn as much (or as little) as their teachersexpect. Teachers with high expectations for allstudents can structure and guide behavior andcan challenge students beyond what studentsthemselves believe they can do. They highlighttheir strengths. They are student-centered. Theyuse the students' own strengths, interests, goals,

and dreams as the beginning point for learning,and they tap into the students' natural curiosityand desire to learn.

When interviewed, NG teachers indicated ahigher level of expectation for their students thandid WG teachers. This fact was also supported bythe observational findings which showed moreNG teachers held higher academic expectationsfor their students (expect students to acquiregrade-level standards and above; expect studentsto think deeply, to question, and to be curious,etc.) than WG teachers. Teachers in WG schoolsbelieved, however, that they communicatedexpectations more often to parents and studentsthan teachers in NG schools. Educators in bothgroups identified a large number of elementsthey believe crucial to academic success. WhileNG teachers and administrators identifiedschool-based factors, WG teachers and admin-istrators listed home elements and parentinvolvement as critical for student success.Teachers in WG schools were more likely tomake negative comments about their students(needy in discipline and structure, below gradelevel, problems with motivation, etc.).

Administrators need also to convey high expec-tations for teachers. NG administrators foundteachers very effective and cited no weaknesses.On the other hand, two administrators at WGschools complained about less effective teachers.Three administrators at WG schools believedteachers were more effective when they estab-lished an affective relationship with students(caring, respecting students, being close withstudents, establishing a relationship withstudents, etc.), but administrators at NG schoolsdid not mention any of these factors, rather theyfocused more often on academic matters.

In summary, the school climate in NG schoolswas more positive than in WG schools. NGparents who were involved were more frequently

47



focused on academics. NG schools seemed tocommunicate more frequently and more effec-tively with parents. NG schools were morecollaborative and teachers and administrators

alike seemed more positive about schools andstudents. NG teachers also indicated higherexpectations for students and NG administratorsseemed to have higher expectations for staff.

Table 4

School Climate and Culture


Student work was displayed in theclassrooms and offices in allschools

Student work was displayed inclassrooms and offices in someschools

Display of Student Workand Progress

Evidence of Parent andCommunity Involvement

School and ParentCommunication

Teacher Support

Frequent evidence of parent andcommunity involvement in mostschools

Less frequent evidence of parentinvolvement in fewer schoolsand no evidence of communityinvolvement

All schools had monthly parentnewsletters

Half of the schools had monthlyparent newsletters

All administrators had a positiveattitude toward their teachers andoffered moral support

One-fifth of administrators complained about their teachers'weaknesses and less than 10%offered teachers moral support

Extent of ExtracurricularActivities

A few administrators were engagedin, at most, 18 extracurricular activities

A large number of administrators were engaged in more than 20 extracurricularactivities

Frequent Monitoring with AppropriateAssessments

At the very least, educators should use studentdata to identify challenges to be addressed byincreasing qualified teachers, a rigorous cur-riculum, rigorous courses, effective instruction,adequate time, and sufficient resources. Withregard to the student assessment, NG studentswere more often assessed at an individual level,

based on their homework and teacher-madetests. More administrators at NG schools saidthey also used a mix of standardized and alter-native assessment data to guide instruction thandid administrators at WG schools. When askedhow instructional programs were evaluated attheir school, administrators at NG schools citeda variety of subjective evaluation approachesincluding teacher self-evaluation, peer evalu-ation, teacher feedback, student feedback,



program evaluation, and survey results; whereas,administrators at WG schools mentioned theirobservations and survey data. When asked howoften they reviewed assessment data, twoWG administrators said they received testdata too late to make immediate decisions ininstruction.

While there was no significant differencebetween the NG and WG teachers with regard toassessment approaches, teachers at NG schoolsmore often reported using a mix of formal andinformal assessment approaches to assess studentprogress. The most frequent approaches used byNG teachers included formal assessment data,teacher-made assessments, and daily commu-nication with students about instructionalmaterials. Similarly, the qualitative analyses ofteacher interviews indicated that more NGteachers said they generally used formalassessment strategies such as textbook quizzes,quarterly math assessments, and teacher-madeexams than teachers in WG schools. FewerNG teachers said they used non-verbalassessment strategies to assess understanding(thumbs up if you understand or wave yourhands across your face if you don't) than WGteachers.

Both groups made equal use of informalassessment strategies (performance assessments,quick verbal assessment, and observation) todetermine whether students had learned whatthey had been taught. However, slightly moreteachers in NG schools than in WG schoolssaid they used performance assessments todetermine students understanding and learning.When asked what approaches they used to assessstudents' mastery of content, more NG teachersgave examples of how they differentiatedinstructional mastery than WG teachers (unitsmust be re-done on an individual basis if studentsdo not pass and gifted and talented educationstudents are challenged with extra work).

All tests and lessons were aligned to districtstandards in all four NG schools. However,realignment of teaching to standards was presentat two schools in which teachers created moreadvanced lessons when needed, or realignedtheir lessons until students understood the con-cepts being taught. In only two of the WGschools, students were assessed on homeworkand lessons were aligned to the standards.Realignment of teaching was observed at onlytwo schools where teachers changed lessons untilstudents understood the concept being taught.

49



Commitment to School Improvement andProfessional Development

School improvement efforts over the last fewdecades call for teachers to understand learneroutcomes according to local, state, and nationaleducational standards and to provide meaningfulinstruction (cognitively, socially, and culturally)for a very diverse student population especiallyin urban districts. Teachers are expected tounderstand emerging standards (i.e. math andscience) and current learning theories and tochange their roles and practices accordingly.To achieve these ends, teachers need to becontinually supported with professionaldevelopment.

A high level of commitment to schoolimprovement was evidenced in two of the fourNG schools where principals conducted learningwalks, and resource specialists were found in theclassrooms providing assistance and guidance toteachers. Open Court coaches were noted inclassrooms in two of the four NG schools, and inone school, teachers were observed by otherteachers. Parents were involved in three NGschools helping teachers in grading, organizing,or taking care of the sandbox and green house. Alearning walk was observed in only one WGschool. A learning walk-through (Resnick &Hall, 2001) occurs when a principal makes aseries of five- to seven-minute visits to class-rooms with a specific question in mind, such

Administrators mentioned the useof formal summative assessments(85%), informal assessments(23%), observation (31%), andother approaches (61%)

Administrators mentioned useof summative formal assessment(42%), informal assessment(83%), and other approaches(41%)

Alternative AssessmentApproaches -Administrators

Alternative AssessmentApproaches - Teachers

Teachers mentioned use of formal summative assessments(94%), informal formative assessments (69%), and otherapproaches (25%)

Teachers mentioned use of formal summative assessments(87%), informal formativeassessments (60%), and otherapproaches (47%)

Table 5

Appropriate Use of Assessments


All schools used assessment data to determine individual student progress to design timely intervention program

Half of the schools used assessment data to realigninstruction to the district content standards

Guiding Instruction

Monitoring IndividualStudent Progress

Most of the schools used assessment data to determineindividual student progress todesign timely intervention programs

Some schools used assessmentdata to monitor individual student progress



as "What is the nature of teacher-student,student-teacher interaction?" "Is there evidenceof differentiation?" After completing the walk-through the principal analyzes the informationand decides how to best help the staff.

More administrators at NG schools said theyconducted classroom observation to determineoverall student progress than in WG schools(23% vs. 17%). When asked what changes in thepast five years had affected students at theirschool, NG school administrators tended to listfewer changes than WG school administrators(an average of 4.2 vs. 7.8 changes). In responseto the question of major improvement goals forhigher levels of student learning, NG schooladministrators listed more purely academic goals(i.e. improving fluency among 2nd and 3rdgraders, improving math scores among 4th gradestudents) than did WG school administrators(69% vs. 50%). Two WG school administratorssaid there were no set goals.

Administrators at both WG and NG schoolsbelieved teacher support was the most importantfactor in student success. However, admin-istrators at NG schools identified more cognitivestrategies than did WG school administrators(22% vs. 13%). Additionally, NG school admin-istrators gave significantly more research-basedreasons to account for student success than WGschool administrators. Examples given by NGadministrators included accountable talk, appliedlearning, cooperative learning, differentiation,encouragement, engaging lessons, school envi-ronment, and teacher support. Items listed byWG school administrators included attention toculture, economic status, home environment,innate motivation, and self-confidence.

Teachers' professional development in a climateof educational reform must address the additionalchallenges of implementing educational stan-dards, working with diverse populations, andchanging forms of student assessment. Clearly,

teachers "need more time to work with col-leagues, to critically examine the new standardsbeing proposed, and to revise curriculum.They need opportunities to develop, master, andreflect on new approaches to working withchildren" (Corcoran, 1995, p. 2). Fine (1994)believes that school change is the result of bothindividual and organizational development.McDiarmid (1995) emphasized the connectionbetween new expectations for teachers and theelement of time:

The changes teachers must make to meet thegoals of reform entail much more time thanlearning new techniques. They go to the coreof what it means to teach. Because thesechanges are so momentous, most teachers willrequire considerable time to achieve them.(p. 2)

Professional development can no longer beviewed as an event that occurs on a particular dayof the school year; rather, it must become partof the daily work life of educators. Teachers,administrators, and other school system employeesneed time to work in study groups, conductaction research, participate in seminars, coachone another, plan lessons together, and meet forother purposes.

More NG school administrators said their teachershave been effective by educating themselves inaddition to the training provided in school-siteprofessional development than did administratorsat WG schools (15% vs. 0%). About half (46%)of WG teachers indicated that they did notneed any additional resources. Some of the NGschool administrators said they needed extraprofessional development resources (20%).Administrators in NG schools indicated thatavailability of professional developmentimproved their school progress, whereas WGschool administrators did not mention theavailability of professional development forschool improvement (18% vs. 0%).

51




Most administrators stated settingclear academic goals for theirschools

Half of the administrators statedsetting clear academic goals fortheir schools

Setting Instructional Goalsand Objectives

Presence of anInstructional MonitoringSystem

All schools monitored theirinstructional progress throughongoing observation and frequentuse of assessments

Most of the schools monitortheir instructional progressthrough observation and half ofthe schools by using assessmentdata

Parent Involvement in theirChildren's Schooling

Frequent evidence of parentinvolvement in classroom activities

Limited evidence of parentinvolvement in classroom activities

Awareness of Current andUp-to-Date EducationalTheories and Practices

Administrators were highly awareof current educational theories andpractices

Fewer administrators wereaware of current educationalideas and practices

Support of DistrictProfessional DevelopmentEfforts

Administrators strongly believed indistrict-provided professionaldevelopment and training

Administrators were skepticalabout the impact of the districtefforts to improve teacher quality

Table 6

Commitment to School Improvement

The Prevalence of a Culturally Relevant andResponsive Education

According to Sternberg and Grigorenko (2004),when cultural context is taken into account (a)individuals are better recognized and are betterable to make use of their talents, (b) schoolsteach and access children better, and (c) societyutilizes rather than wastes the talents of itsmembers. Maddahian and Bird (2003) defined theCulturally Relevant and Responsive Education(CRRE) as educating all students by incorporatingtheir cultural experiences (emotional, social, andcognitive) into the teaching and learning process.They summarize the major underlying elementsof the CRRE framework from diverse sources inthe following list which they believe is notexhaustive but is a good point to start.

● Inclusion of student knowledge and life ex-perience in teaching and learning

● Accepting and respecting students and theirculture and history

● Adjustment of diagnosis and assessmentapproaches for diverse groups of students

● Enhancement of educational opportunities thatsafeguard equity and equality issues

● Identifying and using culturally relevantinstructional strategies

● Providing professional development on culturaland historical issues and self awareness

● Facilitating involvement of parents and com-munity members from diverse cultures

● Emphasizing student and parent educationalresponsibilities

● Accountability and monitoring all students'progress



In WG schools, it was observed that all stu-dents seemed to have an equal opportunity toparticipate in class discussion. There were nobarriers to student participation except when achild was removed as a result of his or herbehavior, which for the African American boyswas not infrequent. Student experiences and/orprior knowledge were incorporated into lessonsin half of the classroom observations in WGschools. The few instances of culture and languageissues that were discussed in daily lessons weremostly from Open Court stories that dealt withdifferent cultures. Slightly more NG admin-istrators considered students’ prior knowledgean essential part of learning than WG admin-istrators (38% vs. 33%). In addition, more NGadministrators said that their schools addresseddiversity by integrating it into the curriculumthan did WG administrators (23% vs. 0%). Infact, one administrator from a WG school indi-cated that teachers had not received any trainingin dealing with diversity issues.

About one-third of the administrators at NGschools stated that they encouraged theirteachers to incorporate their students' prior lifeand academic experience equally into their dailyinstruction, but administrators at WG schoolsencouraged teachers to incorporate their students'prior academic knowledge in the classroom threetimes as frequently as their life experiences (58%vs. 17%).

WG administrators incorporated purelymulticultural events more frequently than NGadministrators such as celebrating holidays

and other cultural ceremonies than NGadministrators (30% vs. 14%). However, NGadministrators mentioned more incidents ofshowing acceptance and respect for studentculture and language than WG administrators(15% vs. 8%).

When WG administrators were asked to namethe resources they would need to address issuesof diversity, the most frequently occurringanswer was that they did not need any training onthis issue (43%). However, a few WG admin-istrators mentioned they needed more externalcultural resources (14%). Some NG admin-istrators, however, indicated that they neededboth extra training (20%) as well as culturalresources (13%).

Although teachers in WG schools celebratedcultural events more frequently to show theirappreciation of student diversity and culture,teachers in NG schools expressed more concernabout issues of equality and fairness in theirclassrooms. NG teachers and administratorswere less likely to deal with diversity byrecognizing and celebrating cultural eventsand holidays, and more likely to emphasize sim-ilarities, equality, and equity among students.Teachers in NG schools considered students andtheir family members experts on cultural issuesand were more likely to invite them to sharetheir traditions in class than did WG teachers.They also expressed a deeper understanding ofcultural and historical issues from the per-spectives of various racial and ethnic groups thandid WG teachers.

53




Frequent evidence of studentculture and home language was observed during classroomobservations

Little evidence of student culture and home language wasobserved during classroomobservations

Attention to StudentCulture and HomeLanguage

Incorporation of StudentLife Experience in theClassroom

About half of the teachers providedthe opportunity for students toshare their experiences duringinstruction and about 40% of theadministrators considered thisissue as an essential part of student learning

Half of the teachers allowedtheir students to share theirexperiences with others duringinstruction and 33% of administrators considered thisissue an essential part of a student learning

Attention to StudentDiversity Issues

About one-fourth of the administrators addressed diversityby integrating it into their schoolcurriculum

None of the administratorsaddressed diversity by integrating it into their schoolcurriculum

Respect for StudentCulture and Heritage

15% of administrators emphasizedthe importance of acceptance andrespect for student culture and heritage

Only 8% of administratorsstressed the importance ofacceptance and respect for student culture and heritage

Table 7

Attention to Diversity and Culturally Relevant and Responsive Education

Discussion and Conclusions

There are a number of important conclusions thatcan be drawn by comparing and contrastingschools that have made marked advances in nar-rowing the achievement gap (NG), and schoolsin which the gap is widening (WG). These ana-lyses provide support for teacher experience andstability, ongoing and systematic monitoring ofinstructional activities, the existence of a schoollearning community, the provision of continuoussupport for teachers, instructional collaborationand shared decision making, a focus on instruc-tional rather than extra-curricular issues, the useof data to drive instruction, and some culturallyrelevant and responsive education issues.

Teaching Experience and Stability

Teachers in NG schools are highly experiencedand stable compared to teachers in WG schools.The question is whether good and effectiveschools retain more experienced teachers for alonger period of time or whether experienced andstable teachers contribute to produce effectiveschools. The truth may be somewhere inbetween: there is a mutual and bidirectionalrelationship between these elements. Whateverthe reality, a clear policy option is to assignmore experienced teachers to schools wherepronounced differences exist between the per-formances of diverse group of students.However, teacher satisfaction and motivation as



well as other political and logistic issues maymake this decision difficult. Providing financialor other social and moral incentives may attracthighly qualified teachers to serve students whoneed and deserve more qualified and experiencedteachers.

Frequent, Ongoing, and Systematic Monitoringof Instructional Activities

In all schools that reduced the achievement gap,there was evidence of continuous monitoring ofinstructional process and program fidelity. Manyschool principals are too busy or too reluctant tomonitor instructional practices; however,instructional leadership and monitoring shouldbe the most important part of their job. Principalsand other school administrators either need to bemotivated to spend a sizeable amount of theirtime on instructional activities or assign otherstrong school administrators to support, monitor,and guide teacher classroom activities andstudent progress.

School as a Learning Community for All

Schools effective at reducing the achievementgap have created a learning community for all.There are ample scientific, research-supported,and proven effective strategies to help teacherseducate their diverse groups of students. Schoolsneed motivated and technically oriented teacherswith up-to-date knowledge about educationaltheory and practice. Administrators in NGschools attributed teacher effectiveness to therelatively large number of instructional andpedagogical approaches used by their teachers.

Providing Continuous Support for Teachers

Teaching is a time consuming and difficulttask, especially in contemporary urban schoolsserving a very diverse and mostly disadvantagedgroup of children. Schools that were effective in

reducing the achievement gap provided moresupport for teachers in the form of leadership,collegiality, and hands-on professional devel-opment, as well as a cadre of parents who wereinvolved in the instructional aspects of theirchildren.

Instructional Collaboration and Shared DecisionMaking

In effective schools, teachers share ideas, developlesson plans, and collectively encounter schoolissues and problems, and as a group take part incollective decision making about school cur-riculum and the instructional process. This notonly motivates teachers to work harder, but alsogives them a deep understanding of schoolobjectives and issues. It provides teachers with acollective vision of how their tasks are relatedand moves the whole school toward a higherlevel of learning and achievement.

Clear Focus on Instructional Tasks

Schools, which experienced achievement gapwidening, spent considerable time on non-instructional activities. Teachers in NG schoolswere less involved in non-instructional activitiesthan WG teachers.

Use of Assessment Data and Data-DrivenDecision Making

With the advancement of technology, we cananalyze assessment data more economically in ashort period of time. School administratorsshould continuously use formal and informaldata to guide their teachers and to align theirinstructional activities. There should be ongoingdaily use of classroom data to inform instruction.Additionally, an in-depth analysis of studentassessment data will provide insight not onlyabout student progress but also about howschools can align their instructional activities and

55



school curriculum with the district standards andschool vision.

Culturally Relevant and Responsive Education

These case studies have demonstrated that thereis much more to Culturally Relevant andResponsive Education (CRRE) than occasionalcultural celebrations or trappings on the class-room wall. Although there was more evidence ofceremonial/cultural events in WG schools, therewas more emphasis on acceptance, respect, andfair treatment in NG schools. Other aspects ofCRRE more prevalent in NG than WG schoolsincluded: positive attitudes by teachers towardstudents and their families; the development oflearning communities in which students, parents,administrators and teachers all played a role andthe funds of knowledge from the communitycontributed to the school curriculum; greateropportunities for ethnically, economically, andacademically diverse groups of students to workand thrive together; and the inclusion of the lifeexperiences of students into the daily process ofteaching and learning.

References

Alexander, N. A. (2002). Race, poverty, and the student curriculum: Implications for standardspolicy. American Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 675-693.

Allen, B. A., & Boykin, A. W. (1991). The influence of contextual factors on Afro-American and Euro-American children'sperformance: Effects of movement opportunity and music. International Journal of Psychology, 26(3), 373-387.

Ames, C. (1995). Teachers' school-to-home communications and parent involvement: Therole of parent perceptions and beliefs (ReportNo. 28). East Lansing, MI: Michigan StateUniversity, College of Education, Center onFamilies, Communities, Schools, and Children's Learning.

Anson, A., Cook, T. D., & Habib, F. (1991). The Comer school development program: Atheoretical analysis. Urban Education, 26(1), 56-82.

Barton, P. E. (2004). Why does the achievementgap persist? Educational Leadership, 62(3), 8-13.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Education reform and thecontradictions of economic life. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Boykin, A. W., & Allen, B. (2004). Cultural integrity and schooling outcomes of AfricanAmerican schoolchildren from low-incomebackgrounds. In P. Pufall & R. Unsworth(Eds.), Rethinking Childhood, (pp. 104-120).New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Brookover, W. B., Erickson, F. J., & McEvoy, A. W. (1996). Creating effective schools: An in-service program for enhancing student learning, climate, and achievement (Rev. ed.).Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications.

Carbonaro, W. J., & Gamoran, A. (2002). The production of achievement inequality in highschool English. American EducationalResearch Journal, 39(4), 801-827.

Cazden, C., & Mehan, H. (1989). Principles from sociology and anthropology: Context,code, classroom, and culture. In M. Reynolds(Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginningteacher. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Chavkin, N. F. (1993). Families and schools in a pluralistic society. New York, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Clark, R. (1993). Homework-focused parenting practices that positively affect student achievement. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Familiesand schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 367449). Albany, NY: SUNY University Press.

Coleman, J. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity study (EEOS). Washington, DC:United States Department of Health,Education, and Welfare.



Comer, J. P., & Haynes, N. M. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecologicalapproach. The Elementary School Journal,91(3), 271-277.

Cook, P. J., & Ludwig, J. (1998). The burden ofacting white: Do black adolescents disparageacademic achievement? In C. Jencks & M.Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Corcoran, T. B. (1995). Helping teachers teach well: Transforming professional development(CPRE Policy Brief RB-16). Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Council of the Great City Schools. (2004). Beating the odds: A city-by-city analysis of student performance and achievement gaps onstate assessments. Washington, DC: Author.

Cross, T. G., & Lewis, G. F. (1998). Early manifestations of the impact of poverty on education: The expectant parent's hopes and fears. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education AnnualConference, University of Adelaide. RetrievedSeptember 1, 2004, from http:/www.aare.edu.au/98pap/cro98255.htm

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1993). Parenting in two generations of Mexican American families. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16(3), 409-427.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1987a). Mexican adult literacy: New directions for immigrants. In S. R. Goldman & H. Trueba (Eds.), Becoming literate in English as a second language (pp. 9-32). Norwood, NY: Ablex.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1987b). Traditions and transitions in the learning process of Mexican children: An ethnographic view. In G. Spindler& L. Spindler (Eds.), Interpretive ethnographyof education at home and abroad (pp. 333-359).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Denbo, S. J., & Beaulieu, L. M. (2002). Improving schools for African American students: A reader for educational leaders.Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Druian, G., & Butler, J. A. (1984). Effective schooling practices and at-risk youth: What the research shows. School Improvement Research Series. Portland, OR: NWREL.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-24.

Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1993). Parents' attitudes and practices of involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in apluralistic society (p. 53-71). New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share.Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 705-707.

Farnsworth, M. (2004). Getting results: High-performing, low-income schools in Maryland. Germantown, MD: The Maryland Public Policy Institute.

Ferguson, R. F. (1998a). Can schools narrow theBlack-White test score gap? In C. Jencks & M.Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap(pp. 317-374). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Ferguson, R. F. (1998b). Teachers' perceptions and expectations and Black-White test score gap. In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap (pp. 273-317). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Ferguson, R. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 465-498.

Fine, M. (1994). Chartering urban school reform: Reflections on public high schools in the midst of change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Foley, D. E. (1991). Reconsidering anthropological explanations of ethnic school



failure. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 22(1), 60-86.

Frymier, J., & Gansneder, B. (1989). The Phi Delta Kappa study of students at risk. PhiDelta Kappan, 71(2), 142-146.

Goodnow, J. J., (1988). Parents' ideas, about parenting and development: A review of issues and recent work, In M. E. Lamb, A. L. Brown, & B. Rogoff (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (pp. 193-242). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Goode, T. L. (1985). Teacher effects. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Third handbook of research onteaching. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Gottfredson, D. C. (1990). Developing effectiveorganizations to reduce school disorder. In O. C. Moles (Ed.), Student discipline strategies: Research and practice (pp. 47-62). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Grasso, F. (2002). I.Q. genetics or environment.AllPYSCH Journal. Retrieved September 15, 2004, from http://allpsych.com/journal/iq.html

Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 6-11.

Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can close the gap. Thinking K-16, 3(2), 2.

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Holden, G. W., & Edwards, L. E. (1989). Parental attitudes toward child rearing: Instruments, issues, and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 29-58.

Irvine, J. J., & Armento, B. J. (2001). Culturallyresponsive teaching: Lesson planning for elementary and middle grades. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Irvine, J. J., & York, D. E. (1995). Learning styles and culturally diverse students: Aliterature review. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M.

Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 484-497). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (1998). The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Johnson, J. E., & Martin, C. (1983). Family environment and kindergarten children's academic knowledge. Paper presented at the meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Fallsview, NY.

Johnson, R. C., & Viadero, D. (2000a). Unmet promise: Raising minority achievement. Education Week, 19(27), 1, 18-19.

Johnson, R. C., & Viadero, D. (2000b). Lifting minority achievement: Complex answers. Retrieved March 23, 2004, from http://edweek.org

Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular.Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Laosa, L. M. (1978). Maternal teaching strategies in Chicano families of varied educational and socioeconomic levels. Child Development, 49, 1129-1135.

Levin, H. M., & Tsang, M. C. (1987). The economics of student time. Economics of Education Review, 6(4), 357-364.

Lezotte, L. W. (1991). Correlates of effective schools: The first and second generation.Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products, Ltd.

McDiarmid, G. W. (1995). Realizing new learning for all students: A framework for the professional development of Kentucky teachers (Special Report). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.

McKinley, J. (2003). Leveling the playing field and raising African American students' achievement in twenty-nine urban classrooms. Seattle, WA: New Horizons for Learning.



Maddahian, E., & Bird, M. (2003). Domains and components of a culturally relevant and responsive educational program (Publication No. 178). Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Unified School District; Program Evaluation and Research Branch; Planning, Assessment, and Research Division.

Maddahian, E., & Lai, J. (2004, October). Stakeholders views on culturally relevant and responsive education (Publication No. 224). Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Unified SchoolDistrict; Program Evaluation and Research Branch; Planning, Assessment, and Research Division.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Ogbu, J. U. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic disengagement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ogbu, J. U., & Simmons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: Acultural-ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 29(2) 155-188.

Osborne, J. W. (2001). Unraveling underachievement among African American boys from an identification with academics perspective. Journal of Negro Education, 68, 555-565.

Patton, D. (2004). Administrators' perceptions regarding the implementation of culturally relevant and responsive professional development (Publication No. 216). Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Unified School District; Program Evaluation and Research Branch; Planning, Assessment, and Research Division.

Pasch, M., Sparks-Langer, G., Gardner, T. G., Starko A. J., & Moody, C. D. (1991). Teaching as decision making: Instructional practices for the successful teacher. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing.

Phillips, S. U. (1972). Participant structures andcommunicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom. In C. B. Cazden, V. Johns, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 370-394). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Phillips, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G., Klebanov, K., & Crane, J. (1998). Family background, parenting practices and the Black-White test score gap. In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap(pp. 103-145). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Piestrup, A. M. (1973). Black dialect interference and accommodation of reading instruction in first grade (No. 4. UCB). Berkeley, CA: Monographs of the Language Behavior Research Laboratory.

Porter, A. C. (2003, October). Prospects for school reform and closing the achievement gap. Paper presented at Educational Testing Service's Invitational Conference, New York City, NY.

Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching, New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Pukey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal 83(4), 427-452.

Resnick, L. B., & Hall, M. W. (2001). The principles of learning: Study tools for educators (CD-ROM, version 2.0). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center, Institute for Learning.

Rickford, J., & Rickford, R. (2000). Spoken soul: The story of Black English. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.



Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1998). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers onfuture student academic achievement. Thinking K-16: Good Teacher Matters: How Well-Qualified Teachers Can Close the Gap,3(2). Retrieved on March 15, 2004, from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/schoolimprovement/closingthegap/strategies/movement.

Schmid, C. L. (2001). Educational achievement,language-minority students, and the new second generation. Sociology of Education, 34, 71-87.

Schmoker, M., & Marzano, R. J. (1999). Realizing the promise of standards-based education. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 17-21.

Solórzano, D., & Solórzano, R. (2004). Principles of successful schools for multilingual children. In O. Santa Ana (Ed.), Tongue-tied; the lives of multicultural children in public education (pp. 197-221). Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

SPSS. (2004). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Chicago, IL: Author.

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2004). Why we need to explore development in its cultural context. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 369-386.

Trueba, H. T. (1991). The role of culture in bilingual instruction: Linking linguistic and cognitive development to cultural knowledge. In O. García (Ed.), Focus on bilingual education: Essays in honor of Joshua Fishman (pp. 17-51). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Trueba, H. T. & Bartolome, L. I. (1997). The education of Latino students: Is school reformenough? New York, NY: ERIC Clearinghouseon Urban Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED410367)

Valdes, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families

and schools. New York, NY: Teachers CollegePress.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring.New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

Villegas, A. (1991). Culturally responsive pedagogy for the 1990s and beyond.Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement.Aurora, CO: MCREL.

Weber, G. (1971). Inner city children can be taught to read: Four successful schools (CGE Occasional Papers No. 18). Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.

Wenglinsky, H. (2004). Closing the racial achievement gap: The role of reforming instructional practices. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(64).

Wyatt, T. (1996). School effectiveness research: Dead end, damp squid or smoldering fuse? Issues in Educational Research, 6(1) 79-112.

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ebrahim Maddahian is a Program Evaluationand Research Coordinator in the ProgramEvaluation and Research Branch at the LosAngeles Unified School District. Dr.Maddahian's area of interest is educational psy-chology. Penny Fidler is a Senior EducationalResearch Analyst in the Program Evaluation andResearch Branch at the Los Angeles UnifiedSchool District. Dr. Fidler's area of interest isquantitative psychology. Kathy Hayes is a ChiefEducational Research Scientist in the ProgramEvaluation and Research Branch at Los AngelesUnified School District. Dr. Hayes' area ofinterest is educational anthropology.



Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Dr. Ebrahim Maddahian, LosAngeles Unified School District, ProgramEvaluation and Research Branch, 333 BeaudryAve, 23rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017Email: [email protected]


61Megh Thapa

Research confirms that teachers are the mostimportant factor influencing students' achieve-ment growth, and that they vary widely in qualityand classroom effectiveness. Most commonlyused evaluations of teacher quality or effectivenessare inadequate or unsatisfactory, and there is notone evaluation system that is generally acceptedas fair, just, practical, and productive.Considering this, and the fact that roughly 50percent of financial expenditures in a typicalschool district go to teacher salaries, the impor-tance of teacher quality, accountability, andimprovement cannot be exaggerated. It is thusimportant to carefully examine promising systems,learn from their use, and develop an evidencebase on this complex subject. It is toward thisend that the authors have made an importantcontribution by compiling relevant researchfindings, as well as providing a description offour distinct and promising evaluation systems,and lessons learned from their use.

The authors describe the purpose of the book tobe "to present methodologies that have attemptedto balance the competing demands of fairness,diagnostic value for professional growth, andaccountability for student learning" (p. 12). Inaddition to portions of an earlier version,commissioned and published by NationalEducation Association in 2002, the book includesa new case study of the Alexandria, Virginia,School District's evaluation system authored byMcBride and Miller. Included are case studies ofthe Colorado, Oregon, Tennessee, and Virginiaassessment systems, each of which uses student

learning as a measure of teacher effectiveness.The book includes appendices with additionalinformation about the cases studied, as well asextensive references.

In the introductory chapter, the authors discussthe qualities of effective teachers and the rela-tionship between effective teachers and studentachievement. They distinguish "highly qualified"teachers and "highly effective" teachers, andassert that licensure and certification alone arenot sufficient for teacher effectiveness. Pointingout that the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001defines highly qualified teachers as "those whohold at least a bachelor's degree, are fullylicensed or certified by the state in the subjectthey teach, and can demonstrate competence inthe subjects they teach," the authors describe ahighly qualified teacher as a "good startingpoint," rightly observing that "most of us wouldwant our child to have a highly effective teacherwhose teaching effort yields high rates of studentlearning" (p. 6). After outlining the limitations ofthe traditional teacher evaluation system that islargely based on the "act" of teaching andclassroom observation, the authors emphasizethat a balanced approach to teacher evaluationneeds to include the "result" of teaching. Thechapter is concluded by noting the increasedimportance of balanced teacher evaluation in thisera of heightened demand for accountability.

In chapter two, the authors first address the issueof teacher responsibility for student learning, andoptions for assessing student learning. Stating the

Book Review

Linking Teacher Evaluation and Student LearningPamela D. Tucker and James H. Stronge

Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development2005, 175 pages

Megh ThapaNorthwest Regional Educational Laboratory


62Linking Teacher Evaluation and Student Learning

authors' belief that "teachers are responsible notonly for teaching but also, to some extent, forlearning outcomes" (p. 16), a brief overview ispresented for each of the well-known assessmentstrategies, namely, norm-referenced tests, criterionreferenced tests, and other types of tests such aslocally developed tests and portfolio assessment.

The authors then profile four teacher assessmentmodels that link student learning to teacherevaluation of teachers: (a) The Oregon TeacherWork Sample Methodology; (b) The Thompson,Colorado, School District Standards-BasedAssessment System; (c) The Alexandria,Virginia, School District Goal-Setting System;and (d) The Tennessee Value-Added System.These four distinct systems include student per-formance as a fundamental part of the overallassessment of teacher effectiveness and quality.Chapters 3 through 6 include the systems'respective description, premises, objectives,design, strengths, and weaknesses.

In the final chapter, Final Thoughts on AssessingTeacher Quality: Guidelines for Policy andPractice, the authors first summarize the lessonslearned from the application of the four systems.Implications are drawn for the use of studentlearning measures in teacher-quality assessment,based on the experience of the four systems, interms of student learning, instructional assistancefor students, personal actions, and professionaldevelopment. Following this, the authors offer

nine recommendations in the form of "practicesto reduce possible bias and increase the fairnessof using student data in teacher assessment" (p.96). These recommendations, supported byresearch findings, address the major issues,concerns, and challenges relevant to the use ofstudent achievement in teacher evaluation.

For any teacher evaluation system to be effective,useful or successful, it must win teachers' trustand participation. This refers to the importanceof understanding how the teachers who areaffected by a system perceive that system, orwhat their objections or problems are with it.The book would have been much more helpfulto its audience had the authors been able to pro-vide empirical information of this type about thefour systems they reviewed in the book. To con-clude, however, the book is a valuable resourcefor educators and others seeking to gain basicunderstanding of the link between teacher qualityand student outcome.

A final note: Since the footnotes to the variouschapters are placed at the end of the book, andidentified by chapter number−−and not title orpage number−−they are rather cumbersome tofind. The book would have been much morereader-friendly if either each of its pages indi-cated the chapter number in addition to the title,or alternatively, the notes section indicated thetitle for each chapter. Admittedly, this probablyhas to do with the publishers.

JES SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS General Articles and Research Manuscripts: Authors must send three printed copies (unstapled)along with a self-addressed, stamped 10” x 13” envelope with sufficient postage for two manuscripts toSusan Jenkins, Associate Editor, Journal for Effective Schools, Campus Box 8019, Pocatello, Idaho 83209-8019. Electronic submissions will not be accepted. Additional detailed information concerning the sub-mission of manuscripts can be found on the Internet at http://icee.isu.edu. Manuscripts not followingspecifications listed on the Website will be returned to the author(s). The editors conduct a double-blind,peer-review process; therefore, authors must exclude their names, institutions, and clues to authors’identities from within the text of the manuscript.

Length, Typing, Style: Manuscripts must be typed or word-processed. The title should appear at thetop of the first page. A manuscript, including all references, tables, and figures, should be 20-30 pagesin length. Authors should keep tables and figures to a minimum and include them at the end of the text.All text, including titles, headings, references, quotations, figure captions, and tables, must be typeddouble-spaced with one-inch margins all around. All pages must be numbered. Any abbreviations andacronyms not well known to the average reader should be explained. For writing, editorial style, andreferences, authors must follow the guidelines in the Publication Manual of the American PsychologicalAssociation (Fifth Edition).

Abstract and Cover Page: All general and researched manuscripts must include an abstract. Abstractsdescribing the essence of the manuscript must be 100-150 words and be typed double-spaced on aseparate page. On the cover page, authors must include their name(s), title, institution, mailing address,daytime phone number(s), fax number, e-mail address, and a brief (10 words or fewer)description(s) of area(s) of specialization.

SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATIONOne year for institutions $110.00; two years $220.00; three years $330.00; single issue $75.00. One yearfor individuals $55.00; two years $105.00; three years $150.00; single issue $40.00. Canadian subscriptionsadd $10.00 per year. International subscriptions add $15.00 per year. Orders and inquiries should beaddressed to: Journal for Effective Schools, Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness, College ofEducation, Idaho State University, Campus Box 8019, Pocatello, Idaho 83209-8019. Orders may be paidby personal check, Purchase Order, VISA or Mastercard.

The Journal for Effective Schools is published twice a year: once in the fall and once in the spring.

ISSN 1542-104X

COPYRIGHT AND PERMISSIONSCopyright © 2006 Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness.

No part of this Journal may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electric ormechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,without written permission from the copyright owner. Authors are granted permission to reproducetheir articles for personal use.

Permission to copy must be obtained from the copyright owner. Please apply for permission to:Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness, College of Education, Idaho State University,Campus Box 8019, Pocatello, Idaho 83209-8019.




Published by theIntermountain Center for Education Effectiveness

College of EducationIdaho State University


p 208.282.3202 f 208.282.2244College of Education

Documents

JES Spring Journal 2006