School-wide Organization, Structures, and Processes Used

School-wide Organization, Structures, and Processes Used to Achieve High Performance:

A Multicase Study of High-Poverty Elementary Schools

With High Percentages of Students of Color

By

Sharon L. Contreras

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

(Educational Leadership & Policy Analysis)

at the University of Wisconsin–Madison

2015

Date of final oral examination: 05/06/15

This dissertation is approved by the following members of the Final Oral Committee:

Peter M. Miller, Associate Professor, Education Leadership & Policy Analysis

Eric M. Camburn, Associate Professor, Education Leadership & Policy Analysis

Jerlando F.L. Jackson, Professor, Education Leadership & Policy Analysis

Kent D. Peterson, Professor Emeritus, Education Leadership & Policy Analysis

Gloria J. Ladson-Billings, Professor, Curriculum and Instruction

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am immensely grateful to my committee chairperson, Dr. Peter Miller, and committee

members, Dr. Eric Camburn, Dr. Jerlando F. L. Jackson, Dr. Kent Peterson, and Dr. Gloria J.

Ladson-Billings, for the thoughtful and relevant coursework and their guidance and support over

many years. I am very proud of the education that I have received at the University of

Wisconsin-Madison.

I am thankful for the love of my parents, James and Elizabeth Contreras, who were my

first and very best teachers, and greatest advocates.

I would not have completed this dissertation without the love, encouragement, and

advisement of my Inspiration.

“[She] looked down on him and felt a self-crushing love. So her soul crawled out from its hiding

place.” – Zora Neale Hurston

Finally, I wish to acknowledge the courageous educators who have mentored and guided

me over the past two decades:

Colonel Thomas M. Brady, United States Army (retired)

Dr. Ellen Bueschel

Dr. Carole Boyce Davies

Dr. Angela Davis

Dr. Ronald L. Epps

Dr. Barbara M. Pulliam-Davis

They are too numerous to name, but these educators have dedicated their lives to ensuring that

all children have access to a high quality and joyful education; they have worked to dramatically

and profoundly improve the life outcomes for every single student that they serve—the only

measure that really matters.

For Jonathan Nelson McNair

the joy of my life

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ ii

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................ 3

Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 4

Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................... 7

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 7

Effective Schools Research ........................................................................................................ 7

School Turnaround ................................................................................................................ 17

Principal Leadership ............................................................................................................. 21

Change management ......................................................................................................... 21

Emergence of school turnaround research. ....................................................................... 23

Professional Learning and Teaching Collaboration .............................................................. 30

High Expectations ................................................................................................................. 40

Data-Driven Instruction ........................................................................................................ 43

Summary ................................................................................................................................... 46

CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................. 47

METHODS AND DESIGN .......................................................................................................... 47

Qualitative Design .................................................................................................................... 47

Multiple Case Studies ........................................................................................................... 47

Sampling ............................................................................................................................... 48

Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 50

Data Management ..................................................................................................................... 52

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 52

Validity and Ethical Considerations ......................................................................................... 53

Triangulation ......................................................................................................................... 54

Confidentiality and Ethics ..................................................................................................... 54

Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................... 55

iii

Significance and Conclusion .................................................................................................... 55

CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................. 57

RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 57

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 57

Abernathy Elementary School .................................................................................................. 57

School Demographics ........................................................................................................... 58

High-Stakes Assessment Results .......................................................................................... 59


Hiring and Staffing Practices ................................................................................................ 67

Academic Structures ............................................................................................................. 69

Standards-based curriculum. ............................................................................................. 69

Academic support(s) for students. .................................................................................... 71

Social and extracurricular support(s) for students. ........................................................... 72

Support(s) for parents and families. .................................................................................. 73

Teacher expectations ......................................................................................................... 76

Teacher Learning and Collaboration..................................................................................... 77

District structures. ............................................................................................................. 77

Annual planning ................................................................................................................ 77

School-level planning. ...................................................................................................... 78

Common planning time..................................................................................................... 79

Professional learning community ..................................................................................... 80

Professional development workshops ............................................................................... 82

Teacher Practices .................................................................................................................. 83

Mixed-age classroom for differentiation .......................................................................... 84

Differentiated instruction. ................................................................................................. 86

Data-driven instruction ..................................................................................................... 89

Use of technology ............................................................................................................. 90

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 91

Dennison Elementary School .................................................................................................... 92

School Demographics ........................................................................................................... 92

High-Stakes Assessment Results .......................................................................................... 94


Hiring and Staffing Practices ................................................................................................ 99

Academic Structures ........................................................................................................... 101

iv

Standards-based curriculum ............................................................................................ 101

Academic Support(s) for Students ...................................................................................... 103

Social and extracurricular support(s) for students. ......................................................... 104

Support for parents and families ..................................................................................... 105

Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Beliefs ................................................................................ 108

Teacher Learning and Collaboration................................................................................... 110

Collaborative planning .................................................................................................... 110

Grade-level planning ....................................................................................................... 111

Vertical planning ............................................................................................................. 113

Professional development workshops. ............................................................................ 114

Teacher Practices ................................................................................................................ 115

Instructional strategies. ................................................................................................... 115

Differentiated instruction ................................................................................................ 120

Departmentalization ........................................................................................................ 122

Data-driven instruction ................................................................................................... 123

Use of technology ........................................................................................................... 125

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 126

Ghering Elementary School .................................................................................................... 127

School Demographics and Structure ................................................................................... 127

High-Stakes Assessment Results ........................................................................................ 128

Principal Leadership ........................................................................................................... 131

Hiring and Staffing ............................................................................................................. 136

Academic Structures ........................................................................................................... 142

Standards-based curriculum ............................................................................................ 142

Academic support(s) for students ................................................................................... 143

Social and extracurricular support(s) for students .......................................................... 145

Support for parents and families ..................................................................................... 146

Teacher Learning and Collaboration................................................................................... 148

Grade-level planning. ...................................................................................................... 148

Job-embedded professional learning through coaching. ................................................. 150

Professional learning network......................................................................................... 152

Teacher Practices ................................................................................................................ 153

Flexible use of instructional staff .................................................................................... 153

Use of time ...................................................................................................................... 154

v

Differentiated instruction ................................................................................................ 155

Data-driven instruction. .................................................................................................. 158

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 161

CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................... 162

CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 162

Research Question 1 ............................................................................................................... 162

Academic Structural Supports ............................................................................................ 162

Staffing Structural Supports ................................................................................................ 164

Collaborative Processes ...................................................................................................... 166

Extended and Enrichment Learning Supports .................................................................... 167

Parent and Family Structural Supports ............................................................................... 168


Flexible staffing .............................................................................................................. 171

Scheduling....................................................................................................................... 172

High expectations............................................................................................................ 172

Shared leadership ............................................................................................................ 172

Data-driven instruction ................................................................................................... 173


Summary ................................................................................................................................. 177

CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................................... 178

FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND IMPLICATIONS .............................................................. 178

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 178

Summary of the Study ............................................................................................................ 178

Findings .................................................................................................................................. 180

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 191

Implications for Practice ..................................................................................................... 199

Implications for school-wide organization, structures and processes ............................. 200

Implications for principal and teacher actions that foster high performance .................. 202

Implications for leveraging professional development ................................................... 203

Implications for Research ................................................................................................... 203

Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................................... 205

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 207

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 219

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................. 220

vi

PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT LETTER ............................................................................. 220

APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................. 221

PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT SCRIPT .............................................................................. 221

APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................. 224

DISSERTATION PROPOSAL ABSTRACT ............................................................................ 224

APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................. 225

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR PRINCIPALS........................................................................ 225

APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................................. 228

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR TEACHERS .......................................................................... 228

APPENDIX F.............................................................................................................................. 231

RESEARCH PARTICIPANT INFORMATION AND CONSENT FORM .............................. 231

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of Selected Research on Successful Schools ................................................... 15

Table 2. Summary of Selected Research on School Turnaround .................................................. 21

Table 3. Abernathy Elementary School 2011 Student and Teacher Demographics ..................... 59

Table 4. Abernathy Elementary School State Testing Results – Percentage of Students Meeting

2010 and 2011 Standard in Reading/English Language Arts by Subgroup ......................... 60

Table 5. Abernathy Elementary School State Testing Results – Percentages of Students Meeting

2010 and 2011 Standard in Math by Subgroup .................................................................... 60


2010 and 2011 Standard in Writing by Subgroup ................................................................ 61


2010 and 2011 Standard in Science by Subgroup ................................................................ 61

Table 8. Dennison Elementary School 2011 Student and Teacher Demographics ...................... 93

Table 9. Dennison Elementary School 2010 and 2011 Reading/English Language Arts State

Testing Results – Percentage of Students Meeting Standard by Subgroup .......................... 94

Table 10. Dennison Elementary School 2010 and 2011 Math State Testing Results – Percentage

of Students Meeting Standard by Subgroup .......................................................................... 94

Table 11. Dennison Elementary School 2010 and 2011 Writing State Testing Results –

Percentage of Students Meeting Standard by Subgroup....................................................... 95

Table 12. Dennison Elementary School 2010 and 2011 Science State Testing Results –

Percentage of Students Meeting Standard ............................................................................ 95

Table 13. Ghering Elementary School 2010, 2011, and 2012 English Language Arts State

Testing Results – Percentage of Students Meeting or Exceeding Standard by Subgroup .. 129

Table 14. Ghering Elementary School 2010, 2011, and 2012 Math State Testing Results –

Percentage of Students Meeting or Exceeding Standard by Subgroup .............................. 130

Table 15. Ghering Elementary School 2010, 2011, and 2012 Science State Testing Results –

Percentage of Students Meeting or Exceeding Standard by Subgroup .............................. 130

Table 16. Academic Structural Supports by School.................................................................... 163

Table 17. Staffing Structural Supports by School ....................................................................... 166

viii

Table 18. Areas of Focus During Common Planning Time by School ....................................... 167

Table 19. Extended and Enrichment Learning Supports by School ........................................... 168

Table 20. Parent and Family Structural Supports by School ..................................................... 169

Table 21. Principal and Teacher Actions by School ................................................................... 170

Table 22. Professional Learning Practices by School ................................................................ 174

ix

ABSTRACT

More than 35 years ago, educator Ron Edmonds proclaimed, “Inequity in American education

derives first and foremost from our failure to educate children of the poor” (Edmonds, 1979, p.

15). Despite decades of educational reform, innovation, and federal legislation, poor African

American and Latino children lag dramatically behind their White peers in academic

achievement. Harris (2006) identified only 0.3% of America’s elementary and middle schools

serving predominantly poor, African and Latino children as high performing. Undereducating

masses of American children will have a devastating effect on the nation’s economic

competitiveness and on the standing of the United States as a strong democracy. Consequently,

it is imperative that educators seek and learn from schools that are successful in realizing high

achievement for all students. In this study, I explored the school-wide organization, structures,

and processes used by high-poverty elementary schools with large percentages of students of

color to become high performing.

1

Organizational and School-Wide Structures Used to Achieve High Performance

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

“Inequity in American education derives first and foremost from our failure to educate

the children of the poor” (Edmonds, 1979, p. 15). The release of the July 1966 report entitled

Equality of Educational Opportunity, commonly referred to as the Coleman Report, resulted in

claims that the legacies of poverty, racism, and broken families are simply insurmountable for

schools (Carter, 2000) and that “the inequalities imposed on children by their home,

neighborhood, and peer environment are carried along to become the inequalities with which

they confront adult life at the end of school” (Marzano, 2001, p. 6). Marzano wrote,

The report had two primary effects on perceptions about schooling in America. First, it

dealt a blow to the perception that schools could be a viable agent in equalizing the

disparity in students’ academic achievement due to environmental factors. Second, it

spawned the perception that differences in schools have little, if any, relationship with

student achievement. (Marzano, 2001, p. 6)

One well-publicized finding from the report was that schools accounted for only about 10% of

the variances in student achievement; the other 90% was accounted for by student background

characteristics.

Forty years after the Coleman Report, many educators still believed that schools had little

control over closing the achievement gap that existed between poor children and their more

affluent peers. After all, they insisted, numerous studies had pointed to existing achievement

gaps prior to students’ even setting foot in their school buildings (Alston, 2004; Barth et al.,

1999; Wang & Wong, 1997). Educators frequently proclaim that the achievement gap is simply

2

a byproduct of social adversarial conditions over which the school has little control, such as

widespread poverty, unemployment, inadequate health care, substandard living conditions, and

pervasive discrimination.

Indeed, there are existing studies pertaining to children living in poverty that are

disheartening. Perhaps one of the most disturbing is a 1995 study by Hart and Risley, which

found a significant discrepancy in the vocabulary size of poor children compared to children

from professional or high-income families. The average 3-year old from a poor family exhibited

an active vocabulary of 500 words whereas the average 3-year old from a high-income family

exhibited an active vocabulary of more than 1000 words. Such a difference has a significant,

negative impact on poor children with regard to reading acquisition and achievement. In nearly

half of the states, students of color make up the majority of the student population; yet, African

American and Latino students drop out of school at nearly double the rate of their White peers

(Alliance for Excellent Education, 2012a). For the class of 2011, more than 1 million students

dropped out before high school graduation. Black males are much more likely to be

unemployed, underemployed, or incarcerated than their White peers (Jordan & Cooper, 2001).

More often students of color in particular “are disproportionately embedded in communities that

have endured generations of poverty and racial isolation. Intergenerational poverty and cyclical

racial isolation have had devastating effects on education, public health, employment, and the

like” (Jordan & Cooper, 2001, p. 2).

Most schools have proven ineffective at closing the gaps between the affluent and the

poor and between students of color and White students. It is little wonder then that some

educators have embraced the concept that schools have very little influence over their students.

Research over the past quarter of a century, however, has indicated that poverty and ethnic

3

minority status need not predetermine educational outcomes. Research has suggested that

although economic, race, ethnic, and language factors matter, educators and policymakers should

focus their attention on the professional practices of teachers and leaders as essential for creating

high performance (Carter, 2000; Chrisman, 2005; Reeves, 2004). In fact, many researchers

(Berends, Kirby, Naftel, & McKelvey, 2001; Kane & Staiger, 2008; Marzano, Waters, &

McNulty, 2005) have stressed the importance of teacher quality for school improvement and

school turnaround. Teacher quality is now widely accepted as the most critical in-school factor

related to student achievement. In fact, New Leaders for New Schools reported that nearly 60%

of a school’s impact on student achievement is attributable to principal and teacher effectiveness:

These are the most important in-school factors driving school success, with principals

accounting for 25% and teachers 33% of a school’s total impact on achievement.

Furthermore, even though a single teacher can have a profound impact on student

learning over the course of a year, that effect generally fades quite quickly unless a

student’s subsequent teachers are equally effective, with half the gains being lost the

following year, and nearly all of the gains being lost within two years. In order for

students to have high-quality learning gains year after year whole schools must be high-

functioning led by effective principals with effective teachers across the school. This is

especially vital for turnaround schools, where studies find no examples of success

without effective principal leadership. (New Leaders for New Schools, 2009, p. 5)

Statement of the Problem

Numerous studies have identified successful schools: those that produce high academic

achievement for all students irrespective of poverty level, race, ethnicity, gender, or home

language background. The factors contributing to that success are discussed below.

4

Research Questions

The majority of research studies about high-performing schools have related to the

characteristics of successful schools versus the process of turning a low-performing school into a

high-performing one (U.S. Department of Education [USDOE], 2001). Moreover, Danielson

stated,

School organization and structure refer to all those fundamental aspects of how the

school is organized for instruction: The organization of the school into subunits, the

master schedule, and the assignment of different teachers to teach different courses or be

responsible for different groups of students. These issues influence the tone of the

building in the broadest possible way. (Danielson, 1996, n.p.)

The Center for Collaborative Education further highlighted the important role that school

structures play in transforming schools:

The structures that guide a school community through its day-to-day operations—its

master schedules, the length and frequency of class periods, how students and teachers

are grouped, and how financial resources are allocated—reflect the beliefs and values of

the school…. However, when a school recognizes that students learn in different ways

and wants to provide learning opportunities so that all students will succeed, traditional

school structures need to be reexamined. Reexamining school structures should be

undertaken with the goal of promoting greater equity of access to rigorous learning

opportunities so that all students can achieve at high levels. (Center for Collaborative

Education, 2000, pp. 2-3)

The following research questions were developed to identify and understand the organization,

structures, and processes used for school turnaround and achievement of high performance:

5

1. What are the school-wide organization, structures, and processes used by high-

poverty elementary schools with high percentages of students of color to become high

performing?

2. What are the principal and teacher actions that fostered high performance?

3. How is professional learning leveraged and supported to foster high performance?

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework developed for this study was based upon the theoretical work

on effective schools (Edmonds, 1979; Levine, Levine, & Eubanks, 1984, 1985; Lezotte, 1996);

professional development for school improvement with the primary goals being improvement in

teaching and learning (DuFour, 2004; Newmann & Wehlage, 1996; Newmann, King, & Youngs,

2000); and principal instructional leadership supported by the literature on change, turnaround,

and transformational leadership (Brinson, Kowal, & Hassel, Rhim, & Valsing, 2008; Dee, 2012;

Duke, 1987, 2006; Fullan, 2000, 2001, 2002a, 2004, 2005; Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger & Heck,

1998; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1998; Hallinger & Murphy, 1987; Lambert, 2002, 2005, 2006;

Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Miller & Brown, 2015; Murphy, 1990;

Murphy, Hallinger, Weil, & Mitman, 1984, 1985; New Leaders for New Schools, 2009). I

sought to understand the school-wide organization, structures, and processes used at the high-

poverty, high-performing schools with high percentages of students of color selected for this

study. In using the aforementioned theoretical work, I was able to better understand and develop

a theory regarding the process(es) by which these schools became high-performing schools.

I used effective schools research as the foundational theoretical framework for this study.

There has been general consensus among educators on the major characteristics of effective

schools. Edmonds described the common characteristics of effective schools:

6

strong leadership at the school level;

high expectations for students’ performance that is conveyed by all staff;

an orderly school climate;

strong emphasis on teaching the basic skills; and

frequent evaluation including ongoing monitoring of student progress. (Edmonds,

1979, p. 22)

I considered the effective schools research foundational in that, with its onset, researchers began

to focus on school factors, rather than students’ home environments, that contributed to low

student achievement.

Second, I examined Phillip Hallinger’s instructional leadership model. Leithwood et al.

(2004) described Hallinger’s model as the most researched. The model has three dimensions:

defining the school’s mission, managing the instructional program, and promoting a positive

learning climate (Leithwood, 2004, p. 6). This model served as a framework to provide insight

into determining initial leadership actions that lead to improvement in the quality and quantity of

teaching and learning.

Finally, Fred Newmann’s theoretical framework for professional development indicates

that professional development should address five aspects of school capacity to increase school-

wide student achievement: teachers’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions; professional

community; program coherence; technical resources; and principal leadership (Newmann et al.,

2000, p. 290). This framework assisted in addressing the study’s subquestion regarding

professional development processes within these high-performing schools.

7

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Effective Schools Research

In the late 1970s, Ronald Edmonds conducted groundbreaking research. He concluded

that the family backgrounds of elementary students neither caused nor precluded school

effectiveness (Edmonds, 1979). In addition, he found that the demographics of effective schools

for poor and ethnic minority children were indistinguishable from those of less effective schools,

thereby shattering the belief that students of poverty and color are predetermined to fail. So why

are effective schools not a matter of common knowledge? It appears that much more public

attention has been given to failing schools than to those achieving at high levels.

As most low-performing schools enroll a majority of poor and ethnic minority students

and high-poverty students, low-performance schools are the current norm in the nation (Barth et

al., 1999); some researchers believe that it is imperative to seek examples of the opposite: high-

poverty schools that produce high student academic outcomes. According to the 1997 report by

Wang and Wong, Implementing School Reform, one of the most effective ways to promote

educational reform in challenging settings is to identify, recognize, and then select certain

demographically similar schools that promote at least relatively high achievement. The majority

of research studies involving the characteristics of effective schools obtained data through these

methods (Barth et al., 1999; Carter, 2000; Reeves, 2004).

For the most part, researchers have been fairly consistent about the characteristics of

effective schools. Although some of the more minute characteristics may differ, the

overwhelming evidence has pointed to the behavior of the school itself (Alston, 2004; Edmonds,

8

1979; Smith, 1995). In 1979, Edmonds first disseminated his findings of common characteristics

of effective schools:

strong leadership at the school level;

high expectations for students’ performance that are conveyed by all staff;

an orderly school climate;

strong emphasis on teaching the basic skills; and

frequent evaluation including ongoing monitoring of student progress (Edmonds,

1979, p. 22)

With the onset of the effective schools research, investigators gradually began to shift away from

examining “defects” of students’ home environments that were widely believed to prevent them

from achieving. Instead, researchers began to focus on school factors that contributed to low

student achievement. Edmonds cited Madden, Lawson, and Sweet’s 1976 study of school

effectiveness in California and concluded that

teachers at higher-achieving schools were provided with a significantly greater

amount of support from their principals;

they were more task-oriented in their approach and exhibited more evidence of

applying appropriate principles of learning;

student monitoring was evident;

teachers in high performing schools spent relatively the same amount of time on

reading, language arts, and science as their colleagues in low performing schools;

high performing schools had fewer paid aides in reading, and the aides they had

were more likely to be used for non-teaching tasks; and

9

classrooms in high-achieving schools were divided into fewer groups for purposes

of instruction. (as cited in Edmonds, 1979, pp. 17-18)

Edmonds described findings that compared and contrasted the behavioral characteristics of staff

members in effective schools with those of staff working in low-performing schools. He found

that staff members in effective schools tended to have a higher locus of control than those

working in low-performing schools. As a whole, the effective schools’ staff members essentially

believed that not only does every child have the ability to achieve mastery of instructional

objectives but also it is their duty as teachers and principals to provide the appropriate level of

support each child needs to achieve this mastery. On the other hand, staff members of low-

performing schools tended to believe that there is little they can do to influence the achievement

of their students, thereby displacing the responsibility for learning on the parents or the students

themselves. Principals of effective schools focused on assertive instructional leadership and

monitoring of objectives, whereas principals of low-performing schools tended to be more

collegial and permissive, focusing on appeasing others.

Other researchers came to similar conclusions. Levine et al. concluded that most urban

schools “can improve the achievement of their students without investing heavily in additional

faculty, staff development, or materials” by revising organizational arrangements to improve

reading instruction, emphasizing higher order thinking skills and personal development, and

instituting high expectations (Levine et al., 1984, p. 707).

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, general themes of time, collaboration, and commitment

to improvement began to emerge in effective schools research. Eubanks et al. (1983) concluded

that increased time, as opposed to funding, is an important element that must be considered for

schools to be effective with urban populations:

10

A substantial amount of professional development time is required to help

teachers become more effective in working with inner-city students;

Administrative and instructional support and monitoring necessitate significant

commitments of time from personnel;

Title I schools do not necessarily require additional funding; and

An effective schools approach demands a reasonable time schedule for

implementation.

Fullan’s later research supported these findings: “Our tentative conclusion is you can turn around

a primary (school) in about three years, a secondary (school) in five or six years, and a district in

seven or eight” (Fullan, 2001, p. 80).

Levine et al. (1985) examined several urban schools that served primarily poor students

of color. Schools were encouraged to examine their organizational structures not only to foster

collaboration with grade-level partners but also to enable dialogue with faculty across all grade

levels. Findings included :

Instruction at effective inner-city schools is outcome-based, involving curriculum

alignment and mastery learning.

Effective organizational teaching arrangements are made, emphasizing efficient use of

student and teacher time, a formal management system encouraging high task

orientation, and positive teacher behavior.

Instruction is coordinated within and across grade levels, reducing inconsistent and

contradictory methods and materials.

Shared values and goals to improve student learning are implemented school wide.

Instructional approaches are adapted to the unique circumstances at the schools.

11

All school improvement components are selected to unify as a comprehensive whole

(Levine et al., 1985, pp. 313-324).

By the mid-1990s, research was relatively consistent in finding that effective schools had strong

leadership, high expectations, an orderly environment conducive to learning, prioritization of

basic skills acquisition, a focus on the primary objectives of the school, and frequent

instructional monitoring (Barth et al., 1999).

After reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1994),

accompanied by the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994), the terms accountability and

standards gradually began to be included in recommendations for effective schools (Barth et al.,

1999). Further, the federal government began to use Title I funding as a lever to force states to

improve the overall educational effectiveness of their schools in meeting the instructional needs

of underserved students and to hold them accountable for improving the conditions for those

students whose schools failed to do so (Wang & Wong, 1997).

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 required a regimen of annual testing and

imposed sanctions on schools that did not demonstrate annual progress (Herman et al., 2008).

“In school year 2006-07, 30% of the nation’s 98,905 schools were designated as schools in need

of improvement and 2,302 were in need of restructuring” (Herman et al., 2008). This approach

to school reform was heightened when, in 2009, the Race to the Top (RTT) initiative was signed

into law, providing incentives to states for improved assessment results, which were tied more

closely to state standards. In 2010, NCLB was overhauled to include indicators in addition to

test scores, including graduation rate, attendance rate, and learning climate. Also that year, the

Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were developed for English and mathematics, and since

that time, they have been adopted by 43 states. These standards represent a set of shared goals

12

and expectations for the knowledge and skills students need to graduate and be prepared for

college, careers, and citizenship. According to the Alliance for Excellent Education (2011),

nearly 90% of American students reside in states that have adopted the Common Core State

Standards. The Race to the Top Initiative further required that educator evaluation processes be

strengthened and aligned to student achievement results. These latest reform policies have

placed significant pressure on states, districts, and schools to improve.

Effective schools’ culture incorporates high pressure and high support (Fullan, 2005).

Schools experience this pressure and support within the building and outside the building from

the district, state, and federal levels. Fullan suggested that “if the goal is systemic

improvement—to improve all schools in the district—then principals should be nearly as

concerned about the success of other schools in the district as they are about their own school”

(Fullan, 2002c, p. 14). He also cautioned: “an organization cannot flourish—at least, not for

long—on the actions of the top leader alone. Schools and districts need many leaders at many

levels” (Fullan, 2002c, p. 16). As principals are affected by the actions of the district leadership,

a superintendent who maintains equally high standards for performance and holds schools

accountable for meeting them is important (Eubanks & Levine, 1983). Yet schools are highly

dependent on the district and the state education department to provide data (e.g., student high-

stakes assessment results) to even begin the inquiry process.

Many current school reform efforts are tied to whole school or comprehensive reform but

have their roots in past efforts to improve schools. Research on the change process has

emphasized the need to adapt reform efforts to the individual school, involving the entire school

community (USDOE, 2001). Comprehensive reform focuses on altering the deepest

organizational structures, as well as reforming curriculum, instruction, and professional

13

development, to improve the effectiveness of schools for the poor and ethnically minority

children (Murphy, 1992, as cited in Jordan & Cooper, 2001). This type of reform changes the

social and physical dynamics of schools to better meet the needs of students; it involves

various initiatives such as career academies, smaller learning communities, extended

instructional periods, reduced class size, interdisciplinary teacher teams and block

scheduling…innovative ways of teaching math and English as well as infusing culturally

relevant pedagogy and literature into academic courses…[and] training activities for

teachers and school leaders aimed at helping them to address changing dynamics. (Jordan

& Cooper, 2001, p. 5)

Researchers have cautioned that there is no quick fix pertaining to school improvement efforts.

In the USDOE’s first annual School Improvement Report, educators and policymakers were

cautioned to consider the fact that “not all low-performing schools are low performing for the

same reasons or in the same ways; therefore, reform strategies must also be varied to fit the

needs of the particular school” (USDOE, 2001, p. 2). For any reform effort to work, the entire

school community, that is the students, teachers, parents, principal, and other school staff, must

rally around and believe in it.

Although the USDOE currently uses Title I funding as an incentive system for schools to

overcome barriers to high academic performance, the funding itself does not result in a school’s

effectiveness. Until Edmonds’s (1979) effective schools research became widely disseminated,

the Title I program—initiated in response to the Coleman Report and providing compensatory

funding for schools with significant high-poverty populations—had been viewed as one of the

most promising initiatives for overcoming social and environmental barriers to achieve academic

success. Subsequent research has shown that although adequate funding is a necessary

14

component for schools, instructional and school-wide practices have more of a direct impact on

overall school performance (Wang & Wong, 1997). It has become clear that Title I funding, in

isolation from professional practices, has little to do with overall school effectiveness.

Schools receiving targeted assistance for school turnaround benefit from plans that

specifically articulate how the school’s instructional program will be enhanced, how

professional development will be delivered, and how the school will be supported (Council of

the Great City Schools, 2015). Specifically, ensuring that schools have effective leaders and

teachers, increased learning time, student-leveled differentiation, data-driven instruction, and

a culture of high expectations have been found to narrow, if not eliminate, the racial

achievement gap in schools (Fryer, 2014).

Table 1 presents a summary of selected research studies of successful schools.

15

Table 1. Selected Research on Successful Schools, Including the International Center for

Leadership in Education findings on Several Meta-Analyses

Effective schools

(Ron Edmonds)

Foundations of educational effectiveness

(Jaap Scheerens and Role Bosker)

What works in schools – Translating research into

action

(Robert J. Marzano)

High-poverty, high-success schools: Schools that defy

the odds*

(Doris Quick and Custer Quick)

1. Strong administrative

leadership

2. Focus on basic skills

3. High expectations for

student success

4. Frequent monitoring of

student performance

5. Safe and orderly

schools

1. Monitoring of student

progress

2. Focus on achievement

3. Parental involvement

4. Creating a safe and

orderly climate

5. Focused curriculum

6. Strong leadership

7. Cooperative working

environment

8. Time on task

1. Guaranteed and viable

curriculum

2. Challenging goals and

effective feedback

3. Parent and community

involvement

4. Safe and orderly

environment

5. Collegiality and

professionalism

1. A commitment to a

rigorous and relevant

curriculum for all

students

2. Implementation of a

testing program that

evaluates both

students’ conceptual

knowledge and their

ability to apply

knowledge

3. A focused and

sustained staff

development program

4. Commitment to

addressing the issue

of student behavior

5. Willingness to make

organizational

changes for the

benefit of students

(continued)

*Doris Quick and Custer Quick of the International Center for Leadership in Education conducted an analysis of

five models of high-achieving schools. They reviewed the characteristics identified within the 90-90-90 Schools, No

Excuses Schools, Benchmark School study, the Hope for Urban Education study, and the Beating the Odds study.

Listed are the five overriding characteristics found within the studies.

16

Hope for urban education: A study of nine high-

performing, high-poverty, urban elementary schools

(Joseph Johnson and Rose Asera)

Effective schools – Only you can make a difference

(Larry Lezotte, Robert D. Skaife, and Michael

Holstead)

1. School leaders

identified and pursued

an attainable first goal

2. School leaders

redirected time and

energy toward service

to children

3. Safe and orderly

environment

4. School leaders created

a collective sense of

responsibility

5. Quantity and quality of

time spent on

instructional leadership

increased

6. Instruction aligned to

state and district

standards and

assessments

7. School leaders

obtained resources

and training for

teachers


opportunities for

teachers to work, plan,

and learn together

around instructional

issues

9. Educators made efforts

to win the confidence

and respect of parents


additional time for

instruction

11. Educators persisted

through difficulties,

setbacks, and failures

1. Creating the school

culture

2. The correlates of

effective schools

3. Site-based

management

4. Data collection,

disaggregation, and

analysis

5. School improvement

plans process

6. Organizing schools for

students

7. Building community

support.

8. Evaluation of student

progress

17

School Turnaround

Schools are complex social systems that involve the total school organization and culture,

as well as classroom subunits (Austin & Garber, 2014). Research across the years has been

fairly consistent with regard to characteristics present in high-performing schools. In a study of

nine urban elementary schools exhibiting high achievement in reading and math despite high

poverty and high percentages of students of color, researchers found that although Title I

programs supported the schools’ change efforts, Title I was not the catalyst for change. Instead

of relying on funding as the primary factor necessary for change, the schools all engaged in

common practices and set up similar structures:

an important, yet achievable, first goal was identified and pursued;

primary focus was placed on student achievement;

students were expected to take responsibility for appropriate behavior, and a climate

that enabled them to do just that was created by all staff;

there was a collective sense of responsibility for school improvement;

principals reallocated building resources to allow them to focus on instructional

leadership;

instruction and assessments were aligned to the state standards;

principals ensured that teachers’ professional development and materials needs were

met to allow them to focus on student achievement;

principals created highly collaborative environments around instructional issues;

these schools achieved strong partnerships with parents by their attempts to improve

the achievement of students;

18

additional time was made for instruction by either reallocating time during the day

and/or creating additional time after school; and

despite ongoing challenges, school leaders remained persistent. (Johnson & Asera,

1999, pp. vii-ix)

Other studies focused on school-wide structures, systems, and processes for school turnaround.

The Closing Illinois Achievement Gap study posited,

A complex combination of conditions for success is required. Clearly the quality and

commitment of school leaders and the teachers matter a great deal. Community

involvement and extended learning opportunities are essential, as are school safety and

security. An internal accountability based on data driven decisions is most likely a

necessary condition, and early literacy programs are a must. Quality early childhood

education, after school activities and summer school are also important and necessary,

though not sufficient. High standards and quality instruction count for a lot. In short,

there is no “main effect” this researcher could identify, but there is a very clear lesson in

what it will take to enable high-poverty/low-performance schools to become high-

poverty/high-performance schools. (McGee, 2002, p. 124)

In the fall of 1998, the Education Trust constructed and administered a survey of

elementary and secondary schools with poverty levels above 50% across 21 states that had been

identified by the states as the top scoring or most improving schools. In many of the schools,

poor students represented more than three quarters of the population (Barth et al., 1999). These

schools consistently demonstrated that high-poverty schools could reverse low achievement and

become high-performing schools when:

state standards drive instruction, assessment, and teacher evaluation;

19

extended instructional time for reading and math is provided;

professional development specifically tied to assisting students in meeting state

standards is prioritized;

early identification of students at risk for academic failure as well as targeted

intervention is provided;

parent involvement revolves around student achievement; and

accountability programs are in place and include sanctions for faculty for

nonperformance.

Subsequent findings confirmed: “although the impact of poverty clearly has not been

eliminated, the prevailing hypothesis that poverty and ethnic minority status are invariably linked

to low student achievement does not conform to the data” (Reeves, 2004, p. 3). Existing data

have indicated that effective schools do exist across the nation. Not only do they exist, but as a

result of an abundance of literature on the topic over the past 25 years, educators also know what

effective schools look like. Nevertheless, even though Edmonds maintained that “there has

never been a time in the life of the American public school when we have not known all we

needed to in order to teach all those whom we chose to teach” (Edmonds, 1979, p. 16), the

majority of research pertains to the characteristics (Table 1) of successful schools versus the

process of turning a low-performing school into a high-performing one (USDOE, 2001).

Recently, the USDOE took a very aggressive approach to address chronically

underperforming public schools, most of which were located in communities with concentrated

poverty. These underperforming schools applied for funding provided by the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009—the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program—that

would address the multifaceted problems in such schools, including leadership, ineffective

20

curriculum and instructional practices, high turnover, and insufficient resources (Dee, 2012, p.

9). The extensive changes required by the SIG program sought to bring about dramatic school

improvement or school turnaround. The substantial difference in school turnaround when

contrasted with incremental or continuous improvement efforts is that school turnaround calls for

urgent and often-disruptive change efforts. Advocates for school turnaround asserted that prior

initiatives had merely approached school improvement at a superficial level, thereby resulting in

incremental rather than dramatic improvement.

Miller and Brown (2015) suggested that although NCLB and state accountability systems

successfully identified failing schools, districts and schools were provided with limited resources

or supports to actually help these schools improve, and few of these schools utilized evidence-

based interventions. Nevertheless, because of rigorous evaluation of the national SIG program

and emerging research in the area of school turnaround, there are now “key lessons about

[which] methods are most effective when turning around low-performing schools” (Miller &

Brown, 2015, p. 2). Such evidence-based practices include (a) aggressive action on the part of

school districts, (b) resources and requirements, (c) governance and staffing changes, (d) data-

driven decision making, and (e) a focus on school culture and nonacademic supports for

disadvantaged children (Miller & Brown, 2015, p. 10). Table 2 includes some of the key

findings from recent studies on school turnaround.

21

Table 2. Summary of Selected Research on School Turnaround

American Institutes of Research (2013, 2012)

S. H. Cowell Foundation (2013)

Mass Insight (2007)

Harvard University (2014)

Accountability pressures and support from the district

Understanding the developmental nature of desired changes, whether asked of teachers or administrators

Recognition of the challenge

Effective leaders and teachers, which included replacing 19 of 20 principals and almost half of teachers

Strong instructional leadership

Grounding decisions in evidence of adult and student learning

Dramatic and fundamental change

Increasing learning time

Strategic staffing (i.e., strategic recruitment, assignment, and “counseling out” of ineffective staff

Building shared commitments and relationships to sustain change

Urgency More student-level differentiation

Intensive professional development

Supportive operating conditions

Data-driven instruction

New-model, high-capacity partners

New state and district level structures

Principal Leadership

Change management. Leadership changes tied to No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

school-restructuring sanctions have been shown to have the strongest positive effects on student

achievement in low-performing schools and that school management or leadership problems

constitute the single greatest obstacle to school turnaround (Ahn & Vigdor, 2014). Researchers

have concluded that a major issue with which schools and districts are confronted when

attempting to turn around schools’ performance is each school’s capacity to change. The schools

22

that need to change the most, those that are low performing, are usually the schools that are least

able to do so (USDOE, 2001). Hansen posited,

Turning around the nation’s lowest performing schools has become a key priority to the

U.S. Department of Education in recent years, and this presumption between human

resources and school improvement is made in the department’s official turnaround

strategies to improve these chronically low performing schools. Specifically, two of the

four strategies explicitly require districts to replace the principal and/or teachers in low-

performing schools to qualify for federal support under the recent Race to the Top (RTT)

and School Improvement Grant (SIG) programs. (Hansen, 2013, p. 1)

The research is overwhelmingly conclusive that low-performing schools can indeed

become high-performing schools given the right leadership (Bryk, Sebring, & Allensworth,

2010; Carter, 2000; Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010; McGee, 2003, 2004.).

An important element in the research on change management indicates that principals must

consider the needs of individuals for successful change to occur in schools. Paying acute

attention to the needs of staff who must implement the change will likely avert resistance. The

California School Leadership Academy (as cited in Robbins & Alvy, 2014) identified four

factors that must be considered when facilitating change in schools:

Relevance: Whether change is relevant to one’s life or work responsibilities

Feasibility: Whether people may view the change as “doable,” given other

demands on their time, their skills, and their philosophical beliefs

Involvement: Whether the individual being affected by the change has input into

what the change will look like, sound like, and be like

23

Trust: Whether there is trust between the person being asked to change and the

facilitator or initiator of the change. (p. 104)

Additional literature pertaining to change management has focused on how principals can ensure

better planning for and implementation of change. Peterson (1996) identified the core processes

of planning in schools: (a) identify mission, (b) assess current achievements, (c) develop plans,

(d) design implementation, and (e) check how one has succeeded (p. 1-2). Kotter (1995) in

“Leading Change: Why Transformation efforts Fail” suggested that the change process goes

through a series of phases; not attending to or spending sufficient time on a particular phase will

result in failure of the effort or initiative. Although Kotter’s research came from the field of

business, the principles are applicable to the field of education. According to the researcher, the

following stages must be addressed to transform any organization: (a) establishing a sense of

urgency, (b) forming a powerful guiding coalition, (c) creating a vision, (d) communicating the

vision, (e) empowering others to act on the vision, (f) planning for and creating short-term wins,

(g) consolidating improvements and producing still more change, and (h) institutionalizing new

approaches (Kotter, 1995, p. 61).

Emergence of school turnaround research. The research on school turnaround

complements the change management literature and research. Steiner and Hassel suggested that

school turnaround requires “a special breed of leader at the helm—one who engages and focuses

the whole community on achieving dramatic improvement goals fast” (Steiner & Hassel, 2011,

p. 1). Research from the educational sector as well as other sectors confirmed the authors’

assertion: “The right leader is an essential component of successful turnaround” (Steiner &

Hassel, 2011, p. 2). Brinson et al. developed a conceptual framework necessary for schools to

turn around:

24

1. Collect & Analyze Data: Initially, turnaround leaders personally analyze data about

the organizations’ performance to identify high-priority problems that can be fixed

quickly. Later, they establish organization routines that include ongoing data

analysis.

2. Make Action Plan Based on Data: Turnaround leaders make an action plan so that

everyone involved knows specifically what they need to do differently. This allows

people to focus on changing what they do, rather than worrying about impending

change.

3. Concentrate on Big, Fast Payoffs in Year One: Successful turnaround leaders first

concentrate on a very limited number of changes to achieve early, visible wins for the

organization. They do this to achieve success in an important area, to motivate staff

for further change, and to reduce resistance by those who oppose change.

4. Require All Staff to Change: When a turnaround leader implements an action plan,

change is mandatory, not optional.

5. Make Necessary Staff Replacements: Successful turnaround leaders typically do

not replace all or most staff. But they often replace some senior staff, particularly

those who manage others. After the organization begins to show turnaround success,

staff unwilling or unable to make changes that their colleagues have made leave or

are removed by the leader.

6. Focus on Successful Tactics; Halt Others: Successful turnaround leaders are quick

to discard tactics that do not work and spend more resources and time on tactics that

work. This pruning and growing process focuses limited time and money where they

will have the most impact on critical results.

25

7. Do not Tout Progress as Ultimate Success: Turnaround leaders are not satisfied

with partial success. They report progress, but keep the organization focused on high

goals. When a goal is met, they are likely to raise the bar.

8. Communicate a Positive Vision: Turnaround leaders motivate others inside and

outside the organization to contribute their discretionary effort by communicating a

clear picture of success and its benefits.

9. Help Staff Personally Feel Problems: Turnaround leaders use various tactics to help

staff empathize with—or “put themselves in the shoes of”—those whom they serve.

This helps staff feel the problems that the status quo is causing and feel motivated to

change.

10. Gain Support of Key Influencers: Turnaround leaders work hard to gain the support

of trusted influencers among staff and community. They work through these people

to influence those who might oppose change.

11. Silence Critics with Speedy Success: Early, visible wins are used not just for success

in their own right, but to make it harder for others to oppose further change. This

reduces leader time spent addressing “politics” and increases time spent managing for

results.

12. Measure and Report Progress Frequently: Turnaround leaders set up systems to

measure and report interim results often. This enables the rapid discard of failed

tactics and increase of successful tactics essential for fast results.

13. Require all Decision Makers to Share Data and Problem Solve: Sharing of results

in open-air meetings allows turnaround leaders to hold staff who make key decisions

accountable for results, creating discomfort for those who do not make needed

26

changes and providing kudos to those who are achieving success. This shifts the

focus of the organization’s meetings from power plays, blaming, and excuses to

problem solving. (Brinson et al., 2008, pp. 6-7)

Nevertheless, Steiner and Hassel pointed out three significant barriers to successful school

turnaround:

1. Turnaround efforts are made when organizations are in a state of entrenched

failure. Leaders who would otherwise succeed often fall short in a turnaround.

2. Typical school district practices are not designed to recruit and select talent for

challenging schools, including the bold leaders needed for turnaround schools.

3. Few districts measure performance differences among leaders and staff that

would be useful for identifying and developing internal candidates for school

turn-around leadership. (Steiner & Hassel, 2011, p. 2)

Consequently, Steiner and Hassel argued that school districts should adopt competency-based

performance management as a key strategy for school turnaround. They suggested that selection

of principals based upon competencies—habits of behavior and underlying motivations—rather

than simply considering qualifications—experience and degrees—is critical for identifying

school leaders who will produce better results for students and that two competencies—

“achievement” and “impact and influence”—appear critical to high levels of success in most

complex leadership positions:

Achievement is defined as “the drive and actions to set challenging goals and reach a

high standard of performance.” In a leader, achievement includes “setting high

performance goals for the organization, prioritizing activities to achieve the highest

27

benefit relative to inputs, and working to meet goals using direct action, staff, and other

available resources.”

Impact and influence is “acting with the purpose of affecting the perceptions, thinking

and actions of others. It includes empathizing with others and anticipating likely

responses to situations, tailoring actions and words to create an intended impact, and

giving and withholding information to obtain specific responses. (Steiner & Hassel, 2011,

p. 6)

Lambert (2003) suggested that building leadership capacity improves the chances of

sustainable school improvement by (a) developing formal leaders as thoughtful, focused, and

collaborative instructional leaders; (b) turning all adults within the school community—teachers,

staff, parents, and community members—into reflective, skillful co-leaders; (c) achieving steady

and lasting improvement in student performance and development; and (d) constructing schools

and districts that are sustainable learning organizations (p. x).

As did Lambert (2003), Leithwood et al. (2004) stressed the importance of leadership for

improvement. The authors asserted, “Leadership is second only to classroom instruction among

all school-related factors that contribute to what students learn at school” (Leithwood et al.,

2004, p. 5). Indeed, surveys of staff members from high-performing schools cited strong

leadership among the most important factors in their schools’ success. Learning Points

Associates posited, “The characteristics that likely will set apart the effective turnaround leader

are superior instructional leadership, attention to the system, and the capacity to identify and

leverage (at the right time) key points within the system to advocate for and deliver a well-

aligned, well-articulated transformation plan” (Learning Points Associates, 2010, p. 2). Leaders

have a strong influence on teacher recruitment and retention (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe,

28

Meyerson, Orr, & Cohen, 2009), and they influence the approach and pace of school

improvement efforts (Bryk et al., 2010; Preston, Goldring, Guthrie, & Ramsey, 2012). Lepler’s

(2004) study found that leaders in schools that are successful in closing achievement gaps are

more likely to establish measurable goals for closing the gaps and hold this practice as a top

priority. In Carter’s (2000) analysis of low-income schools that were effective in closing the

achievement gap, leaders were found to provide supports to teachers to help them be successful;

they were masters at securing high-quality staff and training them to maximize their

performance. At the same time, these leaders were effective in removing teachers who were

unable to produce high performance among struggling students from their schools (Carter, 2000).

Instructionally focused leadership is essential for school-improvement efforts (Elliott &

Clifford, 2014; May & Supovitz, 2011; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). Marzano et al. (2005)

indicated strong links between student success and school leaders who (a) are directly involved

in the design and implementation of curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices; (b) protect

teachers from issues or influences that might otherwise detract from their teaching; and (c)

provide teachers with the resources and materials they need to deliver high-quality instruction

and effectively manage their classrooms.

Platt, Tripp, Fraser, Warnock, and Curtis (2008) focused on what school leaders can do to

change policies and practices that make mediocrity sustainable. Part of that work involves the

development of learning communities capable of bringing about sustainable improvement.

Goodwin wrote that “job one of principals should be to reduce the variability of teaching quality

within their schools. This means visiting classrooms, observing teaching…coaching teachers to

their highest levels of performance, evaluating their performance, and supporting their

professional development” (Goodwin, 2011, p. 112).

29

A New Leaders for New Schools (2009) report asserted, “Schools making breakthrough

gains are led by principals who have carved out a radically new role for themselves, including

responsibility for school-wide practices to drive both student achievement and teacher

effectiveness.” The Urban Excellence Framework developed by New Leaders for New Schools

identifies the key leadership actions taken by highly effective principals to drive teacher

effectiveness and student learning outcomes. Researchers from New Leaders for New Schools

indicated that leadership actions within the following categories are essential for achieving high

performance and dramatic results: (a) ensuring rigorous, goal- and data-driven learning and

teaching; (b) building and managing a high-quality staff aligned to the school’s vision of success

for every student; (c) developing an achievement- and belief-based school-wide culture; (d)

instituting operations and systems to support learning; and (e) modeling the personal leadership

that sets the tone for all student and adult relationships in the school (New Leaders for New

Schools, 2009, p. 4).

Hattie and Reeves (2011) contended that school leaders must recognize that learning is a

never-ending process and that they will always be involved in leading change if they want to

continue to achieve better results. Change is a way of life in schools as educators go about

meeting new demands of the 21st century. Hargreaves and Fullan wrote,

Professional capital is about collective responsibility, not individual autonomy; about

scientific evidence as well as personal judgment; about being open to one’s clients rather

than standing on a pedestal above them; and ultimately about being tough on those

colleagues who, after every effort and encouragement fall short of their professional

mission. (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012, pp. xv-xvi)

30

Professional Learning and Teaching Collaboration

It is well established that the quality of a child’s teacher profoundly impacts the child’s

learning outcomes (Cuttance, 1998; Hattie, Clinton, Thompson, & Schmidt-Davies, 1995;

Sanders & Rivers, 1996). In fact, it is one of the most important factors leading to high

student achievement (Goldhaber, 2002; Goldhaber, Brewer, & Anderson, 1999). For teachers

to assist their students in making significant academic progress, they must be highly

knowledgeable about the subjects they are teaching, understand how students learn, and use

appropriate teaching methods to meet diverse student needs. Research shows that with all

other socioeconomic and demographic factors’ being equal, a student with a very high quality

teacher achieves growth of one and a half years’ grade-level equivalent, whereas a student

with a low-quality teacher achieves a gain of only half a year (Hanushek, 1992). Therefore, it

makes sense for school districts wanting to improve achievement to invest heavily in the

development of high-quality teachers.

Yet the methods for this systemic development are not standard across districts.

Although there is substantial research support that high-performing schools engage in a culture

of collaboration (Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran, 2007; Moolenaar, Sleegers, & Daly,

2012), teacher isolation has long been the norm across schools in America (DePaul, 2000;

Lampert & Graziani, 2009). Fullan (2007a) argued that progress in teacher learning, and

therefore, student learning, depends on deprivatizing teaching so that teachers work

collaboratively on a sustained basis to continuously improve instruction. Students, regardless of

socioeconomic status, achieve more in schools in which teachers take collective responsibility

for the success of all students (Lee & Smith, 1995; Lee, Smith, & Croninger, 1997).

31

Successful systems tap into each teacher’s personal sense of responsibility for

performance while at the same time building that teacher’s capacity to assist that performance.

In effective schools teachers are well prepared, receive ongoing, high-quality professional

development, and work collegially to improve instruction. Leadership sets high expectations and

strives to help school staff work as an effective team (Reeves, 2004). To do this, it is essential

for schools to build capacity by providing systematic, effective professional development.

Ahearn and Nalley (2000) concluded that effective professional development for teachers (a) is

aligned through a clear, coherent plan; (b) focuses on both the content and the process of student

learning; (c) compares goals with achievement; (d) develops continuous programs; (e) is

supported with resources; and (f) connects to a comprehensive change process (p. 12-13).

Moller, Mickelson, Stearns, Banerjee, and Bottia (2013) found not only that

achievement tends to be greater in schools in which teachers perceive the presence of

professional communities and teacher collaboration but that achievement gaps by race and

socioeconomic status are lessened as well. But specific details of what collaboration entails

can vary widely from individual to individual (Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996) and from study

to study. In general, collaboration appears to include a common image of a professional

community in which teachers work together “to reflect on their practice, examine evidence

about the relationship between practice and student outcomes, and make changes that improve

teaching and learning for the particular students in their classes” (McLaughlin & Talbert,

2006, p. 4). Grangeat and Gray (2007) found that beginning teachers and experienced

teachers differ in their efforts to improve their practice. Beginning teachers tend to use

observations and informal discussions with colleagues, whereas more experienced teachers

rely on formal meetings.

32

According to Reeves (2003), high-performing, high-poverty schools prioritize

sustained professional collaboration on a very frequent basis. These schools devote time for

teacher collaboration in the form of meetings that are focused on the examination of student

work and a collective determination of what constitutes proficiency. There is a shared

understanding that collaboration is a skill that can only be acquired over time, gradually

transforming into a school-wide routine. Faculty members collaborate in identifying barriers

to student learning and participate in school-wide intervention strategies. To be successful in

this collaboration process, teachers must possess a knowledge of practice, correctly

interpreting information about student performance, and a knowledge for practice, possessing

information about research-based best practices (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Newmann

and Wehlage (1996) found that high-performing schools focus on collaboration through a lens

of developing shared values and norms with regard to views about children and their ability to

learn, the use of school time, and the role of teachers, parents, and administrators; developing

and maintaining a clear and consistent focus on student learning; engaging in reflective

dialogue revolving around the curriculum, instruction, and students’ response to that

instruction; and making the practice of teaching very public.

Principal leadership factors influence teachers’ capacity and motivation to engage in

collegial interactions during structured collaboration time (Szczesiul & Huizenga, 2014).

Researchers Datnow, Park, and Kennedy-Lewis (2013) found that the leadership activities

that shape successful collaboration revolve around thoughtful and collective responsibility for

the use of data decision making, establishment of norms for teacher collaboration,

implementation of discussion protocols, and subcultures of teacher groupings and subject

matters.

33

Kannapel, Clements, Taylor, & Hibpshman (2005) posited that professional

development in successful high-poverty schools tends to be ongoing and job embedded,

revolving mostly around the analysis of student achievement data. The entire faculty typically

appears to agree with regard to what is being taught, what the performance expectations are,

and how each teacher’s curricular focus fits into the broader curriculum of the school.

Because high-poverty schools typically have more new teachers on staff, Britton,

Paine, Pimm, and Raizen (2003) suggested creating a sustained collaborative environment

that is inclusive of new teachers. The beginning phase of professional development for new

teachers is induction. Britton et al. highlighted the benefits of an induction program that

includes three key components. First, a comprehensive induction program is highly

structured, rigorous, and tightly monitored with well-defined roles for the instructors,

administrators, and mentors. Second, there is an emphasis on using a professional learning

system that is organized and sustained. Finally, collaboration is the norm in the professional

environment; teachers consistently share experiences, practices, and tools and use a shared

academic language.

Within school systems, emphasis should be placed on the frequent exchange of

information and ideas among novice and veteran teachers (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003).

Teachers learn more in sustained and intensive professional development programs that

emphasize collective participation, as well as teacher networks and study groups versus

mentoring (Garet, Porter, Desmoine, Birman, & Kwang, 2001). Successful programs

demonstrate that quality teaching becomes not just an individual responsibility, but a

collective one as well. Effective schools have a trademark of collaborative responsibility for

the learning of all students (Wong, 2004).

34

School leaders in successful high-poverty schools create opportunities for teachers to

work, plan, and learn together, with schedules prioritizing collaboration around instructional

issues as an important part of the school day and week (Johnson & Asera, 1999). Cross-grade as

well as within-grade collaboration among teachers has been found to assist teachers to better

understand each other’s curricula and expectations (Lein, Johnson, & Ragland, 1997). Saunders,

Goldenberg, and Gallimore (2009) found that distributed leadership using explicit protocols

produces collaborative teacher teams that not only substantially impact total achievement growth

but also significantly impact the rate of this growth.

Historically, teachers’ professional practice has been shrouded in a veil of privacy and

personal autonomy, with schools structured to maintain the status quo (DuFour, 2011). The

common theme throughout many studies on collaboration’s contribution to higher student

achievement is the deprivatization of teaching practice (Berry, Johnson, & Montgomery, 2005;

Fullan, 2007a; Louis & Marks, 1998). This concept of opening classroom doors even extends to

teachers’ observing each other in the classroom, videotaping lessons and reviewing the

recordings together, sharing lessons, and examining teaching problems and collectively

generating new ideas (Phillips, 2003).

Another common theme throughout many studies of high-performing, high-poverty

schools is the creation of a system for focused collaboration time to hone in on the impact of

instructional practices on student learning, with a mission of making sure students have learned

as opposed to simply ensuring that students are taught (Berry et al., 2005; DuFour, 2004;

Strahan, 2003; Supovitz, 2002). This dialogue is consistently data driven (Strahan, 2003),

guided by formal assessment and informal observations, thereby pushing teachers toward the use

of research-based pedagogy (Louis & Marks, 1998). Teachers work together to develop

35

effective instructional strategies that are based on student data and grounded in research to

improve student achievement (Berry et al., 2005). DuFour proposed that this collaborative time

encompass the following practices:

Develop a guaranteed and viable curriculum to ensure that students have access to the

same essential knowledge and skills regardless of the teacher to whom they are

assigned…gather ongoing information regarding the learning of their students through a

comprehensive, balanced assessment process…jointly analyze the evidence of student

learning from the assessments and uses the information to improve the professional

practice of individual members and collective effectiveness of the team…and create a

systemic process that ensures that students who are struggling receive additional time and

support for learning. (DuFour, 2011, p. 61)

Consequently, there is less reliance on externally driven professional development, which

is typically episodic and somewhat superficial (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Although this type of

externally defined and delivered professional development continues to play an important role in

assisting teachers who are expected to implement adopted instructional programs, the

professional development is generally presented at a superficial level, focusing on limited

strategies that allow teachers to implement the program’s prescribed activities with fidelity. This

type of learning resource typically represents others’ ideas about needed skills and knowledge,

and, by its very nature, is unable to take into account teachers’ unique contextual knowledge

about their specific students and classroom challenges and, therefore, implications for students’

learning (Newmann & Wehlage, 1996). Sustained change in daily practice tied to increased

student achievement is inherently local, within the reality of teachers’ classrooms; thus,

externally driven professional development must be partnered with the ongoing examination of

36

student performance to build teachers’ own technical capacity (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).

High-quality external professional development can effectively support the development and

effectiveness of collaboration within schools when there is strong inclusion of internal factors.

But Nelson (2009) found that teachers vary widely in their ability to ask critical questions about

their practices, which may lead to varying degrees of effectiveness in the work they complete in

professional learning communities.

Effective teachers and principals focus more attention on the actions of schools rather

than the characteristics of students (Reeves, 2007). Gallimore, Ermeling, Saunders, &

Goldenberg (2009) suggested that schools significantly increased achievement when using an

inquiry-focused protocol to shift attribution of improved student performance to their teaching

rather than external causes. Collaborative teams led by a trained peer facilitator focused on an

academic problem over time to develop an instructional solution. These causal connections

allowed teachers to identify student needs, form instructional plans, and make more effective

instructional revisions. Stable settings to engage in continuous improvement were found to be

a key element in a school demonstrating significant achievement improvement.

For the most part, efforts to mandate collaboration have proven unsuccessful because

teachers are required to take risks that accompany candid reflection; when teachers do not

have many opportunities to collaborate over students’ work, or when they lack leadership and

expertise at the school site, commitment erodes, particularly during faculty and leadership

transition (Hargreaves, 1994). In addition, teacher-led collaborative groups can be limited by

the teachers’ own preconceived notions of what is good or right and what is bad or wrong in

education, which serve as limitations to improving their own practices (Little, 2003).

37

But when paired with a clear and persistent focus on student data, continuous

professional development that is driven by the needs of teachers as they are engaged in efforts

to accomplish their goals promotes changes in their practices, which result in increased

student learning (Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008). High-performance, high-poverty schools

have a strong commitment to building a learning community that supports inclusion,

collegiality, and collaboration with a strong focus on putting research on student learning into

practice (Bell, 2001).

Teachers in high-performing, high-poverty schools have been found to receive significant

professional development with regard to analyzing data and are encouraged to examine

achievement and opportunity gaps. It is important, however, not only that principals provide

time for communication and collaboration within grade levels but also that vertical articulation

occur across grade levels to ensure systemic change (Huffman, Hipp, Pankake, & Moller, 2014).

The Closing Illinois’ Achievement Gap study (McGee, 2003) found that for collaboration to

permeate the building, collaboration time must be built into the regular school schedule. McGee

also found that teachers are less likely to teach in isolation at effective schools; they often

observe their colleagues teaching to improve their own instructional practices.

DuFour provided strategies not only to increase faculty collaboration but also to

integrate professional development into daily school operations:

develop partnerships with teachers to work for improved instruction;

work with teachers in identifying classroom problems that call for exploration

through in-service [opportunities];

gear principal-teacher conferences toward problem-solving procedures;

38

encourage self-improvement for teachers by directing their attention to formal and

informal staff development activities;

principals attend in-service training sessions as partners in learning with teachers;

allow teachers freedom in the classroom to practice techniques learned through in-

service;

do away with the notion that there are required ways to teach and that the principal

knows what they are;

solicit teacher ideas in planning short-range and long-range staff development

programs;

conduct faculty meetings in such a way that they are, at least in part, learning and

self-improvement opportunities; and

promote among teachers, feelings of professional pride, enhanced self-image, and

self-efficacy. (DuFour, 2004, p. 38)

An Alliance for Excellent Education report of findings from an investigation of the role

of principals in promoting collaboration in schools stated, “Principals…also discuss the

importance of modeling and practicing the collaborative approach with teachers. Leaders who

seek a collaborative environment review data with teachers and work with them on how they can

improve student outcomes” (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2012b, p. 24). In a comparison of

the collaboration that occurred at effective schools and low-performing schools, Chrisman

observed,

Teachers at successful schools spent between one and four hours weekly in collaborative

lesson planning. This took place informally, during lunch or after school, as well as in

formal weekly planning meetings. Informal conversations focused on successful lessons

39

or problems in teaching specific concepts. In the formal weekly planning meetings,

teachers shared student assessment data, analyzed student work, and monitored their own

progress toward teaching the standards. Most of the successful schools hired substitutes

to provide teachers with regular collaboration time. Teachers from unsuccessful schools

reported that they collaborated when the principal scheduled it in place of a staff meeting.

These meetings generally focused on planning for field trips, special events, and state

testing. (Chrisman, 2005, p. 17)

When teachers perceive that the faculty as a whole can implement action steps that

have a positive effect on students, there is a sense of collective efficacy (Ross & Gray, 2006).

Researchers have found that collective efficacy is stronger in lower poverty schools than

higher poverty schools (Goddard & Goddard, 2001), but prior achievement has an influence

on collective efficacy as well (Ross & Gray, 2006). According to the work of Goddard and

Goddard (2001) and Goddard et al. (2007), positive collective efficacy has a strong positive

impact on school-wide achievement, and the difference in student achievement between

schools may be predicted through collective efficacy ratings. Principals have a central role in

developing this collective efficacy as they indirectly influence teacher beliefs and

commitment. Connecting teacher practice directly to student achievement, helping teachers

not only embrace the shared vision of the school but also show evidence of this vision within

their practice, providing frequent goal-oriented feedback, and presenting organizational

structures to support data-based professional learning are key leadership actions that enable

teachers to effectively improve student achievement (Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Marzano et

al., 2005).

40

High Expectations

Ample research has shown that teacher and principal expectations have an effect on

student outcomes and school effectiveness (Brophy, 1987; Jussim, Eccles, & Madon, 1996;

Rubie-Davies, Hattie, & Hamilton, 2006). Ever since Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) found that

teacher expectations create their own reality in that they influence teacher behaviors toward

students, thereby leading students to behave in ways that are consistent with the teacher’s

expectations, researchers have shown great interest in proving or disproving the theory that a

child’s poor performance in school may have less to do with his or her different ethnic, cultural,

and economic background and more to do with the teacher’s response to that background (Jussim

& Harber, 2005). Teachers’ beliefs about student learning and motivation appear to reflect

“longstanding attitudes, ‘common sense,’ and their experiences in education rather than research-

based knowledge about learning and motivation” (Turner, Christensen, & Meyer, 2009, p. 361).

Goertz, Floden, and O’Day (1996) found that teachers often attribute deficiencies in student

learning to the inadequacy of students’ motivation, ability, or persistence instead of the

instruction itself.

Nelson and Guerra (2013) found that practicing educators tend to have a general

awareness of visible aspects of culture, but they lack in-depth knowledge of culture and its

application in practice. The researchers found that educators tend to hold a number of deficit

beliefs about diverse students and their families and look toward technical solutions for bridging

cultural gaps instead of examining students’ identities, culture, language, and relationships.

Alston asserted that “the differences between conditions at elementary and secondary

schools has [sic] been inadvertently minimized by researchers who believe that the qualities of

effective schools are generalizable to all students, all teachers, and all administrators” (Alston,

41

2004, p. 90). Teachers’ perceptions and expectations are critical, often contributing to the

problem. Because many teachers base their expectation of black children on past performance

and behaviors, the teachers themselves perpetuate the gap. The responsiveness of these children

to their teacher depends a great deal on their perceptions of the teacher’s caring for them and

respecting them (Perez, 2000). In sum, the predictor of success is wholly contingent on the

professional practices employed by teachers and leaders in the building (Reeves, 2003).

Jussim and Harber (2005) examined more than 35 years of empirical research and found

that teacher expectations predict student outcomes more than any self-fulfilling prophecies

students might have. Irvine (1990) found that although schools may espouse beliefs about

equality of educational opportunities, in actuality, many practices within schools, such as

discriminatory discipline practices and tracking, typically originate from a lack of understanding

of students’ cultural norms, styles, and language. Negative teacher expectations often result

from miscommunication and low teacher interaction with students.

Haycock (2001) posited that once teachers’ perceptions develop, teachers act on them as

if they are factual even when they may be inaccurate. Teacher expectations are revealed through

the learning opportunities they provide and the interactions they have with their students (Rubie-

Davies, 2007). Picucci, Brownson, Kahlert, and Sobel (2002) found four characteristics

common among high-performing, high-poverty schools that are essential to supporting teaching

and learning: high expectations for all students, dedication to collaborative environments,

commitment to building the capacity of the system, and the provision of extra services and

student supports beyond what is typically offered by schools. Diamond and Spillane (2004)

noted that high-performing schools focus on enhancing all students’ performance regardless of

42

grade level or subject area, whereas low-performing schools tend to have a very limited focus on

improving the achievement of certain students to comply with outside policy demands.

Cooper (1979) found that teachers typically give affective feedback to low-expectation

students, whereas their feedback to high-expectation students tends to be based more on effort

expenditure. These differences may lead low-expectation students to believe less strongly that

effort will influence academic outcomes, thereby leading to less persistence and more failure

among the low-expectation students. Friedrich, Flunger, Nagengast, Jonkmann, and Trautwein

(2015) found that teacher expectancy effects were partly mediated by students’ self-concept.

Sustained collaboration among teachers and administrators enables faculty to change

beliefs about deficits in students, whereby teachers take increased responsibility for providing

more effective learning opportunities for students. Schools must explicitly examine how their

perceptions for students, teachers, and learning interact within the context of learning

(Weinstein, Madison, & Kuklinski, 1995). Some research has suggested that there is a lower

correlation between teachers’ initial expectations for students’ achievement and students’ actual

achievement over time when these teachers experience positive changes in their instructional

effectiveness (Guskey, 1982; Weinstein, 2002). By focusing on refining instructional strategies,

teachers’ feelings of self-efficacy improve, resulting in higher expectations for students

(Timperley & Phillips, 2003). High-expectation teachers spend more time providing a

framework for students’ learning and more feedback; they use more higher-order questions with

students (Rubie-Davies, 2007). Districts seeking to address low teacher expectations for students

may, therefore, prioritize the enhancement of the quality of professional development support to

teachers. As teachers discover that their new professional knowledge and practice are having a

positive impact on their students, they will begin to feel more effective as teachers, thereby

43

creating heightened responsibility. This heightened responsibility shifts the outcomes of student

learning from perceptions about the students’ backgrounds to the quality of the teaching that is

occurring in the classroom, making teachers believe that they can make a difference in the

students’ lives (Timperley, 2008).

Data-Driven Instruction

Datnow, Park and Wohlstetter (2007) acknowledged that data-driven decision making to

improve instruction is a key reform strategy and that school system action with respect to the use

of data is a prerequisite for school improvement. The researchers reported that school districts

employed the following strategies to help individual schools improve:

1. Building a Foundation for Data-Driven Decision Making – Before implementing

strategies for data-driven decision making, school systems invested time and

resources in building a solid foundation for system-wide improvement efforts.

Integral to this process was establishing specific, measurable goals at the system,

school, classroom, and individual student levels.

2. Establishing a Culture of Data Use and Continuous Improvement – Leaders

within the school systems created explicit norms and expectations regarding data use,

and principals followed through at the school level by reinforcing system

expectations.

3. Investing in an Information Management System – Most of these school systems

had a dedicated individual or team responsible for supporting data analysis and the

use by both central office and school personnel. In addition, most schools designated

well-respected staff (generally principals or lead teachers) as the local experts to

whom the teachers turned first.

44

4. Selecting the Right Data – While student assessment data were an integral part of

the data-driven decision-making process, school systems drew upon many different

types of information—student achievement data, instructional practice data, and goal

implementation data—to help guide improvement efforts.

5. Building School Capacity for Data-Driven Decision Making – The school systems

worked hard to build capacity by empowering educators to use data to inform

instruction at the school level. The key strategies they undertook to empower

educators were (1) investing in professional development, (2) providing support for

staff in how to use data and modeling data use and data discussions, (3) providing

time for teacher collaboration, and (4) connecting educators across schools to share

data and improvement strategies. Some of them also offered rewards and incentives

for improved achievement that arose out of data-driven decision making.

6. Analyzing and Acting on Data to Improve Performance – School system leaders

developed tools and processes to help principals, teachers, and other staff members to

act on data. All four school systems provided immediate feedback to schools on

student achievement and progress toward meeting their goals. All the school systems

also created explicit data analysis protocols and goal-monitoring reports for

administrators, teachers and in some cases for students as well. (Datnow et al., 2011,

pp. 5-7)

Fullan asserted: “in collaborative schools, pedagogy and assessment feed on each other,

through the interaction of teachers, to produce better results” (Fullan, 2000, p. 582). Schools

often have a wealth of data at their disposal, but the information is sometimes ignored because

45

their faculties have not been taught how to use it. Fullan described schools’ failure to use their

data effectively as a lack of “assessment literacy”:

By assessment literacy internal to the school, we mean two things: (1) the ability of

teachers, individually and together, to interpret achievement data on student performance;

and (2) teachers’ equally important ability to develop action plans to alter instruction and

other factors in order to improve student learning. (Fullan, 2000, p. 581)

This assessment literacy is important as research has indicated that teachers from schools that

have successfully closed achievement gaps discuss data regularly. In addition, Reeves (2004)

found that not only do high-performance schools dedicate a significant amount of time to

collaborative scoring of student work, but the building principals also take personal

responsibility for evaluating student work. Chrisman (2005) observed that successful schools

receive assessment data disaggregated by teacher and individual student more often and in a

timelier manner than unsuccessful schools do. By obtaining detailed data and having a solid

understanding of what to do with the information, school faculty members can identify the

problem areas within their schools and develop ways to efficiently target them for improvement.

District-level interventions to support data-driven decision making also have been shown to have

statistically significant positive effects on student achievement (Carlson, Borman, & Robinson,

2011).

Researchers and policy advisors have studied some of the obstacles that schools

experience to make recommendations to assist high-poverty, high-minority schools and school

districts in closing their achievement gaps. The 2001 U.S. Department of Education School

Improvement Report recommended that states work more closely with the federal government to

improve the quality of data as well as the timeliness with which school data are collected and

46

reported. In many states, it is not uncommon for schools to receive their high-stakes testing data

up to 4 months after students take the test. Obviously, an accountability system cannot function

well if data are not returned to districts and schools quickly.

Summary

In summary, six major categories of literature have been identified for this study:

effective schools, school improvement (supported by literature and research on school change

and school turnaround), principal leadership, professional learning and teacher collaboration,

high expectations, and data-driven instruction. Each category provides insight into the overall

research questions of the study:



performing?



If educators are ever to improve the life outcomes of children—the only measure that really

matters in education—then they must, first, have the will to dramatically improve these schools;

second, understand the process(es) for turning these schools around; and, third, increase schools’

capacity to effectively and efficiently engage in large-scale turnaround to prepare all students for

college, careers, and active citizenship.

47

CHAPTER 3

METHODS AND DESIGN

The primary interest of this study was to learn how improvement occurred in high-

performing, high-poverty elementary schools with high percentages of students of color. There

have been multiple studies, and even several meta-analyses, conducted about the characteristics

of high-performing schools. Nevertheless, there is much to learn about how improvement

actually happens. Literature regarding the characteristics of high-performing schools,

irrespective of student demographics, most often has emphasized the importance of leadership,

professional development for teachers, and quality teaching and learning. These factors, along

with those outlined within the theoretical framework, were considered. Additionally, this study

sought to understand if and how other factors influenced the improvement process of these

elementary schools. Such a study was necessary and critically important, as a low-poverty, low-

minority school is 89 times more likely to be high performing than a high-poverty, high-minority

school (Harris, 2006a, p. 25).

Qualitative Design

Multiple Case Studies

This study was a qualitative, multisite case study. A case study has been defined by

Merriam as “an examination of [a] specific phenomenon such as a program, an event, a person, a

process, an institution, or a social group” (Merriam, 1988 1998?, p. 9). I conducted an in-depth

case study of three elementary schools. Yin (2003) asserted that the multisite case study has

some distinct advantages over a single-site case study. Most obvious is that “the evidence from

multiple cases is often considered more compelling, and the overall study is therefore regarded

as being more robust” (Yin, 2003, p. 46). Each of the three cases provided insight into the larger

48

question of how high-poverty, elementary schools with high percentages of students of color

became high-performing schools. Therefore, I decided to use a multisite case study design;

researchers have indicated that through the identification of themes across cases, a theory can be

developed (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Merriam, 1998).

Sampling

Purposeful sampling was used to identify the case sites. Bogdan and Biklen noted the

importance of purposeful sampling; they indicated that particular subjects are chosen because

they “facilitate the expansion of the developing theory” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003, pp. 71-72).

Merriam expounded: “One wants to discover, understand, gain insight; therefore one needs to

select a sample from which one can learn the most” (Merriam, 1998, p. 45). Therefore, this

study included three elementary schools from which critical insight into the improvement

process was gained.

These schools were initially identified by utilizing the National Longitudinal School-

Level Assessment Score Database (NLSLSASD) funded by the U.S. Department of Education

and developed by the American Institutes of Research (AIR). The NLSLSASD database at

www.schooldata.org contained assessment scores for approximately 90,000 public schools in

15,000 school districts across 50 states and the District of Columbia. The NLSLSASD included

information about each school’s racial makeup, poverty rate, school location (urban, rural, etc.),

school type (traditional public, charter, magnet), and school grade levels (Harris, 2006b, pp.15-

16). At the time of this study, the NLSLSASD was the only database that provided some

demographic and achievement data for most public schools in the United States.

In addition to reviewing the NLSLSASD database, I contacted state education

departments to acquire listings of schools that performed in the top 10% in the state while also

http://www.schooldata.org/

49

meeting the other criteria of the study. The criteria selected for this study consisted of

requirements that each school (a) have a high percentage of students of color (more than 50% of

students being African American or Latino); (b) reflect “high poverty” (more than 50% of

students receiving free or reduced-price lunch); and (c) be “high performing” (above the 67th

percentile in average state standardized test scores). Other organizations have utilized some or

all of the aforementioned criteria. Haycock’s Education Trust, for example, used the

aforementioned criteria of “high performing” and “high poverty” to identify “high-flying”

schools. The Heritage Foundation established even more rigorous criteria for identifying its “no

excuses” schools. The Heritage Foundation requires that “no excuses” schools have more than

75% of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

This study examined high-poverty elementary schools with high percentages of students

of color that met the 50% plus criterion for poverty and race; however, these schools must have

performed above the 67th

percentile in average state standardized test scores in reading and math,

at a minimum of two grade levels, and for at least 2 consecutive years. According to Douglas

Harris, author of “Ending the Blame Game on Educational Inequity: A Study of ‘High Flying’

Schools and NCLB” (who used NLSLSASD’s 1997-2000 data), only 0.3% of America’s schools

met this demanding criterion (Harris, 2006a, p. 20). Harris contended that classification as a

high-performing school should require “performance at a consistently high level” (Harris, 2006a,

p. 6). In short, high-performing schools should produce high achievement over time at multiple

grade levels.

Certainly, others have developed criteria for identifying high-performing schools. The

International Center for Leadership in Education has developed, in consultation with the NEA,

AFT, National School Boards Association, National Governor’s Association, Achieve,

50

Education Trust, ASCD, and the U.S. Department of Education, criteria for identifying a highly

successful school. The International Center’s four criteria are: (a) high academic performance in

core areas as measured on state and national tests, (b) programs that stretch students well beyond

the core academic skills measured by state and national tests, (c) community involvement, and

(d) social and personal development (Daggett, 2005, p. 5). Although the International Center’s

criteria are more comprehensive than a review of standardized test scores, the Education Trust

has worked diligently to be established as a leading organization for enlightening the general

public about America’s high-performing, high-poverty, schools with high percentages of African

American and Latino students. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, I utilized an enhanced,

more demanding version of the Education Trust criteria.

Data Collection

In short, data collection involves asking, watching, and reviewing. Yin (2003) noted that

using multiple sources of evidence is the primary principle of data collection, particularly in

conducting case studies. Yin advised that, before beginning the study, the researcher should

create a clear schedule of data collection activities with specific periods of time for all activities.

I began the data collection process for this study with the collection and review of

documents. Documents that were reviewed and analyzed included professional development

plans, school improvement plans, and other relevant planning documents. Other ancillary

documents, such as teacher-interview questions or agendas and minutes from grade-level and

faculty meetings as well as curriculum documents, teacher lesson plans, district-level reports,

and information from school-based projects, were reviewed for possible insights into the

research questions. Obviously, review and analysis of standardized assessment data since the

implementation of No Child Left Behind Act (2000) were critical for ascertaining improvement

51

at each of the sites. Review of the aforementioned archival data assisted in development of

interview questions. I began interviews shortly after my initial document review.

Seidman stated, “At the root of in-depth interviewing is an interest in understanding the

experience of other people and the meaning they make of that experience” (Seidman, 1998, p. 3).

The primary method of data collection for this study was interviews. At each of the three sites, I

conducted interviews with the principal and key teachers. I defined a key teacher as a member of

the school improvement team, a grade-level chairperson, or someone holding a similar position.

All interviews were conducted at the school sites. Merriam described an interview structure

continuum, which includes highly structured or standardized questions, semistructured questions,

and unstructured or informal questions (Merriam, 1998, p. 73). I used all three types of

questions at different points within the interviews. Highly structured questions were used to

collect information needed from all interviewees. Specifically, I used highly structured questions

to gather demographic data regarding the informants. Semistructured, open-ended questions,

however, made up the core of the interview. Merriam advised that “some time [be] spent in an

unstructured mode so that fresh insights and new information can emerge” (Merriam, 1998, p.

75).

To ease anxieties that interviewees might have had, I addressed five issues at the outset of

every interview: (a) the investigator’s motives and intentions and the inquiry’s purpose; (b) the

protection of respondents through the use of pseudonyms; (c) decision making regarding who

had final say over the study’s content (the researcher); (d) payment (of which there was none);

and (e) logistics with regard to time, place, and number of interviews to be scheduled (Taylor &

Bogdan, 1984, pp. 87-88). All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed for the purpose of

52

improving data analysis. Follow-up interviews and member checks were conducted to increase

the trustworthiness of the research.

Data Management

The system for organizing and managing data was devised before conducting the study.

The coding system allowed for easy retrieval of specific data. Merriam (1998) stated that coding

occurs at two levels: identifying information about the data and developing interpretive

constructs related to analysis. Therefore, for each interview conducted and document reviewed, I

created identifying notations that allowed access as needed for analysis and the write-up of the

findings. Although it is possible to organize by hand, I believe it is more feasible to have a mix

of manual and computer management. I used Microsoft Word to store data and create databases.

Data Analysis

As previously stated, data were gathered from multiple sources at each research site.

Memos, relevant reports, and other documentation, as well as interview data, were considered for

analysis. I analyzed each case individually, providing a detailed description of the case and then

identifying themes within the case. Finally, I conducted a cross-case analysis to determine

themes or generalizations across the three cases.

Data were organized and coded according to emergent themes and patterns. These

patterns and themes were compared as preliminary conclusions were drawn and then revised

with additional data. Some ideas and preliminary conclusions were eliminated or modified as

new data were analyzed and integrated. Yin further recommended utilizing analytic

manipulations: (a) putting information into different arrays, (b) making a matrix of categories

and placing the evidence within such categories, (c) creating data displays—flowcharts or other

graphics, (d) tabulating the frequency of different events, (e) examining the complexity of such

53

tabulations and their relationships, and (f) putting information in chronological order or using

some other temporal scheme (Yin, 2003, p. 111). Yin also stated, however, that a higher priority

“than sheer familiarity with these tools and manipulations is to have a general analytic strategy in

the first place” (Yin, 2003, p. 11). I used the following strategies: (a) following the theoretical

propositions that led to the case study, (b) thinking about rival explanations to test whether or not

outcomes were the result of influences other than those within the theoretical framework; and (c)

developing a descriptive framework for organizing the case study.

Validity and Ethical Considerations

To measure the validity and ensure the credibility of this study, I utilized the four tests

common to all social science methods:

1. Construct validity: establishing correct operational measures for the concepts being

studied

2. Internal validity: establishing a causal relationship, whereby certain conditions are

shown to lead to other conditions

3. External validity: establishing the domain to which a study’s findings can be

generalized

4. Reliability: demonstrating that the operations of a study—such as the data collection

procedures—can be repeated, with the same results (Yin, 2003, p. 34).

A common criticism of case study research is that it does not always meet high standards for

validity. Therefore, stringent research protocol is imperative. Data triangulation is a foremost

way in which validity in case study methodology can be ensured.

54

Triangulation

Merriam defined triangulation as “using multiple investigators, multiple sources of data,

or multiple methods to confirm the emerging findings” (Merriam, 1998, p. 204). Yin (2003)

noted that multiple sources of evidence in case studies allow an investigator to address a broader

range of historical, attitudinal, and behavioral issues. Nevertheless, the greatest advantage is the

development of converging lines of inquiry. This multisite case study used an array of sources

of evidence—individual interviews of key teachers and the principal, standardized test results,

and a review of written documents—all triangulating on the same set of questions. Once the data

were triangulated, the events or facts of the case study were supported by more than a single

source of evidence. This process reduced potential problems of construct validity and ensured

better quality of the overall case study.

Confidentiality and Ethics

Ever since the Nuremberg military tribunals of 1945, many professions have developed

codes of ethics pertaining to research activities. There is great concern that investigation be

conducted in an ethical manner. Merriam (1998) pointed out that in qualitative research, ethical

dilemmas are likely to emerge with regard to the collection of data and the dissemination of

findings. Of most concern is the researcher-participant relationship. Therefore, I made certain

that all participants at the three sites understood the actual purpose of the study; a synopsis of the

study’s purpose within an introductory letter was sent to all potential participants. Participants

were informed that the end product of this study would be a dissertation.

Participants were allowed to review the data collected from their interview(s) and were

given the opportunity to clarify or challenge items therein. To ensure that I reported accurately,

using the voice of the participants, I utilized a digital recorder for all interviews. All names,

55

locations, and identifying remarks were kept confidential to ensure participant privacy and

confidentiality. Participants were given pseudonyms.

Limitations of the Study

Time and resources were the major limitations of this study. As a doctoral candidate and

a full-time executive administrator, I found that my schedule limited opportunities for extensive

data collection over an extended period. The time limitations also contributed to travel

limitations. Given more time, the number of cases might have been greater, thereby allowing for

stronger generalizations across the cases.

Another limitation of the study is that it focused on only elementary schools. This

decision was made initially in no small part because of the availability of data from the U.S.

Department of Education’s National Longitudinal School-Level Achievement Database

(NLSLSASD). The findings from this study will be beneficial for elementary schools and will

have limited generalizability to middle and high schools.

Although this study has limitations, it has the potential for providing guidance to schools

and districts concerning the process of developing a high-performing, high-poverty elementary

school with high percentages of students of color. New insights may just save the lives of the

millions of poor children of color served by the nation’s schools.

Significance and Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to examine how high-poverty elementary schools with

high percentages of students of color became high performing. This study aimed to address the

process that led to high performance because the vast majority of the literature regarding high

performing, high-poverty schools with high percentages of students of color has addressed only

their characteristics. I sought to answer the following questions: What are the school-wide

56

organization, structures, and processes used by high-poverty elementary schools with high

percentages of students of color to become high performing? What are the principal and teacher

actions that fostered high performance? How is professional learning leveraged and supported to

foster high performance? These questions guided my research as I sought (a) to contribute to the

academic literature regarding school change, school improvement, and school turnaround; and

(b) to provide information that will lead to tangible action steps for thousands of educators and

improved outcomes for millions of students in urban school settings across the United States.

57

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

Overview

In this chapter, I focus on the voices of the principals and teachers who worked in three

schools identified as high-achieving, high-poverty elementary schools with high percentages of

students of color. To address the research questions, I visited these schools, met with the

principals and staff members, including teachers, some of whom were instructional support staff,

and reviewed state, district, and school-level documents. The interviews provided important

information about respondents’ daily work lives inside these schools and ways in which the

dedicated staff members were making a difference in the educational outcomes and therefore the

lives of the students enrolled.

Abernathy Elementary School

Abernathy Elementary was one of 150 elementary schools in a large urban school district

located in the Southwest. At the time of the study the city had a population of approximately 1.2

million residents. Abernathy Elementary was positioned just off a main thoroughfare with a

small park behind the school, and behind the park were several upscale housing developments.

Although the school was located in an affluent neighborhood, only 10 or fewer students, or less

than 2% of the total student population, resided in the surrounding neighborhood. According to

the principal, the parents of students who lived within walking distance of the school chose to

have their children attend private school rather than attend their neighborhood public school.

One of the teachers confirmed this and added that other neighborhood students attended the

district’s magnet schools. The majority of Abernathy Elementary students resided in a large

housing complex located approximately two miles from the school.

58

School Demographics

Abernathy Elementary had a diverse student population. According to data from state

reports for the 2010-2011 academic year, Abernathy’s student population totaled approximately

600, of which 66% were Hispanic, 20% African American, 11% White, 1% Asian, and 2% other.

A significant percentage of the total student population was classified as “at risk” by the state

education department; approximately 80% of the total student population came from

economically disadvantaged homes as measured by the number and percentage of students

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. More than half of the student population was identified

as limited English proficient, and 9% were identified as students with disabilities. The student

mobility rate exceeded 19%. The student attendance rate for both school years 2009-2010 and

2010-2011 was 97%.

Many students were members of immigrant families. According to the 2010-2011 data,

more than 50% of the families were new to the state within the previous 5 years, many having

left their native country in search of a better life for their children. In addition, in reviewing

recent geographic and employment trends, the local Chamber of Commerce surmised that the

prospect of permanent employment brought state residents from rural towns into the city.

Likewise, the school had a diverse teacher population that mirrored the student

population far more than was the case in other schools in the area. During the 2010-2011 school

year, 49% of the teaching staff were Hispanic, 26% African American, and the remaining 25%

White or other. The principal attributed the staff diversity to active recruitment and working

with local teacher preparation institutions and alternative certification programs to staff the

school.

Table 3 depicts student and teacher demographic data by race or ethnicity.

59

Table 3. Abernathy Elementary School 2011 Student and Teacher Demographics

Race or Ethnicity Students Teachers

Number % Number %

African American 112 20 9.5 26

American Indian 6 1 0 0

Asian 8 1 0 0

Hispanic 394 66 18 49

White 66 11 8 22

Other - - 1 3

'-' Indicates that, due to small numbers, results are masked to protect student confidentiality.

Many of the teachers filling 36.5 positions at Abernathy were veterans; 59% had more than 11

years of teaching experience; less than 21% had fewer than 5 years of teaching experience. The

average teaching experience for an Abernathy teacher was 16 years, which exceeded the

district’s average of 12 years and the state’s average of 11 years.

High-Stakes Assessment Results

Abernathy Elementary was a high-performing PreK-5 school that had been recognized by

the state education department for outstanding performance on the state’s high-stakes

assessment. The state education agency gave Abernathy Elementary School an “exemplary”

rating in 2010. Tables 4 through 7 set forth the percentages of Abernathy Elementary School

students meeting the state standards in reading/English language arts, mathematics, writing, and

science for all grades.

60

Table 4. Abernathy Elementary School State Testing Results – Percentage of Students Meeting

2010 and 2011 Standard in Reading/English Language Arts by Subgroup

Student group Reading/English language arts

2010 2011

All 94 95

African American 94 96

Hispanic 94 94

White 93 99

Economically disadvantaged

94 94

Students with disabilities

79 99

Limited English proficiency

91 93


2010 and 2011 Standard in Math by Subgroup

Student group Math

2010 2011

All 89 89


Hispanic 87 87

White 93 99


89 87


71 92


83 85

61


2010 and 2011 Standard in Writing by Subgroup

Student group Writing

2010 2011

All 96 95


Hispanic 98 98

White 99 -


95 96


67 67


98 98



2010 and 2011 Standard in Science by Subgroup

Student group Science

2010 2011

All 89 82


Hispanic 84 81

White 99 99


86 79


88 -


67 78


In 2010, 94% of all students achieved proficiency in reading/English language arts,

whereas 89% of all students demonstrated proficiency in mathematics; in 2011, 95% of all

students achieved proficiency in reading/English language arts, whereas the proficiency rate in

math remained unchanged. In writing, 96% of all students were proficient in 2010; the

62

percentage remained virtually the same, with 95% demonstrating proficiency in 2011. In

science, 89% of all students achieved proficiency in 2010, whereas 82% demonstrated

proficiency in 2011. Although the assessment results did not yield significant gains from 2010 to

2011, the results remained among the highest in this particular state for all students and most

subgroups for both years. The high student performance at Abernathy School was a result of

incremental and steady growth over long years of focused, hard work. In fact, a decade earlier,

only 68% of Abernathy’s students were proficient in reading, and only 55% were proficient in

math. The African American student population had fared far worse: only 52% were proficient

in reading and 35% in mathematics.

It was clear that the principal and staff at Abernathy Elementary had made numerous

organizational changes and implemented a number of major academic support structures to

address the learning needs of students. Although some of these academic structures stemmed

from district directives, the process used to implement these structures at Abernathy might have

held the key to the school’s success. The structures included planning and collaboration (using

various structures), focus on professional development, implementation of rigorous and coherent

curriculum, use of data resulting in differentiated instruction, and building content knowledge.

The structures also included a focus on academic support for students, parent and family

engagement, and academic enrichment and support opportunities. Each of these structures and

processes is discussed in the sections that follow.


A great deal of Abernathy’s ability to increase performance over time and to sustain its

performance could be attributed to the leadership of the principal, Ms. Martinez, who came to

Abernathy with the vision that no matter how well students were performing, there was room for

63

improvement. She held high expectations for staff and students alike. The way in which Ms.

Martinez structured teacher contact time with students and the time that teachers spent in

planning, collaboration, and data analysis were critical factors in the high academic performance

of students.

Ms. Martinez, a tall Hispanic woman in her early 50s, with slightly graying hair and

glasses, had been principal of this school for 8 years. She was previously the assistant principal

at Abernathy for 3 years before leaving to become principal at another elementary school at

where she stayed for 5 years. Ms. Martinez had contributed much to the district overall, serving

on district-wide curriculum writing teams, assisting in the development of the district’s

professional development plan, and mentoring other administrators. In addition, she had taught

courses for aspiring administrators at one of the local universities. She moved to this city from

another southwestern area, lured by the local university at which she received a degree in

educational administration. She was well known and active in the local community, attending

events sponsored by local organizations such as churches and community centers. She was

known to local business owners, and she relied on them for contributions and participation in

school events.

Ms. Martinez shared that she had successfully cultivated a culture of high expectations,

describing it as (a) student centered—focused on the needs of each student; (b) focused on

instruction, as evidenced by her regular classroom visits and conferences with teachers to

improve instructional delivery; and (c) driven by research-based practices, including

encouragement of staff to participate in focused professional development grounded in best

practices and to be active in local state and national organizations.

64

Although Abernathy School—once a struggling school—had established itself as high

performing, upon arriving in 2008 to serve as principal, Ms. Martinez communicated to staff that

they could do better:

I think that they had been doing very well for a few years. I thought there were some lost

opportunities [where] they could do even better…. On some of our standardized tests,

the students were maybe 40% commended performance, or 30-something percent,

whereas I think that with some modifications in the structure we could be 60%

commended performance. Also, there are gaps though—achievement gaps—in our

population, especially our LEP population. We seemed to have 60% commended

performance in our Anglo population but have 15% commended performance in our LEP

population.

A statement by a teacher who had left Abernathy and then returned after Ms. Martinez returned

as principal, echoed the principal’s strong vision:

And the thing, too is, having been here before and come back, I can say that this campus

has been consistently strong, but we were not getting that exemplary rating, and after [the

principal] came, we [got] that exemplary rating. So I think it’s just that little added

expectation of knowing how to more directly work towards our goals and help children to

do better.

Ms. Martinez maintained a keen focus on the academic needs of the students and encouraged the

staff to do the same. A teacher confirmed this: “If she thinks that it’s in the best interest of

children, then there’s going to be a discussion about it. There’s going to be a way that she lets

the staff know that this is something that we need to do.” This focus on instruction occurred in a

number of ways: instructional conferences with teachers, principal participation in team

65

meetings, and review of lesson plans and provision of weekly notes to the staff, which served as

a reminder of the high expectations focused on student achievement. Further, the principal had

clearly communicated her belief to staff that it is critical to make data-driven decisions and to

continuously seek professional development opportunities and implement evidence-based

practices to most effectively meet the needs of students.

With regard to professional development, the principal indicated that teachers shared

instructional strategies during team and staff meetings and that she and instructional support

personnel, instructional coaches and mentors, shared research-based instructional practices.

Review of the agendas for weekly staff meetings revealed evidence that time was set aside for

such sharing. When professional needs were identified, teachers received embedded

instructional supports and were expected to participate in district-sponsored and school-based

professional development opportunities to build their repertoire of specific instructional

competencies. The instructional coaches took responsibility for keeping the staff informed about

district-wide opportunities and were able to make suggestions to teachers as needs became

evident.

All of the interviewed teachers commended the principal for her ability to communicate

effectively, even when such communication included critical feedback that was intended to

improve a teacher’s performance or clarify the principal’s expectations. One teacher offered the

following explanation:

She’s a great big picture thinker, so I think because of that, she is able to see the direction

we need to go and then offer opportunities for growth. She’s very supportive of

opportunities on and off campus. She lets teachers go visit other classrooms and schools

and…observe implementation at other schools to be successful with something that we

66

may be struggling with. She looks at all different kind of growth. She understands data,

which I’ve worked for principals that don’t understand data. And you can just be

teaching your little heart out, but if you’re not teaching to what you need to teach, or you

don’t know where the gaps are, it’s not going to really be beneficial for the children. And

that’s one thing I appreciate about her; she can see and she knows, and she can help them

see it, the teachers see it. And then that way we know where we need to work.

Interviews with teachers revealed another critical strength of the principal: her ability to

have difficult conversations with staff. The principal was able to address the instructional

weaknesses of teachers and articulate to them in a way accepted by the faculty. It appeared that

these conversations took place “head on”; teachers appeared to understand and know the

conversations were driven by what was best for children. One teacher described the principal’s

ability: “I think it’s professional. I think that teachers understand that it’s in the spirit of what’s

for the children type of thing, not personal.”

Examination of the processes and structures in place at Abernathy Elementary as well as

the principal’s directness in addressing these played a key role in the school’s ongoing success.

For example, the principal shared that, as was the case at many schools, bell-to-bell teaching was

a challenge. The school day was from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. with 45 minutes for art, music, and

physical education specials. There was also a 30-minute lunch break. The physical layout of the

building, however, with its many portable classrooms, posed logistical problems. The principal

had to set expectations for operational matters. She said, “You can’t come all the way in as a

class. You don’t need to take your whole class and stand in the hallway for a restroom [break].”

Ms. Martinez was viewed as a collegial change agent, who led her staff to higher

performance, rather than a dictator. One classroom teacher shared the following:

67

She’s a huge change agent, which is not always an easy type of person to be because a lot

of people do not want change, and so leading them instead of making them feel forced—

some will always feel forced, but for the most part, I think most people feel led—which is

a gift that she has too. So that’s a big part of it is that way, that nature she has. Like I

say, I’ve worked in a number of campuses and seen a number of different leadership

styles, and I think she’s remarkable.

Hiring and Staffing Practices

Abernathy Elementary had a stable team that appeared to be very much aligned in its

philosophy of a student-centered learning environment. All of the interviewed teachers, as well

as the principal, indicated that staff turnover was low and that staff tended to stay in place once

they joined the Abernathy School team. Staff stability was evidenced by the fact that, of the

current teaching and support staff, only four teachers had been at Abernathy for fewer than 3

years; more than 15 teachers had been at Abernathy for at least 12 years. When vacancies did

occur, hiring was conducted at the school level by committee. The committee was led by the

principal and comprised teachers at the particular grade level, chosen by the principal, along with

instructional support staff. It appeared that the teachers took ownership in the hiring process.

One of the teachers clearly articulated the expectations for successful candidates as she shared

the team expectations. She described the successful candidate as follows:

Someone who is willing to be dedicated, hardworking, and of course knowledgeable in

the subject they’re teaching. But I know one really big part is a motivated upbeat person

that is willing to be part of a team and wants to show continued growth. I want that

teacher that is eager to consistently go out and look for opportunities in staff development

to grow. And also, a big thing is collaboration—to be able to collaborate.

68

The 2010-2011 Campus Improvement Plan summarized Abernathy’s recruitment efforts:

100% of our faculty holds bachelor’s degrees. In addition, many of our teachers hold

advanced degrees. Our staff is highly qualified [as defined in No Child Left Behind] and

we continue to recruit highly qualified teachers. We have been fortunate to have a very

low turnover rate and usually have a large number of candidates. A committee attends

job fairs and interviews candidates on an as-needed basis. Master teachers serve as

mentors for new teachers and provide demonstration lessons on a regular basis.

As was the practice in many urban school districts, struggling teachers who were not

evaluated out of the district were placed into an excess pool. Principals were forced to interview

the teachers from the excess pool to fill their vacancies each year. Principal Martinez shared that

she had a teacher resignation letter sitting on her desk, but she was holding on to it until all the

excess pool teachers were placed. Additionally, the district had created an alternative

certification program to address the shortage of bilingual teachers. Principals had to select

candidates from this program for placement before hiring external candidates; but not all

principals agreed with the concept of alternatively certified teachers. Principal Martinez stated,

“All those [alternatively certified] teachers had to be placed before you could say, have an

experienced teacher from a surrounding city that wanted to come in. That has been a barrier.”

Teachers who excelled in the classroom, as evidenced by student growth on state

assessments, were provided the opportunity to advance as teacher leaders by becoming master

teachers to provide mentoring and coaching support to new teachers or those needing additional

support for struggling students. These teachers also provided additional support to individual or

small groups of students. Effective teachers also could become reading or math instructional

coaches. The Campus Improvement Plan indicated that teachers were given Classroom

69

Effectiveness Indices (CEI) information annually, which specified how much value they added

to their students in comparison to teachers with like students from across the district. This

information was utilized to determine master teacher status and other teacher leadership roles

within the school.

Principals in this school district were allowed some flexibility in staffing. Schools were

given a set number of allocations, but they were not directed as to how to use them.

Consequently, Abernathy was able to continue mixed-aged classrooms, implement a dual-

language immersion program, and departmentalize the upper grades. And although the school

had been hit particularly hard by budget cuts over the past couple of years, Ms. Martinez was

still able to utilize her allocations to staff a .5 reading coach, a .5 math coach, and two

intervention teachers at the lower grade levels.

Academic Structures

Standards-based curriculum. In the past, educators viewed lack of academic progress

in children of color and those from low socioeconomic backgrounds as an educational

deficiency. Nevertheless, many of the problems experienced by children in school are the same

ones faced by them outside school. Inadequate resources, discrimination, poor health care, and

violence are but a few of the social ills that affect children both in and outside school. In-school

problems also include curriculum that is not relevant to the children’s lives, lack of adult cultural

competence, and teachers and administrators who struggle to effectively engage parents.

Although these were some of the issues facing children at Abernathy, the principal and the staff

had worked diligently to resolve these issues, paving the way for students to learn and grow by

diminishing barriers to their achievement. Implementation of a culturally relevant, rigorous

70

curriculum was one of the structures put in place by the school district and implemented by the

school to increase student achievement.

Teachers at Abernathy Elementary took full advantage of district curriculum frameworks

and units contained on a platform called Curriculum Central. The district curriculum was based

on the state standards for what students should know and be able to do. In addition, teachers

spent time ensuring that the curriculum had relevance in the children’s lives and that children

could relate what they were learning in school to their lives outside school. All of the

interviewed teachers cited the curriculum planning guides (CPGs) as being a very useful support.

One teacher articulated the utility of the CPGs:

It’s very helpful because it’s a scoping sequence of the 6 weeks. And it’s there for you to

pull down the whole—it’s called the CPG—and it has the 6 weeks mapped out in 5

weeks. And for whatever skill you’re trying to teach, it has suggestions of different

mentor texts, different strategies, and multiple sources that you could go outside of the

district links. So it is a very useful tool. And I will say that the district has done a great

job at setting it up so it’s easy and accessible to use. So teachers are very comfortable

with going in and pulling out whatever it is they need to assist them in their teaching.

Another teacher echoed these sentiments and indicated that the curriculum had evolved over time

and become better:

They are not so much—this day you do this—but it’s kind of like this is where we need

to go. This is our direction. These are ideas. Here’s literature. These are some

resources you have on your campus. These are other resources that you may use…but

this is where we’re going. And they’re very good. I really like them.

71

The curriculum is housed in an online platform for ease of use and to allow for ongoing

revisions.

Academic support(s) for students. The principal and teachers believed that individual

academic support played a key role in the school’s continued success. Both the principal and

teachers reported that students were served on an as-needed basis and might transition in and out

of the after-school and Saturday programs, with the objective’s being to ensure that no student

fell behind. This support, combined with the strong daily instructional program, provided a firm

foundation for academic progress. The principal reported that all teachers participated in either

after-school tutoring or Saturday school. Students were selected to participate in after-school

tutoring and Saturday school based on need as determined by district benchmark assessments, as

well as formal and informal teacher assessments.

After-school tutoring was offered year round to students in the upper grades and during

the second semester for students in the lower grades. Tutoring sessions took place three times a

week from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. After-school tutoring could have as few as 6 to 8 students or as

many as 15 students per class. Not all students attended after-school tutoring sessions on all

days. Some students attended tutoring on reading/English language arts days and others on math

days; however, the vast majority of students who attended were struggling in both areas.

Saturday school was offered to students in the upper grades every Saturday from 9 a.m.

to 12 p.m. from January through April. The after-school tutoring and Saturday school initiatives

were considered critical elements of Abernathy Elementary educational programming by the

principal, teachers, and instructional coaches. One teacher stated, “We feel it is our job to make

sure that no student falls behind.”

72

Social and extracurricular support(s) for students. Abernathy Elementary School

offered a wide range of enrichment activities to students. Review of the Campus Improvement

Plan revealed evidence that the school provided Abernathy students with enrichment options

designed to address individual interests and to provide students with experiences to broaden and

deepen their basic knowledge. According to Abernathy’s School Report Card, after-school

enrichment activities included FYI Kramer Newspaper club; Destination Imagination; math

team; Student Council; Spanish lessons; Green Team recycling; Weather Bug; read team safety

patrol; Tae Kwon Do; Kramer yearbook; piano lessons; All-City Choir; orchestra; folk dance; art

club; Girl Power; computer; reader’s theatre; drama club; fitness program; Kramer community

garden; and YMCA partnership for soccer, flag football, baseball, softball, volleyball, and

basketball. Although budget woes over recent years had forced reductions in enrichment

offerings, the principal believed that enrichment activities were crucial to the school’s success

and confirmed the programs’ continuation. To ensure comprehensive student programming,

most of the programs continued to be led by teachers on a voluntary basis. Teachers seemed

committed to expanding student knowledge through enrichment. One teacher was asked how her

students would remember her, and she replied,

When my students think back on their time with me, I think they will be able to say my

classroom was where they learned a lot and that she allowed us to explore. They use

their imagination as they explore various subjects here. I think I allow them to be people

instead of just students, recognizing that they have their own interests. I have to teach

them certain content and then in 10 months they are gone. They are people and while

they are here I allow them to feel and express who they are.

73

The school district also provided youth and family centers that provided social, physical health

care, and mental health care supports for students and families. The physical health care was

provided through a strong partnership with a local hospital system that provided health care

services, such as physical exams and immunizations, to city residents ages 4-21. The youth and

family center also provided services for refugee families. Services included orientation to the

school system, family activities, summer enrichment programs, mental health care, and

translation or interpreting services. The principal proudly exclaimed, “Abernathy has one of the

highest referral rates or use of [youth and family centers].

Support(s) for parents and families. During interviews with teachers at Abernathy

Elementary School, it became clear that they actively engaged and encouraged parents to assist

in supporting their children and in improving achievement. When asked about parent

engagement, the principal responded, “I haven’t thought about that in the sense that—because

it’s just kind of —it’s been a natural longstanding expectation here. It’s just become routine, I

guess in a certain sense.” Both the principal and teachers confirmed that a myriad of strategies

were implemented to engage parents. First, parents received progress reports every 3 weeks.

The school held parent–teacher conferences twice a year to communicate with parents about

their students’ performance and to distribute report cards. The teachers were very engaged in the

parent–teacher conferences and planned the structure of the conferences as a grade-level team.

To ensure 100% participation, at least one night of the parent-teacher conferences each semester

was held in the massive apartment complex in which the families resided. Student performance

drove the discussions during the conferences. The principal said,

I think one thing that struck me when I came to this campus versus some of the other

ones that I had been to…the teachers are very conscientious about that parent conference

74

time. It is very much based on data. It is showing where your child should be and where

they are.

Teachers worked diligently to foster productive relationships with families. A teacher

provided an example of how she maintained very close contact with the parents of children in her

class. She indicated that she often called parents at night if children were missing assignments or

seemed to be having difficulty. She stated, “I try to check their work before they leave each day,

and if I don’t, they know their assignments will be on their desks the next morning, and they

know I have talked with their parents.”

Another teacher explained how she invited the parents and children into the classroom

before the school year began. This meeting gave her the opportunity to get to know the children

and parents and helped the children to feel more comfortable with coming to school those first

days. The teacher said, “I called the parents who didn’t come in and introduced myself, and then

at least every couple of weeks, I call them to keep them informed of their children’s progress.”

Additionally, there was an active PTA that supported the school in very significant ways.

According to the principal, the PTA had supported the school by providing $500 to each grade

level for extra field experience. It also gave $1,500 to fund a 3-day, 2-night science camp for the

fifth graders and another $1,000 to send the fourth graders to the state capitol to support the state

history curriculum. Teachers were very involved in the PTA and planned student performances

and exhibits for each PTA meeting. One teacher indicated, “This helps to increase attendance at

these meetings, when parents know their children will be playing a role in a presentation or

having their projects on display.” Other parent engagement activities included family literacy

and math and science nights. Teachers also sent home written materials: progress reports; the

Green Folder—a weekly folder that contained school-wide updates, as well as classroom- and

75

student-specific information; and newsletters. Additionally, teachers made phone calls and

conducted home visits as needed. Parents were encouraged to come to school to read aloud, to

volunteer, to be room parents, and to attend workshops. The focus of parent workshops was to

stress the importance of reading to their young children and listening to older students read, as

well as to teach questioning techniques.

All teachers used newsletters to inform parents about upcoming units and topics so that

parents knew what their children were learning and could assist by asking questions and

providing information and support about the curriculum as appropriate. One teacher shared how

she provided parents with math lessons on upcoming concepts so that they would know how to

help their children with math concepts and related homework. Informing parents about what was

going on in the classroom helped to generate interest and discussion at home, thereby allowing

children to contribute to class discussions and activities and to improve their performance on

projects and presentations.

One of the teachers indicated that all Abernathy parents were encouraged to use the

library and were permitted to check out books for themselves and their younger children:

Well, I love it when they come and they pick for either their child or a younger

sibling. In our library, the older kids can check out up to six books, but when the

younger kids [select books], and that would be fine with me all the way down,

some of the teachers have great hesitation…[with younger children] managing

that many materials. But what I always say to the parents is, “You come. If you

want to come during school, after school, before school, if you want to come and

check out a book for every day of the week, you can come and get seven and then

you have them and then just return them and then you can get more.”

76

Allowing parents to use the school library exemplified the school’s commitment to support

family literacy.

Teacher expectations. In the Campus Improvement Plan, Abernathy School was self-

described as “a close-knit” school community in which teachers, students, staff, and parents

worked together to build a “positive, safe and supportive learning environment.” During

interviews with staff, it was clear that the school community had a strong commitment to high

expectations for students and did not allow the students’ life situations or demographics to lower

educator expectations. One teacher explained:

Teachers must develop a repertoire of strategies, learning how to change lessons to

ensure that all students “get it.” Teachers also have to believe that their students can

learn, and without that belief, all too often children fulfill their teachers’ low

expectations.

The staff had high expectations for their own performance, and they were committed to

providing high-quality educational programs for students. The Campus Improvement Plan

articulated the school’s philosophy: “We equate our success with our school-wide, consistent

behavior plan that includes a high-quality transition from preschool to elementary school. We

have high expectations that are consistently communicated with students and parents ensuring

their success.” Interviews with teachers supported this philosophy. One teacher stated, “We

spend time the first few days of school ensuring that students know routines and expectations so

we don’t have to lose instructional time later.” Another said, “We [teachers] support one another

by verbally ensuring that we hold high expectations in the classrooms, in the hallways, in the

cafeteria, and during any transitions.”

77

Teacher Learning and Collaboration

District structures. There were very formal planning structures within the school district

and at the school level. Within the school district, each school was part of one of four learning

communities comprising 40 schools, and they met monthly as a learning community. The

principals met together and visited one another’s schools to participate in learning walks,

providing one another with valuable feedback about classroom instruction. Additionally,

teachers within the learning communities worked together by subject area and by grade level; for

example, sometimes the math teachers collaborated. Other times, the fifth-grade math teachers

within the learning community collaborated. The school district required that each school have a

Campus Instructional Leadership Team (CILT). Abernathy used the CILT as the foundational

structure for planning and the development of multiple professional learning communities

(PLCs).

Annual planning. Annual school-wide planning was implemented through the CILT.

The CILT was responsible for developing the instructional plan for the school year. This team,

led by the principal and comprising members of each grade level and subject area, met during the

summer to plan for the upcoming school year by analyzing and disaggregating student

performance data and developing strategies to target areas deemed to be in need of improvement.

The CILT met weekly to discuss instructional issues and plan professional development, based

on identified student and staff needs. Team members worked with curriculum specialists at the

district level to coordinate and ensure that professional development needs of the staff at

Abernathy School were noted and addressed at the beginning and throughout the school year.

The team took responsibility for long-range school planning, helped to determine

teachers’ need for targeted professional development, and developed strategies to engage the

78

support of parents and the school community. Another significant factor in the teachers’

implementing the evidence-based instructional practices across all classes and grades was the

focus on developing consistency in content and practices. The Campus Improvement Plan was

reviewed on a monthly basis, and the instructional approaches set forth in the plan were included

in instructional conferences among grade-level teams, individual teachers, and the principal.

This process helped to ensure that teachers were adhering to the plan and to build internal

consistency for all staff to improve or lead change in the school.

School-level planning. School planning and collaboration occurred at various levels,

including school-wide planning, grade-level planning, and content-area planning (including

vertical planning). So, although the district had put into place monthly planning and

collaboration structures, each staff had flexibility in the process that they would follow within

their school. The principal and teacher interviews suggested that the entire staff recognized the

importance of planning; they were committed to putting in the time necessary to ensure that

planning efforts led to more effective instructional outcomes. One teacher stated,

You have to be dedicated to put in all the extra time it takes for a child to be successful.

And you can’t come to school 7:50 to 3:30 and walk out. There’s no way possible you

can do it, because you’re addressed with issues. Some things were working that day and

some things didn’t work, so what do I need to adjust? Where do I need to go different to

fix what was wrong this day? And I’m a big believer in that it takes a lot of good

planning time to make sure that you are successful, and [to make sure that] the child is

successful. We all need to be successful.

Ms. Martinez also implemented content area planning, which included formal and

informal vertical team planning. Formal meetings occurred approximately every 6 weeks in the

79

form of a staff development day as well as informal meetings on an as-needed basis. As one

teacher indicated, “sometimes it’s not a set schedule. As a teacher, if you see that there’s a

deficient area, then we would [take] it upon ourselves to go down to a grade level and set up our

own meetings.” When questioned further, she explained that teachers wanted to make sure the

previous teachers had covered the required content ensuring that students received the

background and concepts they needed to be successful [at] the next grade. She continued, “If we

find there are gaps, we may have to reteach a concept to fill in the gaps.”

Common planning time. Common planning time was another structural change

initiated by Ms. Martinez that was part of the collaborative efforts to improve instructional

practices. Teachers were given 45 minutes each day for common planning time, which had not

been happening consistently prior to the current principal’s tenure. Upon arriving at the school,

the principal realized that the master schedule did not allow for teachers to do any collaborative

planning, so she immediately set out to change the schedule, thereby ensuring that every teacher

could participate in common planning time. The principal and one of the teachers interviewed

for this study echoed common sentiments that the facilitation of common planning time had had

a dramatic impact on instruction by enabling honest conversations. Ms. Martinez stated, “There

are many elements of planning that shouldn’t be done in isolation, including curriculum mapping

and the monitoring of student progress. Having teachers plan together keeps the focus on the

elements that make all students successful.” One of the younger, less experienced teachers

commented,

I look forward to meeting with my team because I can talk with them about how to pace

curriculum units, and problems they may have encountered. I learn from them about

strategies to use with students who may be struggling.

80

Time was provided each week, allowing for grade-level teams to meet and discuss

curriculum units, instructional strategies, assessment, and pacing. This required a change to the

master schedule when Ms. Martinez arrived as principal because there were some teachers who

did not have grade-level planning. Teachers, working with instructional coaches and other

support staff, devoted time each week to make certain that lessons were both carefully planned

and based on the identified needs of students. This practice was evidenced through a review of

lesson plans and meeting minutes. Teachers at Abernathy reviewed student data and state

standards, the curriculum planning guides (CPGs), and they planned lessons accordingly. The

principal also attended the grade-level planning one time per week. The fifth-grade reading

teacher stated,

We never had the component of meeting once a week with the principal and her driving

some of our thinking. We’ve never done that. It’s always been kind of like our meetings

and we decided what we want to do and our meetings were operational and not

instructional. And hers are very instructional, not as much operational.

Professional learning community. Although each school also had district-developed

professional learning community (PLC) teams to facilitate the collaboration and planning

process within both grade levels and content areas, schools were free to structure these teams to

meet their needs. The purpose of a PLC was to share instructional ideas and strategies and to

provide opportunities for teachers to plan units and collaborate on projects. The process was

especially helpful to newer teachers who might require some coaching and mentoring, allowing

teachers to learn from their peers and to share ideas and resources. The team was composed of

one teacher from each grade level, who was selected by the team.

81

At Abernathy School, the principal had structured the PLCs in such a way as to involve a

greater number of teachers and alignment with the teacher evaluation process by setting

expectations for involvement. Teachers reported that they liked this structure because it

provided them a sense of what was going on in the school rather than just in their own

classrooms and because the process “expose[d] them to new strategies to solve instructional

problems” and “generate new ideas.” The principal stated,

Different campuses do it different ways. They may do it like whole group. They come

back and spend [time at] a faculty meeting to share back information. I had [the CILT

members] be the leaders of that PLC. We’ve tweaked the PLCs over the last [few years];

this campus has done PLCs for many years. However, I think we changed it up a little bit

when I came here to be more about instruction.

At Abernathy School, there was a PLC for each content area. Both the principal and the

teachers indicated that the math and reading PLCs were inspired by the district math academy

and reading academy (K-2). Teachers shared that the academies exposed them to new strategies,

pushed their thinking, and forced them to go deeper into math and reading content. They

perceived that the math and reading academies really supported the schools and that most

teachers tried to participate. The school-based PLCs met monthly as a follow-up to the

academies and were led by two CILT members: one representing PreK through Grade 2, and one

representing Grades 3 through 5. Teachers were eager to learn and share with one another, and

this structure provided such an opportunity. One teacher said, “I feel inspired by my

participation; it keeps me excited about learning.” The staff at Abernathy School appeared to be

very supportive of one another as indicated by the amount of time they spent working together

on curriculum and instructional issues. And although PLC participation was not mandatory,

82

there was a very strong expectation by the principal and the teachers that they would participate

in at least one PLC. According to the principal, participation in PLCs was incorporated into the

teachers’ evaluations:

I wouldn’t say that they’re mandated, but they’re—it’s kind of understood, I guess. We

did say that at the very least, you would attend one. If I was a self-contained teacher, I

would pick one content area and stay with that for the entire school year. But if I want an

“exceeds expectations” on my evaluation, then I would go to three additional ones in

different content areas so that I had the opportunity as a self-contained teacher to hear in

every content what was going on and continue to grow. So not mandates but strongly

encouraged.

Professional development workshops. In addition to involvement in the campus

improvement team and teacher preparation institutional programs, teachers were encouraged to

participate in professional development workshops. Time was set aside during monthly staff

meetings for teachers to share what they learned through such participation. The district

mandated that teachers participate in a minimum of 14 hours of district-sponsored professional

development each school year, which teachers indicated they found to be a valuable resource.

These opportunities included grade-level reading and math academies through which teachers

were provided information on research-based best practices in content and practice and

introduced to new products and technologies. The district also offered professional development

though job-embedded coaching by district-level content experts, providing teachers with choices

of areas on which they would like to concentrate.

It appeared, however, that the principal at Abernathy School had been able to maximize

both district and externally sponsored professional development opportunities by inviting experts

83

to model best practices and to coach teachers in their own classrooms. When these experts were

present, Ms. Martinez was in the classroom with them, demonstrating and practicing strategies

and working with individual students. The opportunities were planned as part of goal setting for

teachers. Ms. Martinez indicated that she followed up with observations and instructional

conferences to observe implementation and improvement of practices in targeted areas and that

this process became a component of a teachers’ evaluation. The principal was committed to

ensuring that her teachers received continuous, relevant professional development. When asked

what leadership quality the principal brought to make the school successful in its efforts, one

teacher responded, “I think the professional development part [is] to continue to look at new

ways of doing things and to have that be a continual part throughout the year.” Another teacher

echoed this sentiment:

Well, Ms. Martinez has really, probably more than any principal I’ve ever had, really

encouraged her teachers to attend workshops, read professional books that are current

thinking, current theory, and/or application type books and bring that back to the

classroom.

Teacher Practices

The majority of the Abernathy Elementary student population was identified by the state

education department as “at risk” according to statutory criteria. Abernathy’s 2010-2011

Campus Improvement Plan set forth the instructional strategies that were implemented to meet

the needs of underperforming students:

Disaggregated student achievement data shows that we need to focus on the following

groups in order to close the learning gap: At Risk, LEP, and Special Education. To reach

our commended goals, we will have several interventions in place on our campus to

84

ensure that the At Risk, LEP, and special education students are successful in school.

Abernathy Elementary will need to differentiate instruction; use hands-on manipulatives,

and utilize additional high quality resources to directly tie the curriculum to the learning

needs of struggling students.

Mixed-age classroom for differentiation. For many years, the primary classrooms at

Abernathy had used a mixed-aged or mixed-grade classroom model for first and second grade.

Principal Martinez noticed when she arrived at Abernathy, however, that only four primary

classroom were mixed age; two were first grade and three were second grade. This caused the

approach to reading and writing math workshop, as well as the approach to mathematics

instruction, to be fragmented. The principal decided that all of the 10 teachers would become

mixed-age teachers but would also departmentalize according to subject: reading/English

language arts and social studies or math and science. The 10 teachers planned and set goals

together and created a consistency in their approach to teaching.

According to the principal, despite the improvement to the mixed-age instructional

arrangement, the CILT decided during the past year that the more rigorous learning standards

and increasing numbers of English language learners with very specific instructional demands

and learning needs made it far more difficult to instruct two grade levels in one classroom. In

fact, a veteran teacher reported,

Really, mixed-age was a result of the district not providing resources that were best

practices or that were aligned with the best practices that teachers were learning two

decades ago. So we kind of created our own curriculum and our own instructional

program.

85

The principal pointed out that having a central curriculum, with curriculum planning guides

(CPGs) that have units of study and suggested differentiated activities utilizing resources such as

Lucy Calkins and recommended guided reading instruction, the mixed-age classrooms were no

longer needed. The veteran teacher said, “The district resources have really caught up to where

we’d been in a lot of ways.” The CILT decided that with the increasing needs of English

language learners who required specially designed instruction and strategies, Abernathy would

begin to roll out a Spanish dual-language immersion program in kindergarten. The program was

designed for students to achieve strong levels of academic proficiency in two languages. Many

parents chose the program because of the strong emphasis on language acquisition as well as

cultural diversity. The mixed-aged classrooms would be phased out within 2 years.

Unlike some schools that placed an instructional focus simply on the primary grades,

Abernathy continued to focus on the upper grades as well. Grades 3 through 6 departmentalized

by subject area, thereby allowing teachers to further specialize in one or two content areas. Not

only did departmentalizing allow teachers to focus, but it also saved teachers invaluable time in

planning for multiple subjects and the school incalculable dollars in professional development

training for teachers in all content areas. Most importantly, little instructional time was lost. A

third-grade teacher who taught two 180-minute literacy blocks and one social studies block,

described how departmentalization allowed her to focus on the instructional needs of her

students:

There is a 90-minute portion called reader’s workshop. The reader’s workshop begins

with a mini lesson as does the writer’s workshop. After that we go into independent

write time. And through independent write time I can do individual conferences or I

might do skill grouping based on observations or assessments—what I see in students’

86

writing. In reader’s workshop I also do the Daily Five program, which consists of guided

reading groups and one-on-one conferencing. I also do literacy centers then. Students

navigate through those literacy centers when I am not meeting with them as a group or

one on one.

Abernathy’s CILT had not yet discussed the role that departmentalization would play, if any, as

the Spanish dual-language immersion program rolled up each year. In the meantime, however,

departmentalization is a critical structure for supporting teachers and students.

Differentiated instruction. Ms. Martinez noted that professional development specific

to content knowledge helped the teachers differentiate:

If you know that prerequisite skills in math [are] necessary for your grade level, then

you’re able to differentiate a little bit better for those kids because you know what they’re

missing, what piece of it that they’re not getting to.

The teachers confirmed the principal’s willingness to support the staff in deepening content

knowledge and strengthening their ability to differentiate instruction. One teacher reported:

She is constantly seeking out opportunities for us to get staff development—not just in

the district, but outside of the district. This year alone, she personally came to us—I

can’t even tell you the number of times—with additional workshops in reading, science,

math that we could attend outside the district. And these have been expensive

workshops, where she’s had to get approval for her staff. But she fully believes in us

continuing our growth and going to get staff development that’s based on research.

As teachers became more comfortable and knowledgeable with subject content and with

assessment data, they were able to further differentiate instruction because the teachers better

understood what knowledge or skills the students were missing. Teachers received ongoing

87

coaching from the principal and instructional coaches regarding strategies to differentiate

instruction that would result in meeting the needs of all students. The principal stated, “I think as

we increase the differentiated instruction, it definitely is having a positive impact on our student

achievement.” The principal described what she defined as intentional learning, and she

instilled in her teachers the importance of “planning a lesson for a learning intention rather than

simply covering that concept or that material.”

One teacher described the evolution of instructional practices:

The structures that we have for instance, in reading and language arts, a few people used

to do more whole-group, basal-type of reading instruction. Then there was a core group

that did reading workshop and writing workshop and utilized guided reading, used Lucy

Calkins’ things. So the resources used to be whatever one chose or whatever one had.

So we’ve now developed—every reading and language arts classroom has the same

resources. We’re all utilizing reading workshop. We’re all utilizing writing workshop.

We’re all doing the guided reading instruction and small group instruction. Same

material; same philosophy.

The Campus Improvement Plan memorialized the school-wide, consistent instructional

approach to be undertaken for each of the following content areas:

Reading – The instructional staff will utilize the “Reading Workshop” structure

campus wide, integrate technology into reading instruction, and utilize data sources to

set achievable goals for the students.

The reading workshop model contained several components, including the following: beginning

with a mini lesson, read aloud, independent reading and conferencing, guided reading, response

88

and reflection, and sharing. The model allowed for differentiated instruction and taught students

strategies for reading and comprehension.

Math – The instructional team will strive to increase critical thinking skills in math,

integrate technology into math instruction, provide conceptual refinement to the

students and provide opportunities to participate in competitive enrichment

opportunities, such as math teams.

Science – The instructional team will utilize the writing process in science, use the 5-

E Model consistently as a campus, utilize the Science Lab to increase hands-on

learning, and integrate technology into science instruction.

The 5-E science model included the five-stage teaching sequence in the constructivist model of

teaching and learning: engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate. This sequence allowed

students to build their own understanding through experiences and the generation of new ideas.

Writing – The instructional staff will increase the use of the writing workshop in the

classroom and integrate technology into writing instruction. Teachers will participate

in a Writing Essentials book study and Lucy Calkins Units of Study [writing project].

This project was an eight-step process through which each student could move at his or her own

pace; it allowed for differentiation of direct instruction and always resulted in celebration of

writing.

Additionally, Ms. Martinez encouraged the teachers’ ongoing participation in district-

wide PLCs related to the Institute for Learning (IFL) groundbreaking Principles of Learning®

work designed to help “educators analyze and improve teaching and learning.” The principal

and teachers perceived the online resources from the IFL, including video clips, planning tools,

and suggested activities, to be invaluable for instructional planning in every content area.

89

Data-driven instruction. The city school district required a comprehensive assessment

system that included screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring, and outcome assessments.

Teachers at Abernathy used the DIBELS reading assessment for screening and progress

monitoring, the TPRI as a comprehensive K-2 reading assessment, the DRA semiannually for

guided reading assessments, mClass for math progress monitoring, and district-developed

benchmarks for reading, math, science, and social studies in Grades 2 through 5. All of the data

were input into My Data Portal so that teachers could frequently assess school-wide, classroom,

and individual learning and teaching gaps in real time. The principal and teachers at Abernathy

considered the assessment system as so much more than simply data about students. They

understood that assessments, when appropriately administered and used, could provide

information to assist them in developing appropriate instruction for all students and to evaluate

the effectiveness of their instruction. One of the teachers articulated how the use of assessments

assisted in improving instruction:

They help me; it helps drive my instruction. You know…it helps me when I do need to

differentiate, in creating my guided reading groups…all of those help me, the goals. So it

helps me create small groups. It helps drive my instruction. It helps me to see if I’m on

track with my instruction. Am I, is my instruction contributing to their success?

Teachers spoke about using the teacher collaboration process and assessment system at

Abernathy to develop “individual prescriptions” for students. Teachers indicated that they spoke

with grade-level peers, the reading teacher, the math teacher, and the coaches and shared their

observations about a student, as well as the strategies and interventions that had been tried. One

teacher said of the assessment process:

90

So it’s a big part of planning the instruction and the small grouping to meet the needs of

the kids. Through my assessment, I’m able to identify those students that are struggling

in different areas and seeing what their weaknesses are. And then from there, with my

colleagues, I create a profile. And we line those objectives up on the profile sheets. And

I share those with each individual student.

Sharing profile or goal sheets with students was a formal process at Abernathy designed to

inform, encourage, and motivate students. One teacher shared that students often felt

discouraged or said, “I can’t get it.” Because of the profile sheet, the teacher was able to

respond, “But look at all of these objectives you’re really strong with.” The principal and

teachers shared that it was not uncommon for a student to ask for a new profile sheet once they

had made significant progress.

Use of technology. At Abernathy, teachers were beginning to use technology as an part

of instruction, but there was not an abundance of modern technology at Abernathy Elementary.

According to the Campus Improvement Plan, most classrooms were equipped with data

projectors and document cameras, and several classrooms had interactive boards. Several

teachers had attended district-level technology training and had begun to incorporate newly

acquired technology skills into their classrooms and to mentor other teachers who were not as

confident in their technology skills and ability. The CILT plan also indicated that the school

intended to purchase additional document cameras, interactive boards, and student computers

and to focus on the use of technology as a tool to enhance instruction and improve achievement.

In addition, the PTA had pledged to support increased technology resources available to students

and teachers in each classroom. Interviews with teachers revealed a recognition that greater

technology use would lead to expanded opportunities for students in the areas of academics and

91

enrichment and for teachers in the areas of assessment, curriculum, and professional

development.

Conclusion

Abernathy Elementary was somewhat unusual in that its teacher population mirrored the

school’s diverse student population. The principal, who was well known and active within the

local community, was very involved in curriculum and instructional work, both within the school

and at the district level, and had a philosophy of no matter how well students at the school were

performing, there was always room for improvement. The actions of the school’s very stable

teaching team reflected this philosophy. There was a strong emphasis on collaborative planning,

professional development, implementing a relevant and coherent curriculum driven by student

data, and differentiated instruction. The CILT team analyzed disaggregated data to identify

student and staff needs and worked with curriculum specialists at the district level to develop

strategies to improve achievement. Continuous, relevant professional development enabled

teachers to better understand what content or skills the students were missing so they could

successfully differentiate instruction to address learning gaps. There was also a strong focus on

developing consistency in content and practice via the collaborative planning process so that no

teacher was planning in isolation. The faculty examined data to determine how value was being

added to the students, meeting together in grade-level teams on a daily basis, as well as

periodically across grade levels within the school and across the district to discuss curriculum

units, instructional strategies, assessment, and pacing. After-school tutoring, Saturday school,

and enrichment initiatives were offered to provide students the experiences they needed to

deepen their basic knowledge. Decisions were consistently guided by a strong focus on

academic support for students, with conversations driven by doing what was best for children.

92

These combined structures enabled the school to create a student-centered learning environment

in which the students were thriving.

Dennison Elementary School

The second case study was conducted at Dennison Elementary School, one of 200

schools in a large urban school district. The city, also in the Southwest, had more than one

million residents. Dennison was located on the south side of the city, in an area in which many

residents lived in public housing and in which poverty and crime were pervasive. The PreK-6

school, the oldest school in the city, was formerly a middle school; it had been converted to ease

elementary school overcrowding. The interviews provided insight into how the principal and

staff had worked together to turn the school around and create a college-going culture. Through

participants’ responses to the questions, I was able to paint a picture of the elements that made

this school one of the highest performing in the state.

School Demographics

According to data provided by the district’s research office, Dennison’s student

population in the 2010-2011 school year totaled approximately 600, with 98% identified as

Hispanic, 1% African American, and 1% White. More than 65% of the total student population

was classified as “at risk”—as identified by the state education department, and approximately

97% were from economically disadvantaged homes as measured by eligibility for free or

reduced-price lunch. More than 45% of the students were identified as having limited English

proficiency and 8% were identified as students with disabilities. The student mobility rate at

Dennison was nearly 17%. The student attendance rate in 2009-2010 was 96%; in 2010-2011 it

was 97%.

Table 8 depicts student and teacher demographics at Dennison Elementary School.

93

Table 8. Dennison Elementary School 2011 Student and Teacher Demographics

Race or ethnicity Students Teachers

Number Percent Number Percent

African American 6 1 4 11

American Indian 0 0 1 3

Asian 0 0 1 3

Hispanic 572 97.6 11 32

White 4 .7 16.5 48

Other 4 .7 1 3

The teaching staff at Dennison (N = 34.5) had been relatively stable for a number of

years. Of the staff, one third had been at Dennison prior to the second arrival of the principal,

Mrs. Clayton, and she was proud that she had hired two thirds of the staff during her tenure and

that she had been able to weed out ineffective staff, replacing them with talented, energetic, and

enthusiastic teachers. More than 45% of the teachers at Dennison had 5 or fewer years of

teaching experience. Although the teachers at Dennison differed in terms of their experiences

and longevity in the profession, they had achieved a common result: they were knowledgeable

about essential and effective classroom practices, and the children in their classes were achieving

at relatively high levels. How these teachers perceived their practice and what they had learned

from their experiences impacted how they interacted with their students and influenced the

strategies they used in their classrooms, as reflected in the following statement: “I know when

kids don’t get it by talking to them one-on-one. I try to have them articulate what they do and

don’t understand.” Another teacher spoke about some of the most essential acts of teaching this

way: “Engagement…engaging the students in the learning process is just so critical.”

94


The state education department had recognized Dennison Elementary as a high-

performing school with an exemplary rating, highest in the state’s accountability system.

Dennison also was classified by the state education department as a Title I Distinguished School.

Tables 9-12 present the percentages of students at all grade levels meeting the state standards.

Table 9. Dennison Elementary School 2010 and 2011 Reading/English Language Arts State

Testing Results – Percentage of Students Meeting Standard by Subgroup

Student group Reading/English language arts

2010 2011

All 94 88

African American - -

Hispanic 94 88

White - -


94 88


85 59


92 84


Table 10. Dennison Elementary School 2010 and 2011 Math State Testing Results – Percentage

of Students Meeting Standard by Subgroup

Student group Math

2010 2011

All 95 90


Hispanic 94 90

White - -


94 89


86 77


93 92


95

Table 11. Dennison Elementary School 2010 and 2011 Writing State Testing Results –

Percentage of Students Meeting Standard by Subgroup

Student group Writing

2010 2011

All 94 93

African American -

Hispanic 94 93

White -


94 93


88 99


93 95


Table 12. Dennison Elementary School 2010 and 2011 Science State Testing Results –

Percentage of Students Meeting Standard by Subgroup

Student group Science

2010 2011

All 90 93


Hispanic 91 92

White - -


90 92


80 60


65 92


According to state reports, in 2003, only 60% of Dennison students scored proficient on

state assessments in reading/English language arts and only 60% in mathematics. By 2010, 94%

of all students were proficient in reading, 95% were proficient in math, and 94% were proficient

in writing; in science, 90% of students were deemed proficient. Although Dennison saw a slight

96

decline in test scores in the 2010-2011 school year, they still performed amongst the highest in

the state and in that same year achieved the Gold Performance Acknowledgement for reading.

From 2003-2011, Dennison experienced a 28 percentage-point increase in reading/English

language arts and a 30 percentage-point increase in mathematics.


The principal, Mrs. Clayton, was a White female about 45 years old. She was small, just

over five feet tall, and thin, with short brown hair and glasses. Her physical stature was no

indication of the power she embodied, as reflected in teachers’ talking about the impact that she

had had on them and on the climate of the school. Mrs. Clayton had worked at Dennison for a

total of 15 years. She first served as vice principal, then left to work for a few years in one of the

district’s central offices. She returned to the school as principal and had served in this capacity

for 7 years at the time of this study. Under her leadership, the school had progressed from

“recognized” to “exemplary” status as defined by the state education department.

The principal indicated that when she assumed leadership at the school, she had a strong

vision of what the school could become. One of her first efforts was to strengthen collaboration

between teachers by moving them from their comfort levels and getting them to interact with one

another across grades to ensure continuity:

When I first came to Dennison, I saw what every principal sees. You’ve got third

through sixth grade, a group of teachers that do state testing and you’ve got

kinder[garten] through second grade—two schools in one building—and I really didn’t

like that because I knew they had so much to offer…. So, the first day of staff

development, I let them sit wherever they wanted and they would always sit by grade

levels. The second day, we had the A table, the B table, the C table, the D table. KA,

97

1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A sit at one table. KB, 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B sit at another table.

So, we did that and then, we took the specialist teachers…and sprinkled them out

amongst the groups, and we started developing our plans and discussing science and

writing and math all the way through the strands, but with a different format. We [now]

do that every year and…it’s changed the planning that we do, and it puts more continuity

in.

The interviews with teachers revealed that the principal was a strong, knowledgeable

leader, well respected by her staff, who had established a student-centered culture of

accountability and collaboration. The one theme that resonated loudly was that she valued and

supported her teachers and treated them as professionals. One teacher stated that the principal

trusts her core professionals to deviate if they want to go above and beyond what the

CPGs [Curriculum Planning Guides] say…[but not] if you are losing students or leaving

students behind. When we come to her and say, “We’re not reaching them,” or “This

isn’t working,” she says, “So how are you going to fix it?” And then [it] is back on us

and since we’re in the trenches it is really up to us to figure out how to fix it. And so, we

have to come up with solutions, brainstorm, and collaboratively team.

Another teacher echoed this sentiment with the following statement: “There’s teachers that kind

of teach their own way and she’s okay with that as long as the teaching is being done and the

students are learning.” Another teacher captured it succinctly when she stated, “She believes in

her staff, and I think that’s good.”

The principal had established a system whereby leadership was distributed to the entire

staff, as described in a federal grant application:

98

The leadership structure includes the assistant principal who is responsible for operations

as well as being an instructional leader herself. In addition, the academic coordinator

plays an important role in the leadership structure. He ensures that all teachers have their

curriculum planning guides each 6 weeks and is responsible for all school-wide

assessments and testing. The Campus Instructional Leadership Team (CILT) makes up

the next level of leadership. The CILT members are master teachers selected by the

principal representing reading, math, science, social studies, and bilingual education.

They attend additional and specific curricular staff development throughout the year and

are responsible for assisting the principal in professional training throughout the school

year. Grade levels also are assigned chairpersons to assist with operational duties.

Leadership is shared throughout the school, and while the principal assumes

responsibility for the entire school, she is extremely aware of her staff’s strengths and

talents. Leadership at Dennison, whether focusing on improvement of academics, student

attendance or planning staff development, is shared with numerous capable professionals.

In addition, newer inexperienced teachers are given unique tasks to develop leadership

skills early in their careers. One year, the new teachers were asked to read a professional

book and present it to the rest of the staff, their first day at Dennison. The past 2 years

the principal included new and inexperienced teachers in the presentation team when

other principals and teachers visited the campus. Regardless of the grade taught, all

teachers and staff members who are given opportunities to grow as leaders share the same

mission and goals, to sustain and improve student learning.

Generally speaking, teachers found the principal, Mrs. Clayton, to be supportive. One stated,

99

She’s extremely supportive, and she understands that she needs to let us try our ideas and

let us see. If they work, good. If they don’t we’ll get to the drawing board and find

something else. Materials wise, I’ve asked for a lot of things, and I don’t think I’ve been

told no one time.

In addition to being supportive, staff found their principal to be courageous and determined,

which inspired them to higher performance. A teacher remarked,

She’s extremely determined. She’s just strong willed. She’s very courageous. She’s

quite bold. I look at her sometimes and I think, “Oh, I don’t know if I could have done

that or I don’t know if I could have said that.”

Hiring and Staffing Practices

Dennison Elementary had a very stable staff that was aligned in their beliefs and

practices. The turnover rate had dropped in recent years as a result of teachers’ wanting to stay

at the school. One teacher confirmed that phenomenon when she talked about working very hard

and putting in long hours: “But there are reasons that people are willing to make those kinds of

personal sacrifices. We’ve got a culture of excellence among the staff. And the kids also know

it.”

The hiring of school staff took place at the school level, with the principal’s having sole

authority over staff hiring and assignments. In terms of hiring practices, all of the teachers

confirmed that although the principal had the authority to hire personnel, she involved her staff

in the hiring process through interview committees when possible. Mrs. Clayton indicated that

sometimes she was the only one who could do the hiring because most vacancies occurred

during the summer months. The principal expressed serious concerns regarding the hiring of

teachers during the summer if hiring restrictions were placed on principals:

100

[Human Resources] calls me and is checkin’ on vacancies. They’ll have 25 people on

their list that they have to place. And they’re tryin’ to see if they can plug one into me.

For the most part, [Human Resources] leaves me alone and places teachers at those

schools where they have principal vacancies or new principals who won’t know any

better. If they have a principal vacancy, that’s where [they] put [their] problem

children—terrible thing to admit. But the district shouldn’t have to force place teachers.

I have never released a teacher to go into this pool of candidates. If I had a problem

teacher—and I’ve had two—I would terminate them. It is really hard to do. But I did. I

don’t believe in giving my problems to another principal.

Mrs. Clayton had learned to wait Human Resources out. She knew to wait until July to fill

vacancies. She interviewed candidates that she wanted and asked them if they minded waiting

until after all teachers in the pool were placed. Clayton said,

In July, they will have placed all of these—I call them the losers, the crazy teachers, the

ax murderers, these people who nobody else wanted. They’ll place them in vacancies.

And once that’s done, then I can start hiring again. And sure enough, in the latter part of

July, early part of August, they lift the hiring freeze.

The principal expressed hope about a new process the district was implementing. If a school was

going to lose a teacher because of budget restraints, the least senior teacher would not be

terminated. Reductions in force would now be done according to ratings on the teacher

evaluations. The lowest performing teacher would be dismissed.

With regard to staff assignments, the principal had the authority to assign teachers within

the building and she did so very liberally. She asserted that she was able to “see where teachers

could really work; I see teams and build them.” One of the teachers confirmed this practice

101

when she was asked what changes had occurred to make the school more successful: “Well, I

guess our principal placing teachers, knowing where to place teachers where their strengths

are…; placing them in the right spots.”

Academic Structures

Standards-based curriculum. Dennison Elementary had implemented with fidelity the

district’s curriculum planning guides, which were aligned with the state’s learning standards.

The principal stated, “[The guides are] the teachers’ backbone; that’s their bible. And from that,

they start planning the lessons. They do have freedom in how they teach. They don’t have a lot

of freedom in what they teach.” The district curriculum planning guides were designed to

provide an instructional guide for each subject at every grade level throughout the year. The

guides included daily lesson plans, supplemental materials, strategies for interventions, and

differentiation for remediation and enrichment using rigorous lessons. All teachers that were

interviewed indicated that the district’s guides were in fact the basis of their instructional

planning.

The relevance and cohesion of Dennison’s instructional program can be seen in the

following description, which was included in a federal grant application submitted by the

principal and an assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction:

The language arts program includes reading, writing, vocabulary, grammar, and

spelling “across the curriculum.” Dennison’s student population is primarily English

Language Learners who need to be immersed in language and print rich environments.

From Pre-K, where they learn using song, dance, and simple sentences to 6th grade,

where they read multiple novel length trade books concurrently, the curriculum is aligned

both vertically and horizontally. [Dennison Elementary] also embraces the dual-language

102

program, which teaches our non-English speakers in their native language while

facilitating their transition to dual-language competency.

Our primary goal for the mathematics program is to accelerate the students’

learning in order to ensure student success in middle school. [Dennison Elementary]

strives to utilize real world connections and employs hands-on manipulative to review

and introduce math concepts.

The science curriculum encompasses a wide variety of instructional strategies that

are geared toward enhancing the students’ innate curiosity of the world around them.

These strategies include intense vocabulary development, thematic cross-curriculum

units, and inquiry-based experiments. Science instruction is purposefully driven to

enhance the students’ critical thinking skills and problem solving abilities, in the hopes of

teaching logical thought processes that can be applied throughout the students’ academic

career.

The eight strands of social studies are addressed in both whole group and small

group differentiated instruction based upon student needs. The textbook in all but sixth

grade is a mainstay of the curriculum. However, it is through the supplemental materials

and non-textbook projects where the students get the chance to experience real-world

connections to social studies. From research projects using the CIA World Fact Book

website, to readers’ responses using newspapers and magazines, social studies takes on a

very new and real dimension to our students.

Fine arts curriculum and education play a key role in student achievement at

[Dennison Elementary]. The visual and performing arts programs engage and motivate

students and provide aptitude for higher learning. In the visual arts, students are

103

introduced to new techniques and skills and are immersed in the principles and elements

of design. Skills developed in the visual arts help students to become more critical

thinkers and strengthen problem-solving skills. In the performing arts, students learn

about times and tempos, which help reinforce skills learned in math. The performing arts

introduce students to many different genres of music, thus providing students with strong

ties to many diverse cultures throughout history. Integrating the arts into a student’s

academic plan makes the student a more balanced learner and college/work-force ready.

Fine arts curriculum helps sustain academic success for students at [Dennison

Elementary]. As a result of the rich fine arts instruction at Dennison, students open their

minds to creativity and develop a life-long appreciation of the fine arts.

Academic Support(s) for Students

After-school tutoring and Saturday school were offered to assist struggling students.

Students were selected to participate in either or both programs based on need as determined by

benchmark assessments, daily work, formative and summative assessments, and teacher

observations. After-school tutoring began the 2nd

week of school for the tested grades and was

offered twice per week until December, when it increased to three times per week. As the state

tests approached, some teachers increased tutoring sessions to four times per week, depending on

the students’ needs. Tutoring commenced during the second semester for the lower grades.

After-school tutoring sessions typically lasted 40 minutes; however, some teachers asked that the

sessions be extended until 4 p.m. or 4:30 p.m., depending on identified students’ progress. The

principal reported that as they got closer to the state test, teachers would even ask if they could

miss staff meetings on Wednesday afternoons to provide more support for students. According

to the principal, approximately 50% of the students participated in after-school tutoring.

104

Dennison also offered Saturday school as a supplemental resource to students who

required additional support. The sessions began in December, and students were selected

according to identified needs. The principal stated that approximately 200 third-, fourth-, fifth-,

and sixth-grade students or 30% of the student population participated in Saturday school. A

teacher described Saturday School as

loose and relaxed. We don’t allow the children to wear their uniforms. We don’t allow

them to eat anything healthy. They can only bring junk food. And we don’t allow them

to tuck their shirts in. Those are the rules for the 2½ hours that Saturday school is in

session.

It appeared that after-school tutoring and Saturday school also were open to students who

scored at the commended level. More than one interviewee indicated that commended students

participated in after-school programs once a week. The principal stated that commended

students also might participate in Saturday school and actually might serve as tutors to the

struggling students:

And a lot of times, they do tutoring too. My sixth-grade commended might go to a fifth-

grade class and work with math students one-on-one to sharpen their own skills while

they’re tutoring the younger kids. Or my fifth-grade commended might go to the fourth-

grade class.

Social and extracurricular support(s) for students. The principal and teachers

admitted that extracurricular programming and supports were nearly nonexistent for students.

Students did participate in arts and dance during the after-school program and had once been

able to participate in chess club; however, the chess club sponsor was a victim of reduction in

force during a previously difficult budget year. The principal was particularly disappointed by

105

the dismantling of the chess program and stated, “[We had] an awesome chess club that could

beat anybody in [the city]. But that teacher is gone.” Fortunately, Dennison School was still

able to maintain a song-and-dance group that worked in the auditorium every morning before

school began with the music teacher. As Mrs. Clayton reflected on extracurricular supports for

students, she noted, “I have a teacher that could probably do karate. I have to look at the talent

of our teachers.”

Support for parents and families. The school had a Parent Teacher Association;

however, it appeared to be loosely organized. The principal hosted monthly PTA meetings and

incorporated a student performance or presentation before or after the meeting to encourage

parents to attend. Since the incorporation of grade-level presentations prior to the PTA meetings,

parent participation had dramatically increased. The principal reported that at the last PTA

meeting, “you couldn’t find a parking place. We had the band, and we had Pacesetters.”

The school also held two parent-teacher conferences each year. The principal reported

that the school recently had implemented another type of parent conference more akin to an

open-house format, which actively involved students in the process. Students escorted their

parents to their desks and were responsible for discussing their learning with their parents with

the intent of having the students take ownership for their learning. The teachers moved

throughout the room answering questions, discussing the strengths, and addressing concerns.

For privacy purposes, follow-up meetings were scheduled for parents of students who were

having more serious issues. Both the teachers and parents reported to have liked the process.

Parents also were given progress reports every 3 weeks and report cards every 6 weeks. The

teachers were expected to communicate clearly with parents regarding the levels at which

106

students were performing academically “so that there [were] no surprises when report cards

[came] home.”

A barrier to parent engagement was the fact that the principal did not speak Spanish;

however, she believed that consistency helped to overcome this issue and asserted that parents

knew she supported their children. When asked about the role of parents in the schools, the

response from the principal and interviewed teachers was consistent: “Parents need to make

school a priority, stressing its importance to their children.” Teachers wanted parents to support

learning at home by monitoring homework and getting children to school every day and on time.

One teacher said,

The role of our parents in helping us to achieve academically is to make sure the children

do their work and they get to school on time. Our parents—I’ve found out over the years

here in [this city]—that our parents want their children to have a good education. They

are very supportive of us. If you call one, oh my goodness, they’re going to do whatever

it takes to get that child to correct whatever it is we’ve called them about. In fact, some

of them will be right there when you turn around. They’ll hang up and they’ll be up here

to talk with you.

Every one of the interviewees also expressed concern that some parents did not have the tools

needed for effective parenting and being equal partners in their children’s education. To address

some of the parental issues, the school had offered parenting classes over the years. Working

with a nonprofit organization called AVANCE, the school currently was offering weekly

parenting skills training to parents of 2- and 3-year-olds. The AVANCE website

(http://www.avance.org/about-us/avance-parent-child-education-program/) described the

program as follows:

http://www.avance.org/about-us/avance-parent-child-education-program/

107

The AVANCE Parent-Child Education Program teaches parents that the home

must be rich in language experiences for it is through language that learning occurs.

Parents are assisted in creating a cognitively enriching environment in their homes, which

provides their children with the opportunity to develop all of their five senses in

preparation for the world experiences they will soon face.

AVANCE participants are taught that a child’s home must be a safe haven that is

free from violence and free of abuse. Parents are assisted in providing for their children’s

basic needs, which can include: food, clothing, shelter, and medical services. Our

participants receive classroom instruction on the clarification of values to help them

understand how values are transmitted within the family and their respective cultures.

This enables them to teach their respective cultures and to teach their children appropriate

behavior within their family and to help prepare them for the larger roles they must play

in our society.

Most AVANCE participants are poor, inexperienced, and uneducated. Many of

them were victims of abuse and neglect as children and had inappropriate parental role

models when they were growing up. Very often they are living chaotic, socially isolated,

stress-filled lives and are either unable or unwilling to play an effective parental role.

Our previous experience in working with this population has shown us that most often,

the will is there, but the parenting skills are underdeveloped or absent.

Additionally, teachers reported using telephone calls, sending notes home, and emailing

regularly to keep parents informed about their children’s progress. The principal and teachers

perceived that English classes for parents had increased parents’ English language proficiency

and therefore their involvement at Dennison. The school counselor was very active in engaging

108

parents and worked diligently to provide meaningful, relevant workshops for parents on texting,

Internet usage, and other subjects of interest to parents. The teachers reported that the sessions

were well attended.

Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Beliefs

Dennison Elementary School had been a high-achieving school for a few years, clearly a

source of pride for the principal and staff. Included in one of the school’s federal grant

applications was the following statement:

The teachers and administrators of Dennison School have successfully created a culture

that fosters a lifelong love of learning. Through the use of best practices, instructional

methods, and content rich curriculum, our children become more responsible for their

own learning as they progress from Pre-K to sixth grade.

Interviews revealed that the school’s culture embraced the following ideals: (a) high

performance, (b) pride, (c) collaboration, and (d) academic structure. The principal and her staff

were not satisfied with students’ merely passing the tests; rather they strove to have students

attain commended levels and were preparing students to attend college, as asserted by the

principal:

We’re not looking to have a student pass the state test with 70s and go through their life

making 70s because that’s not gonna be college bound. Our plan is for the students to get

commended and if not commended, pretty darn close to it in order for them to be college-

bound students. We’ve always been that way, even before there was actually a name for

it. Before there was a name for commended performance, our goal was always to push

them to the top. Even before we had the college-bound track, our goal was for kids to go

to college.

109

The teachers believed that the principal had finally assembled a team of teachers that had high

expectations for students, a common belief system, and common goals. One teacher shared:

You have to have a group that has a common goal. Our common goal is we want to be

the best…that we really want to work with the children and want the best for them….

We’ve gotten there as a group. We don’t know what we can do to help the rest of the

district buy into what we believe. I think that’s the main thing. You’ve got to have a

staff that believes in the kids.

The issue of excellence and a pride in work was mentioned in most of the interviews,

evidence that the principal and teachers held high expectations for themselves and their students.

One initiative that the principal instituted when she was appointed principal was an emphasis on

penmanship. Although some people might debate the significance of stressing proper

penmanship in today’s society, which is permeated by computers and iPads, the principal

asserted that teaching penmanship instills a sense of pride in one’s work. This practice is only

one example of how the principal was stressing the importance of doing every task well, a

sentiment that she communicated in the following statement:

So, it has to be the very best. When I was talking to the teachers about that yesterday, I

said, “Remember. That’s teaching them a lesson, too—not just that we’re putting up our

best work because company is coming…. But to always put your best work out there. In

other words, don’t do an assignment that’s gonna be sloppy, that your teacher is gonna

make you do over again.” You teach kids that in elementary school and they’re gonna

take that through life.

110


In addition to the culture of high expectations and high performance, a school-wide spirit

of collaboration was reflected in every one of the interviews with the principal and teachers.

One teacher noted,

It’s just we are a very close-knit group. I’ve been here when we weren’t a real close-knit

group. The collaboration means everything in the world. If you cannot work together for

the common good of the children, they’re not going to be successful.... If you’re not

going to work with every child, because every child deserves that education no matter

whether they’re a struggler or they’re a high achiever, and we understand that. We get it.

There are a lot of schools that don’t get it. I’m just glad I’m part of the team that we

work together so well. We all have common ideas. We just know if we have a problem,

we go to each other.

Collaborative planning. Collaborative planning was an essential structure at Dennison,

making the school a model for effective collaboration, and the school had been recognized as

such. One teacher shared that the district had recognized the school for its collaboration:

They had a film crew here a couple of years ago…and recorded the third-grade team

having a collaborative meeting and then…[at a meeting where] they had the whole

district there, you know, pumping everybody up…they showed the film of the

collaborative.

There were three major collaborative planning structures implemented at Dennison,

including school-wide planning, grade-level or content-area planning, and vertical planning. The

Campus Improvement Leadership Team (CILT) was responsible for identifying school-wide

111

priorities, setting goals, and developing the Campus Improvement Plans (CIPs). The CILT

members were chosen by the principal, who explained her criteria for selecting teachers to serve:

I choose strong teachers. I actually put loyalty in there. It’s not a written rule, but it’s

important to me that they’re loyal to our vision and that they’re loyal to me as a leader. I

choose them based on not seniority as much as results because every one of them had

good results. I also choose them based on how they’re respected by their peers because I

can have the best teacher in the world that nobody liked and she’s not going to be

effective as a presenter. They have to be willing to put forth a little extra time because

they actually do spend more time in the summer and they give up several days to go to

training.

CILT members attended district-level training during the summer and during the school year.

They were responsible for disseminating all district-level information to their colleagues at the

school site and for conducting professional learning sessions based upon what they had learned.

Staff members viewed the CILT teams as evidence that the district was trying to support the

schools: “The district is very supportive of what we’re doing here in the classroom. They’re

trying to make sure we have good information and that our schools improve by keeping the CILT

informed and trained.”

Grade-level planning. Grade-level planning formally took place at the beginning of the

school year and then on a weekly basis throughout the year. Nevertheless, the principal and all

teachers indicated that collaborative planning permeated the operation of the school on a daily

basis. One teacher indicated that the teachers used their lunch breaks as an opportunity to plan as

lunch breaks were scheduled by grade. It should be noted that unbeknownst to the staff, the

principal intentionally scheduled lunches so that teachers in the same grades, as well as in

112

different grades, had time together at lunch, knowing that it would foster these discussions. She

disclosed,

So at any given time, you’re going to have either the grade that’s lower than you or the

grade that’s higher than you sitting with you in the lunchroom or in the teacher’s lounge.

And they talk; they talk shop all the time.

The formal weekly collaborative planning meetings took place every Wednesday for 45 minutes.

The teachers came together with their student profile sheets, test results, and curriculum planning

guides (CPGs). They reviewed the CPGs to determine what material was coming up, and they

planned lessons together. Teachers also discussed problems they were encountering and shared

strategies and interventions. The principal provided further insight into these weekly meetings:

Teachers find ways to collaborate across content areas. In some grade levels, the one

teacher will do math; one teacher will do reading; one teacher will do science and things

like that—different strands—and then share the work, share the plans…. They’ll look at

things as simple as their vocabulary…. They will find ways to use each other’s words in

their lessons. They want the students to notice that vocabulary is universal; it goes across

the strands. They support each other in their lessons, and what the science teacher is

doing, the reading teacher will find some way to incorporate that in her lessons. The

writing teacher will find some way to write about it in her lessons. So that’s our weekly

plan.

One teacher provided further insight regarding how her fifth-grade team collaborated during the

weekly collaborative planning meeting, as well as during their daily planning periods:

We are constantly as a team—the math, the science, the reading—we’re constantly

working as a team to try and see what we can do to bump that child up. What strategies

113

are we going to use? What are we going to do? We look at our data from the past, not

just from fourth grade, but we go back to their early years and we see what their

performance is like. We keep a running log of what we do during the year so that we can

see what the progress of the children is.

Another teacher discussed the benefits of sharing ideas, including the opportunity for teachers to

learn from one another:

Well, just by being able to share ideas with each other.… Like on our team we have a

2nd

-year teacher and then my partner [who has] been teaching for 17 years. The teacher

that’s been here for 2 years has some amazing ideas that we…[have] never used in our

teaching time. You know, we’re able to share with her ideas that have worked really

well.

Vertical planning. Teachers also engaged in vertical planning at the beginning and end

of the year and approximately every 6 weeks throughout the school year during formal staff

development days. The vertical planning sessions allowed teachers to meet and plan across

grades to ensure vertical alignment and instructional continuity. The first session would team

Grades 1 and 2 together, with the kindergarten teachers’ attending the meeting. Likewise,

Grades 3 and 4 teachers would work together as would Grades 5 and 6. The higher grade

teachers were responsible for keeping the agenda. The next session would group teachers

differently: kindergarten and first-grade teachers; second- and third-grade teachers; and fourth-

and fifth-teachers, with sixth-grade teachers attending that meeting. The principal explained,

“The upper grade always has the agenda because it’s their turn to say, ‘Here’s what we really

need you to push in your grade level.’” At the end of the year, the teachers participated in a

114

summative vertical team session at which they discussed their successes, failures, and

expectations, as well as what they needed from their vertical teammates.

Professional development workshops. Professional development opportunities

occurred at both the district level and the school level. The principal and teachers all indicated

that the professional development provided by the district was a valuable resource. Teachers

were required to participate in a specified amount of mandatory district professional

opportunities, with nonparticipation reflected in their annual evaluations. Many of the teachers

participated in district-sponsored professional learning communities (PLCs) focused on reading

and math. CILT team members were required to participate in district-level PLCs and then to

return to their buildings to turnkey the training.

In one of Dennison’s federal applications, it was stated that many teachers were eligible

to receive additional district professional development:

They are classified as “Master Teachers” and may participate in the District’s Master

Teacher tiered professional development. The tiered professional development includes

topics that provide assistance and instruction for the English Language Learner, the use

of Talented and Gifted strategies in every classroom, and the use of classical sources to

promote the idea of teaching as mentoring. This level of professional development is

challenging, sophisticated, and meets the needs of teachers striving to improve

commended performance scores; consequently, many teachers attend above and beyond

the minimum hours required.

School-based professional development opportunities also were available, with the CILT

responsible for developing and facilitating these training opportunities. The principal indicated

115

that she also had created a new teacher program to support beginning teachers and described how

the program fulfilled this need as follows:

New teachers just can’t be left alone. Even though I expect them to hit the ground

running, over the years I’ve learned that new teachers need a lot of support. So, I have a

small group of teachers that works with the new teachers to give them so many

opportunities to observe veteran teachers in every grade level and every subject. My new

teachers are usually gonna be in kinder[garten] and first grade, but they’re gonna see

sixth-grade math. They’re going to see fifth-grade reading. They’re going to see fourth-

grade writing. They’re going to see all of—really strong teachers and then have multiple

opportunities to go back and discuss things with them. So that’s part of our new teacher

program…. We have that support system with them their 2nd

year and their 3rd

year.

Teacher Practices

Instructional strategies.

Principles of learning. The district entered into collaboration with the University of

Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning (IFL) and adopted its Principles of Learning® as the common

framework for teaching and learning several years ago. The principal was a staunch believer that

the Principles of Learning® had made a difference in the success of the school, as reflected in

the following statement: “That was a real turnaround for our school. That kinda pushed us from

recognized to exemplary.” Another teacher who discussed the Principles of Learning®

elaborated on the impact on and understanding of the students:

Our kids have gotten very versed in the Principles of Learning®. Accountable Talk was

the first one. What we did was we made our little charts for every child in our classroom

and I got to where they would call me the Queen of Accountable Talk because you can

116

walk into my classroom and we’ll be doing a bell ringer and the child will read it. I’ll ask

one child to read the paragraph and ask the next child to read the question and the answer

choices and tell me which one. If it’s wrong, another child will raise their [sic] hand

immediately [and say], “I’d like to disagree with Johnny…because it says here in the

paragraph on line two and three, it doesn’t say that. It says this, so the answer choice

would be this.

According to the IFL website, the Principles of Learning® are as follows:

Organizing for Effort - An effort-based school replaces the assumption that aptitude

determines what and how much students learn with the assumption that sustained and

directed effort can yield high achievement for all students. Everything is organized to

evoke and support this effort, to send the message that effort is expected and that

tough problems yield to sustained work. High minimum standards are set and

assessments are geared to the standards. All students are taught a rigorous

curriculum, matched to the standards, along with as much time and expert instruction

as they need to meet or exceed expectations.

Clear Expectations - If we expect all students to achieve at high levels, then we need

to define explicitly what we expect students to learn. These expectations need to be

communicated clearly in ways that get them “into the heads” of school professionals,

parents, the community and, above all, students themselves. Descriptive criteria and

models of work that meets standards should be publicly displayed, and students

should refer to these displays to help them analyze and discuss their work. With

visible accomplishment targets to aim toward at each stage of learning, students can

participate in evaluating their own work and setting goals for their own effort.

117

Fair and Credible Evaluations - If we expect students to put forth sustained effort

over time, we need to use assessments that students find fair; and that parents,

community, and employers find credible. Fair evaluations are ones that students can

prepare for: therefore, tests, exams and classroom assessments as well as the

curriculum must be aligned to the standards. Fair assessment also means grading

against absolute standards rather than on a curve, so students can clearly see the

results of their learning efforts. Assessments that meet these criteria provide parents,

colleges, and employers with credible evaluations of what individual students know

and can do.

Recognition of Accomplishment - If we expect students to put forth and sustain high

levels of effort, we need to motivate them by regularly recognizing their

accomplishments. Clear recognition of authentic accomplishment is a hallmark of an

effort-based school. This recognition can take the form of celebrations of work that

meets standards or intermediate progress benchmarks en route to the standards.

Progress points should be articulated so that, regardless of entering performance

level, every student can meet real accomplishment criteria often enough to be

recognized frequently. Recognition of accomplishment can be tied to opportunity to

participate in events that matter to students and their families. Student

accomplishment is also recognized when student performance on standards-based

assessments is related to opportunities at work and in higher education.

Academic Rigor in a Thinking Curriculum - Thinking and problem solving will be

the “new basics” of the 21st century. But the common idea that we can teach thinking

without a solid foundation of knowledge must be abandoned. So must the idea that

118

we can teach knowledge without engaging students in thinking. Knowledge and

thinking are intimately joined. This implies a curriculum organized around major

concepts that students are expected to know deeply. Teaching must engage students

in active reasoning about these concepts. In every subject, at every grade level,

instruction and learning must include commitment to a knowledge core, high thinking

demand, and active use of knowledge.

Accountable Talk® - Talking with others about ideas and work is fundamental to

learning. But not all talk sustains learning. For classroom talk to promote learning it

must be accountable to appropriate knowledge, and to rigorous thinking.

Accountable Talk seriously responds to and further develops what others in the group

have said. It puts forth and demands knowledge that is accurate and relevant to the

issue under discussion. Accountable Talk uses evidence appropriate to the discipline

(e.g., proofs in mathematics, data from investigations in science, textual details in

literature, and documentary sources in history) and follows established norms of good

reasoning. Teachers should intentionally create the norms and skills of Accountable

Talk in their classrooms.

Socializing Intelligence - Intelligence is much more than an innate ability to think

quickly and stockpile bits of knowledge. Intelligence is a set of problem-solving and

reasoning capabilities along with the habits of mind that lead one to use those

capabilities regularly. Intelligence is equally a set of beliefs about one’s right and

obligation to understand and make sense of the world, and one’s capacity to figure

things out over time. Intelligent habits of mind are learned through the daily

expectations placed on the learner. By calling on students to use the skills of

119

intelligent thinking—and by holding them responsible for doing so—educators can

“teach” intelligence. This is what teachers normally do with students they expect

much from; it should be standard practice with all students.

Self-Management of Learning - If students are going to be responsible for the

quality of their thinking and learning, they need to develop—and regularly use—an

array of self-monitoring and self-management strategies. These metacognitive skills

include noticing when one doesn’t understand something and taking steps to remedy

the situation, as well as formulating questions and inquiries that let one explore deep

levels of meaning. Students also manage their own learning by evaluating the

feedback they get from others; bringing their background knowledge to bear on new

learning; anticipating learning difficulties and apportioning their time accordingly;

and judging their progress toward a learning goal. These are strategies that good

learners use spontaneously and all students can learn through appropriate instruction

and socialization. Learning environments should be designed to model and

encourage the regular use of self-management strategies.

Learning as Apprenticeship - For many centuries most people learned by working

alongside an expert who modeled skilled practice and guided novices as they created

authentic products or performances for interested and critical audiences. This kind of

apprenticeship allowed learners to acquire complex interdisciplinary knowledge,

practical abilities, and appropriate forms of social behavior. Much of the power of

apprenticeship learning can be brought into schooling by organizing learning

environments so that complex thinking is modeled and analyzed, and by providing

120

mentoring and coaching as students undertake extended projects and develop

presentations of finished work, both in and beyond the classroom. (IFL, 2015)

Differentiated instruction. The principal had successfully created a culture in which

teachers were committed to working collaboratively to ensure that every child’s learning needs

were being met and that they were mastering the curriculum. All instructional practices were

driven by student needs, and teachers were committed to continuously using student data to

differentiate their instruction, whether it was reteaching an entire class using a different approach

or differentiating instruction to meet the needs of individual students. The following statement

was included in one of the school’s federal grant applications:

Some of our best practices include but are not restricted to: augmenting curriculum using

outside materials, hands-on activities that engage multiple learning styles, exploratory

and discovery methods, vocabulary and print rich environments, real world connections,

as well as a sense of humor and play.

The application further provided the following information regarding instructional practices:

While planning, teachers craft lessons around Madeline Hunter’s lesson cycle and the

University of Pittsburgh’s Institute of Learning’s Principles of Learning® (POLs). In

addition to using the traditional lesson cycle and the POLs during classroom instruction

we incorporate a myriad of inclusion strategies, such as cooperative learning, direct

instruction, and flexible and small group instruction. A primary focus of all our

instructional strategies is to promote higher order thinking skills and a problem-solving

mindset. We use mini lessons with simple problem-solving algorithms, which teach the

children to break problems down into smaller achievable steps. Instruction for Special

Needs students has transformed the past two years to inclusive classrooms. Co-teaching

121

has become more common between special education and regular education teachers to

maximize instructional time and to increase exposure to grade level curriculum.

When differentiating instructional practices, teachers utilized the interventions and strategies

contained in the district curriculum plans as well as those interventions contained in a manual

that was compiled at the school. The school also established a student support team to assist

teachers in identifying effective interventions and strategies to meet identified student needs. In

addition to the differentiation strategies outlined within the curriculum planning guides, teachers

at Dennison employed the Daily 5 framework.

Daily 5 Framework. A second framework that was being successfully implemented in

the school was the Daily 5 developed by the 2 Sisters Company. According to the company

website www.the2sisters.com/the_daily_5.html, the Daily 5 “is a framework for structuring

literacy time so students develop lifelong habits of reading, writing, and working independently.”

The models fit nicely into Dennison’s literacy framework and supported differentiated

instruction by assisting teachers in meeting the individual needs of students through whole-group

and small-group instruction as well as individual conferencing. Students worked independently

on one of the following activities: (a) reading to self, (b) working on writing, (c) reading to

someone, (d) listening to reading, and (e) working on words.

It was not clear whether this framework was officially part of the district curriculum;

however, the principal indicated that she learned about the Daily 5 through other district schools

that had experienced success with the model and that the framework adapted well to the district

curriculum. According to the principal, the Daily 5 was “really powerful for the younger grades

especially to get their one-on-one and their small grouping in.” This sentiment was echoed by a

teacher who stated that she “really love[d] the Daily 5,” describing the program as follows:

122

It’s strictly student based. The child is going to read to himself. He’s going to read to

someone else. He’s going to write, and they’re going to write in a journal. They’re going

to list. They’re going to come to a small group with the teacher. It’s five stations and

you rotate in and out.

Departmentalization. The principal implemented departmentalization or team teaching

in Grades 2 through 6 to support differentiation. She stated that she had implemented team

teaching to utilize her teachers’ strengths and resources, as well as to allow her to retain good

teachers, while at the same time meeting her students’ needs, particularly with regard to bilingual

education. She described the following situation as an example of why she had teamed teachers:

In second, third, and fourth grade, I have two bilingual classes in each grade level.

Should have two bilingual certified teachers; didn’t want to get rid of some of my really

strong nonbilingual teachers. So, we’re doing team teaching where the bilingual teacher

is in charge of the reading and the language arts and the writing and the social studies.

The other teacher, who is nonbilingual, but is ELS certified [and] doesn’t even speak

Spanish, she’s in charge of the math, the English part of the reading and the science

because we made a decision several years ago we were gonna teach science in…English.

Then they switch during the day. So, they’ll each have two classes. If I had not done

that, I would have had to get rid of three strong, veteran teachers and replace them with

bilingual teachers that I didn’t even know.

Although the departmentalization initially was implemented to prevent the layoff of certain

teachers, teachers reported that it had helped them to focus on certain subject areas and become

true content area specialists. They did not have to plan for all content areas or attend

professional development in all content areas; they were able to increase their knowledge of and

123

pedagogical skill in one or two subject areas. Furthermore, teachers with specialized

certifications were used much more flexibly.

Data-driven instruction. Student assessments were consistently and effectively used to

guide instruction at Dennison Elementary. One teacher explained the role of assessments in the

school:

It’s absolutely essential. It’s primary. It’s the number one thing that we use to direct the

teaching is the assessments. The assessments tell us where the strengths are, where the

weaknesses are, and where those transitional areas, the most important ones are—the

ones where they’ve got more than half of those concepts down…. Those are the ones we

would focus on next, not the ones where they got absolutely no earthly idea, that we

would save for later, or for tutorials, or for other interventions.

Multiple assessments were administered throughout the year at all grade levels, including district

benchmarks, released state assessments, purchased assessments, and teacher observations.

According to the principal, teachers used a myriad of assessment tools to gauge how students

were performing and what the teachers needed to focus on to help the students improve:

They’ll use a little bit of everything. Because some of the tests will determine how many

words per minute they can read, how many words they get right. And that’s basically a

fluency test, not necessarily a comprehension test because some of those children are real

fluent. But they can’t comprehend. So they have to use different tools to gather different

types of information in order to make their after-school tutoring groups, in order to think

[about] what they’re going to reteach. Everything is data driven.

Students in kindergarten through second grade were assessed three times a year using a

reading inventory test from the state and twice a year using district benchmarks. Students in

124

Grades 3 through 6 were given district benchmarks twice and a diagnostic test at the beginning

of the second semester. In addition, 6 weeks before the state tests were given, the school

provided school-created common assessments in reading and math. These were called “The

Principal’s Test” and were given the last six Fridays before the actual state tests.

The principal had created a data room, in which data sheets showing student progress

were posted on the walls of the room; she and the teachers were able to review progress and plan

accordingly. The principal described the process as follows:

Every teacher in every grade level has created a spreadsheet, where they put all the

students’ names. And then they put across the top all of the assessments that we give.

And then they put the scores in there throughout the year. The sixth graders are also

gonna have the fourth- and fifth-grade scores as well. And we color code it according to

red being the struggling areas and green being the passing in the high areas. And that’s

my short-term way of walking in and seeing where we are each day. And the teachers

upgrade it throughout the year. We use all of that to analyze what the students’ areas of

weakness are so we can work more on that. And the teachers use that for grouping and

for their reteaching. And then all teachers, regardless of the grade levels, starting the

second semester, they use that data to create their after-school small group tutoring

sessions.

It was evident that the staff at Dennison Elementary realized that simply administering

assessments would not improve student learning. The data needed to be compiled, frequently

analyzed, discussed, and utilized to modify instruction. One teacher who had been at the school

for 17 years had witnessed the complete turnaround of the school from its day of being labeled

unacceptable. He believed the major changes had been the formalization of data analysis and the

125

extent to which teachers were subjected to a higher level of accountability and transparency than

was the case previously:

It’s a cultural change, and it was a long-term change. And one of the biggest changes

that took place was when we formalized—the data was [sic] always published. The data

was [sic] always available. When you had your Campus Improvement Plan, you could

see which grade levels did what. And when you looked at the data, people would be

passing around the data. You could see which teachers did what, but this was not

formalized.

The data analysis was made easier through use of the district’s My Data Portal, which compiled

all student assessment data in a digital format. Access to data made analysis easier and more

robust. Rather than simply looking at the data, there were now conversations about what was

being done right and what improvements were needed. The data analysis created a new level of

transparency and accountability. The teacher summarized this point:

Because the truth is…if they’re not doing it in third, they’re not doing it in fourth, and

then suddenly fifth grade’s doing it and sixth grade’s doing it. Same kids, you can’t

argue that it’s a different group of kids. It’s the same group of kids.”

Use of technology. Although technology was effectively used by teachers and the

administrative staff for student management and data management (i.e., professional

development, assessment), it was not widely used as an instructional tool at Dennison School. In

fact, it appeared that technology was purchased as a result of having an “excess” of Title I

funding. About technology the principal stated,

We do have a computer lab, but we don’t have a computer for every child and we

wouldn’t know what to do with them if we did. Well, I shouldn’t say that, but we would

126

not necessarily—that would not necessarily be part of our instructional program until we

studied it and research it.

The principal summarized her feeling about resources: “My resources really are my teachers.”

Conclusion

The faculty at Dennison Elementary School focused on using high expectations,

collaboration, and standardized practices to create a continuity of services for students. Having

served the school for 15 years, the principal had worked on cultivating a shared belief system

amongst the staff that it was not enough for students to meet grade-level expectations; they must

exceed them, for they would be going to college. The school had a student-centered culture of

accountability and collaboration, with teachers’ being allowed flexibility in how they

differentiated their teaching to meet the needs of their students, but not in what they taught. The

school had served as a model for effective collaboration, with structures in place for school-wide

planning, grade-level and content-area planning, and vertical planning across grade levels to

provide instructional continuity as students transitioned among teachers and grade levels.

Planning was standardized in that teachers utilized Madeline Hunter’s lesson cycle and the

University of Pittsburgh Institute of Learning’s Principals of Learning in conjunction with

student assessment data. Departmentalization was used in Grades 2 through 6 to capitalize on

teachers’ strengths and meet students’ learning needs. More than half of the students

participated in after-school tutoring, and about a third of students attended Saturday school,

allowing staff to target specific learning needs. Data analysis created a level of transparency and

accountability within the school, which was used to guide instructional and staffing decisions.

For the faculty of Dennison Elementary, it was not about where they were. Instead, the focus

was on where they wanted the students to want to be.

127

Ghering School of Excellence

Ghering School of Excellence was located in a large urban district in a northeastern city

with a population of approximately 2.5 million residents; it was one of more than 150 schools in

this highly diverse school district. The PreK-5 school of 533 students was located in an

industrial area with several factories; the streets were lined with small businesses such as

commercial laundries or family-owned restaurants and grocery stores. There were few single-

family homes in the area, and many residents lived in apartments above the stores. The majority

of students walked to school, often accompanied by parents or other family members, or they

were driven to school by their parents. The principal reported that many of the parents were

former students or former residents of the area who had moved to other areas of the city but

chose to have their children attend Ghering because of the strong academic program. Further,

the principal indicated that if he did not accept students from other attendance areas, the school

would be underenrolled, as the neighborhood was not heavily populated because of the industrial

nature of the area. Ghering was among the few public schools in the state to receive a rating of

10 out of 10: a “Distinguished Great Schools” rating. The city had an overall poverty rate of

80.6%, and according to the Kids Count Data Center, 20.2 % of the population between birth and

17 lived below the poverty line.

School Demographics and Structure

According to data obtained from the State Education Department School Report Card,

Ghering’s student population for the 2010-2011 school year totaled approximately 533 students,

with 82% being Hispanic (of those 82%, 22.9% were English language learners), 13% White,

and 5% African American or Asian/Pacific Islander. Almost all (91%) of the students were from

economically disadvantaged homes, as measured by eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch.

128

A third (32%) were identified as having limited English proficiency. The suspension rate was

zero, and the attendance rate was 95%.

A total of 50 teachers were employed at Ghering School. The staff breakdown by grade

level was as follows: Pre-K (2), Kindergarten (4), Grade 1 (4), Grade 2 (4), Grade 3 (4), Grade 4

(3), and Grade 5 (3). There was one intervention specialist per grade who provided assistance to

grade-level teams of teachers. The teaching staff also included two literacy coaches and one

math coach, who provided additional school-wide support in the areas of literacy and

mathematics. Coaches worked with teachers in the development of units and lesson planning,

curriculum development, and integration, as well as the assessment of student progress.


Ghering Elementary was a high-performing school that had been recognized for its

outstanding performance on the state assessment for the previous 6 years. The school was rated

as a top scoring school in the city and performed better than all of the other elementary schools

citywide. Ghering had been featured in two of the state’s newspapers that were well respected

and read nationally. Tables 13 through 15 depict the high level of performance of students

attending Ghering and include state assessment scores for the 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-

2012 school years. The tables provide data for students meeting or exceeding the state standards

in English language arts, mathematics, and science. For school year 2010, 93% of all third

graders, 96% of all fourth graders, and 96% of all fifth graders scored proficient on the state

English language arts assessment. And although assessment results were slightly lower in 2011,

they rose again in 2012. In 2012, proficient rates for third through fifth graders on the English

language arts assessment were 85%, 98%, and 94%, respectively. Proficiency rates were lowest

(60%) for students with disabilities at the third-grade level in years 2011 and 2012. The

129

proficiency rates for English language learners during those same years were 64% and 70%—

still higher than most schools in the city district and throughout the state with comparable

demographics. In 2010, 2011, and 2012, 100 % of Ghering’s third- through fifth-grade students

met or exceeded state standards in math and science with one exception: in 2011, 99% of third-

grade students scored proficient. The principal addressed the unique learning needs of English

language learners and students with special needs in the way in which he structured the school

day, as well as in the way he staffed the building and provided supports for students and

teachers.

Table 13. Ghering Elementary School 2010, 2011, and 2012 English Language Arts State

Testing Results – Percentage of Students Meeting or Exceeding Standard by Subgroup

Student group Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012

All 93 81 85 96 93 98 96 90 94

African American

- - - - - - - - -

Hispanic 93 80 85 95 91 97 96 89 92

White 91 - - - - 90 - -


- 79 85 96 - 97 95 90 -


81 60 60 88 80 92 95 80 81


90 64 70 91 83 90 100 82 75

Note: The – symbol indicates that data for a group of students have been suppressed. If a group had fewer than 5

students, data for that group and the next smallest group(s) were suppressed to protect the privacy of individual

students.

130

Table 14. Ghering Elementary School 2010, 2011, and 2012 Math State Testing Results –

Percentage of Students Meeting or Exceeding Standard by Subgroup

Student group Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012

All 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

African American

- - - - - - - - -

Hispanic 98 100 100 100 100 100 100

White 100 - - - - 100 - -


- 100 100 - 100 100 -


100 100 100 100 100 100 100


100 100 100 100 100 100 100



students.

Table 15. Ghering Elementary School 2010, 2011, and 2012 Science State Testing Results –

Percentage of Students Meeting or Exceeding Standard by Subgroup

Student group Grade 4

2010 2011 2012

All 100 100 100

African American

- - -

Hispanic 100 100 100

White - - -


100 - 100


100 100 100


100 100 100



students.

131


Mr. Spadafora, a 45+ year educator, had been the principal at Ghering Elementary for

more than 25 years, and as such he was the most veteran principal in the district. He was in his

early 60s, short in stature, with thick brownish-gray hair. His muscular build and high energy

level gave him the appearance of a much younger person. Mr. Spadafora was born in Italy and

immigrated to the United States when he was 14 years old. He initially planned to be a pilot and

desired to enlist in the United States armed forces during the Vietnam War. He was the only

person in his family who spoke English, however, so his parents refused to allow him to leave

home. Mr. Spadafora became a teacher instead. The position suited him and Spadafora soon

became a director of bilingual education, a vice principal, and then a principal. He walked fast,

talked fast, and appeared to be busy every moment, answering phone calls or talking with staff,

parents, or students. There were three entrances into his office, and he kept the doors open,

thereby making him accessible to anyone that needed to speak with him. He was fluent in

Spanish, making it easy for him to communicate with students and the parents of nearly every

student.

Mr. Spadafora was well known in the community surrounding the school, and children

of some of the small business employees attended the school. He indicated that he was

connected with local politicians and attended city council meetings to keep up with what was

going on in the neighborhood. The vice principal was a former teacher at the school, who had

sought administrative certification and was hired as an administrator after working at the school

for many years. Mr. Spadafora had an intriguing leadership style. He was clear in

communicating his expectations to students, staff, and parents. He described the responsibilities

132

of a leader: “A leader has to be a visionary, has to see where he or she wants to be a year ahead,

two years, three years.” He continued:

When I took over this school, it was the lowest performing in the district and possibly in

the city, and I had the largest number of grievances on the part of teachers against the

principal and warfare in the PTO. The superintendent apologized for giving me this

school, and I thanked him…because we couldn’t go any further down…the only way to

go was up. So I thanked him for that opportunity.

The principal emphasized the importance of communicating his beliefs: “I firmly believe

that all students will succeed, not have the potential, but will succeed…. [That]…must be

communicated in everything that you say and do. That has always been my deep belief that all

students will [succeed].” He described how, at the beginning of the year, the staff decided on

both collective and individual goals, noting that they revisited the goals frequently. The

principal indicated that the school determined a maximum of two to three goals to focus on each

year, one of which had to be an academic goal. Interestingly, Mr. Spadafora based the school-

wide goals on national or statewide priorities. He stated,

I do not question the decisions that are made nationwide or statewide. Those decisions

help me determine the “finish line.” I know where the finish line is and then [I] assess

and use data to determine where [we are] against that finish line.

Everyone in the school worked toward meeting the school-wide goals as well as their individual

goals. In discussing the development of individual teacher goals, the principal explained the

process as follows:

Individually, I meet with each teacher at the beginning of the year and we jointly develop

goals…and it is difficult, let me tell you—we always look at our goal being for the

133

children…. We never look at ourselves and say, “What is it that I can perform better at?”

We look at our [student] results and ask, “What do I need to learn to do better?” And

what I mean is professional growth in practice, in our instructional practices.

One teacher explained the goal-setting process in this way:

Everyone sets their own personal professional goals at the beginning of the school year

and describes how they are gonna work toward them. It might mean they are reading

professional books with a colleague; it might mean they want to form their own study

group but that’s kind of the teacher’s responsibility…. Professional development isn’t

just the school providing it to the teacher; it is the teacher pursuing how they can improve

their practice and that’s the expectation we have.

Teachers described Mr. Spadafora as one who led by example. He visited every

classroom every single day. He expected teachers to know their students well, and teachers

indicated that there was not a student in the school that the principal did not know. A second-

grade teacher suggested that the school’s improvement was in part because of the principal’s

relationships with students: “Well, I say this all the time, he knows every student in this school

and knows them well and I think that personal communication in the relationship that he’s built

I’m sure with the families over the years has had a lot to do with the improvement in our school.”

Moreover, Mr. Spadafora—with all the responsibilities that his job entailed—found time to teach

a small group of struggling learners daily. He explained that, as principal, “you have to keep

practicing. It’s not only observations [of teachers], but it’s also practicing. There is no better

way than to have a group of students that will be able to get the best out of you.”

Mr. Spadafora earned the respect of his teachers by also being transparent. One teacher

stated,

134

He does not make decisions alone; he always is surrounded by individuals, whether it’s

teachers, whether it’s coaches, support staff. And decisions are always made collectively,

so nothing is ever like a snap decision that’s made without consultation with the staff.

The principal spoke of transparency:

What I always say, which is extremely important, is for a leader to be transparent. I share

every step of the way, every resource that we have. I share every vacancy, every transfer,

every promotion, every [question about students] that we have, vis-à-vis, not the

individual student per se, but what is happening to our registration. And I share every

dollar that we have each and every one of our children generate. Then they see they

don’t have to be doing the work that I’m supposed to be doing. At the very least they see

through my lenses if they want to.

One of the teachers talked about how the principal communicated with the staff on a daily basis

regarding expectations for staff and students:

He leaves a note on the counter each day, and teachers must initial the note to indicate

that they have read it. The note lets the staff know which colleagues are absent or are

attending professional development outside the building.

The following is an example of a daily note:

Reflection: Engage all students to think at higher levels and stay on task. We know why

this is necessary and what it should/must look like in our lessons.

Challenge: We instruct most of the minutes by talking and showing, leaving little time

and opportunity for students to speak, do and share. However, we know that to bring our

students to the new higher standards, we must identify and address the gap between what

the standards demand and what our students know and are able to do. But to accomplish

135

this we must allow the students to be engaged. Please start assessing the percentage of

time you speak during a lesson and the percentage of time by students. Then discuss with

me or one of your colleagues your “discoveries,” and share what we need to do. Thank

you.

When asked how the principal encouraged her to work with others, including staff and

other teachers, to increase student learning, one teacher replied,

I think the first way he does it is by modeling it himself and that he is constantly asking

about student achievement and teaching choices. That has led to emphasis on teaching

practices and student learning styles—like he lives that and shares that, and then I was

just thinking with my colleagues about, it’s so funny, I make such a big deal of it, but I

think it is important. He writes these morning notes every morning that are like this long

[holds her hands up to show a space about 4 inches long]…. It is just school notes and

information, things upcoming, who is absent, who’s getting professional

development…but then also some kind of notes about teaching practices or student

achievement. I see him as kind of, you know, in a way like a priest or rabbi keeping

everyone kind of uplifted and their eye towards a very positive goal. You can’t help but

get refocused as you start your day and that is a good model for us as teachers to think

about: Okay, how am I gonna start my day with my students…am I gonna think about

our goal for them today as learners, and how I’m gonna work in service of that.

Another teacher mentioned the same communication tool, but in a different way:

Every day, he writes, like, an inspiring quote; like I remember one from last year—[it

was something] like “the biggest misconception about communication is the assumption

that it has taken place,” which I think is like a metaphor for…which is that you think you

136

got this vision for your school and mission, and plan for how to get there and you think

that everyone else understands all that, but if you’re not communicating on a regular

basis, on a consistent basis, then they might not be with you.

Hiring and Staffing

The teaching staff at Ghering had been relatively stable for several years, and due to the

fact that the principal had been at the school for more than 25 years, he had hired all of the

teachers. Mr. Spadafora believed that the selection of teachers is incredibly important for the

principal who is ultimately responsible for the school and for student outcomes. He believed

strongly that a principal must have the authority to select with whom she or he works. All of the

interviewed teachers spoke about how teaching at this school was hard work and indicated that

they put in a lot of time. One teacher said, “We spend a lot of time here…some teachers are here

by 7 o’clock, some stay until 7 or later. We spend a lot of time planning and working together.”

One of the teachers had been at the school for only 2 years; because she was one of the least

experienced, she indicated that she spent a lot of time receiving support from her colleagues and

relied on her team to help her with planning and instruction before and after school hours. Mr.

Spadafora stated that teachers at Ghering “work a lot, but you get great results.” He continued,

“You not only work a lot, but you work also with your brain; not on easy things but on very, very

challenging, difficult issues that require important decisions.” Mr. Spadafora had a very clear

sense of the type of teacher that he wanted for Ghering:

Someone that is intelligent, someone that cares, is passionate about being an agent of

change—about improvement and [also] someone that has an incredible thirst for

knowledge and learning. Our institutions of higher education, of preparation, they’re

really not being extremely effective. As a matter of fact, they’ve been dismally

137

performing…[the teacher] must believe that this is THE most important profession—

more important than a surgeon or a lawyer.

In my discussions with Mr. Spadafora, he indicated that all of his teachers were dually

certified in general and special education. Students with special needs were integrated into the

general education classroom, so there was no need for self-contained special education classes.

He further explained that special education teachers needed to be at the top of their game;

otherwise they perpetuated failure. There was a special education teacher on each team who

provided support to students with disabilities directly in the classroom. According to one

teacher, “students do not have to worry about feeling that others know about their disabilities

because all students receive additional instruction at some point during the week.” About one

third of the teachers were fluent in Spanish and, therefore, able to communicate with children

and parents. Most of the teachers demonstrated basic proficiency in Spanish; many of them had

acquired Spanish language skills while teaching at Ghering School.

No teacher was hired to work at Ghering without having served as a substitute teacher

there. When there was an opening, the principal contacted teachers who had been successful

substitutes. Teachers reported that they did not stay at a particular grade for many years because

the principal looked at the needs of students and organized the staff based on where their

strengths were needed. For example, if a fourth-grade team had students struggling in math and

there was a fifth-grade teacher who was particularly strong in math, she or he might be asked to

change grade levels. Additionally, if a teacher was a particularly good math teacher, that teacher

might become an instructional coach and provide support to a grade-level team of teachers.

Coaches provided modeling and mentoring for teachers and assisted with planning and data

analysis, but they also worked directly with students, providing instruction and tutoring for

138

individual and small groups of students. Alternatively, they might teach a large-group lesson,

giving the classroom teacher time to work with small groups or individual students.

Principals in this district traditionally had been given autonomy to make hiring and

staffing decisions; however, this policy changed and principals were given restrictions because

of the large number of tenured teachers who were sitting in a reserve pool. Mr. Spadafora

explained the situation:

There are restrictions now that you cannot hire regularly certified teachers because there

are so many not-so-great teachers who are wandering around getting full benefits, so you

need to hire from them. I refuse to do that, so I only hire dually certified teachers with

special education, which serves two purposes. The restrictions come from high above,

which I think is incorrect. I think they should get rid of whatever teachers are not

effective, or send them to Timbuktu…. Now why are there so many of these substitutes?

Some of them were taken out of the classroom due to incompetence but they go through

the whole process for years and years. Now with the new system of teacher evaluation

that may change, but the old system made it almost impossible for anybody who was

tenured to be removed.

Adding to the hiring restrictions was the district’s policy of closing down failing schools.

According to the collective bargaining agreement, the new principal and hiring committee had to

hire only 50% of the teachers from those schools as a new school was phased in to replace the

failing school. Consequently, the remaining 50% became identified as “absent teacher

reserves”—teachers receiving full pay, full benefits, but no position. Remaining schools had to

hire teachers from this reserve pool. Mr. Spadafora pointed out, “There are thousands of these

teachers. To my last recollection, more than $125 million was spent on their salaries.”

139

Nevertheless, Mr. Spadafora continued to examine the needs of the school and made

critical staffing decisions. For example, at the fourth-grade level, he could have hired four

teachers and perhaps a teaching assistant rather than three teachers and an intervention specialist,

thereby reducing class size. The tradeoff to hiring highly skilled intervention specialists was that

class sizes were higher. Although the decision resulted in average class sizes of approximately

29 students, the teachers stated that they were never alone in their classrooms for reading, math

or writing and were able to provide students with more individualized instruction as a result of

the additional support staff.

In a Ghering School job posting provided by the principal, the selection criteria included

the following:

1. Satisfactory performance, September 1, 2011 - June 30, 2012

2. Satisfactory record of attendance and punctuality

3. Demonstrated expertise in the workshop model

4. Demonstrated expertise in gathering data and using it to meet students’ individual

needs

5. Demonstrated ability to differentiate instruction

Duties and responsibilities:

1. Use data to effectively plan lessons that meet students’ individual needs

2. Differentiate instruction to meet each student’s and group of students’ outcomes

Mr. Spadafora spoke about teacher hiring:

The selection of teachers, the selection of colleagues, I think is incredibly important for

the decision maker who is going to be held responsible to have the authority to select

with whom to work. [I look for someone]…that is intelligent…that cares, is passionate

140

about…being an agent of change…As well as someone who has an incredible thirst for

knowledge and learning.

Mr. Spadafora explained that he listened for certain words during the interviews as well as how

the candidates responded to particular questions and whether they referred to the individual

needs of students: “Then you know that they do not subscribe to a one-size-fits-all approach, and

that to me is a great signal as to which direction we should go.” He added,

And what I do is I always bring them in as a substitute, and I very attentively look at their

decisions…. Most importantly, [I look at] how they interact with children. THAT you

cannot fake for a lengthy period of time…so I always say you have to be meticulous…in

your observations and your assessments.

One of the teachers interviewed for this study recounted how she began working at

Ghering as a substitute. She indicated she worked a few days, and then she was asked to come

on a daily basis from February until June. After that, an opening occurred, and she applied and

was hired. Another teacher described the hiring practices at Ghering in this way:

What I know from my own personal experience is that a lot of the teachers have started

out as substitutes here, and I think that when [the principal] starts to see a teacher who

has good relationships with the students, starts to develop relationships with the teachers,

that’s when he maybe says, “Maybe this is someone who would fit in well here,” and

from there, he’ll have a lengthy discussion about your goals and expectations.

Mr. Spadafora made the point that sometimes at the end of a year a teacher would say, “This

isn’t for me.” He said this was a tragedy for the system, because if the teacher did not fit in at

Ghering because of the expectations, he or she should not fit in anywhere.

141

With regard to staffing changes, the principal moved teachers frequently. He stated, “As

a leader, you need to make the decisions about which teachers will be teaching what and at

which grade levels…. There are different teachers that have greater strengths in certain areas.”

He indicated that he changed about 10% of his staff each year and about 40% every 3 years. One

second-grade teacher explained,

This year, I was planning on staying in fifth grade with my co-teaching partner…but

there was a need in second grade and when they [principal and vice principal] spoke to

me about it, I was honestly a little shocked at first. But at the same time, it’s like, “Oh,

ok, I see why you want to utilize me there; I can see what I’m bringing to this table and

what you need. That’s fine.” And I’m always up for a challenge.

The instructional coach explained that when a teacher was really strong, he or she might

become an intervention teacher and that there was one intervention teacher for every grade.

These teachers provided intervention services in reading, math, and writing because they had

been proven, strong classroom teachers. The instructional coach said, “Depending on the needs

of the grade, of the teacher, of the class, or the time of year, they can shift between reading,

writing, and math.”

When queried about the approaches the principal used to improve the school, the teacher

who had been at the school for 7 years and was serving as an instructional coach explained that

staffing was a key element:

The number one approach is careful staffing and change of staffing. He was very

concerned for a long time about the lower grades and so he moved…the assistant

principal and me; I taught the upper grades. He moved both of us down to the K-1-2, and

now she does the whole school, but for a while, he especially focused on the lower

142

grades. [We were] open to revamping of the curriculum and the teaching methods and

they kind of rely on us to get into the classrooms and see what was happening, see what

the causes of students’ slow progress were, and make recommendations to him, and he

talks to the vice principal, who sees things very clearly. She gives him options, and he

acts on them quickly.

She continued: “He really focused on having quality teachers to do intervention. That’s been

good, but yeah, he’s just prioritized the budget so that we have quality intervention on every one

of the grades.” Staff also shared that the teachers and principal did not support the use of

paraprofessionals at Ghering: “There are two students in the building right now who have a para;

that’s pretty unusual for our school. We usually discourage having a para unless it’s truly, truly,

truly a health issue.”

Academic Structures

Standards-based curriculum. Because the city school district was dedicated to

ensuring that all students were college and career ready by graduation, it implemented a core

curriculum program to provide “rigorous, high-quality curricula and instructional material to

[city] students.” Core Curriculum included programs and materials for grades K-8 in English

language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. The curriculum frameworks and

materials were aligned to the Common Core Standards and other state standards; the district-

developed curricula included content, concepts, key ideas, understandings, and performance

indicators. Each of the curricular frameworks included a yearly course of study with units of

study and a suggested time line. Nevertheless, “principals [had] the choice to decide which

instructional materials and programs to adapt for use in their schools to best meet their students’

143

needs.” The teachers at Ghering used the district standards-based curriculum to develop their

own curriculum, units of study, and lessons. The instructional coach stated,

We look at the standards, first off, and what the children are expected to do by the end of

the school year. We receive support in development from a teacher’s college who helps

us create units and lessons. We look at the needs of our students, what they are expected

to do, and then we develop our lessons—our curriculum is based on that.

Teachers were provided with curricular resources for every subject—math, reading, writing, and

social studies—in the form of large binders. One teacher noted,

It was basically a compilation of resources, lessons, units that have been used in the past

that would be applicable to this year: principles, worksheets, just all sorts of stuff that I

probably use. That was probably my biggest go to when it came to homework, when it

came to questioning, when it came to conversation. I would look back at different

questions that were used for read aloud or whatever the case was. That was my biggest

resource. We were also given a flash drive with all of the units on it because, I’m telling

you, this binder was probably 20 pounds, so bringing it home was never an option.

Academic support(s) for students. Ghering added 115 minutes per week of extended

instructional time for 100% of its students. There was a provision of the collective bargaining

agreement that allowed for 37.5 minutes per day, 4 days per week for interventions for up to 10

students per teacher; however, the collective bargaining agreement also allowed for a school-

based option that allowed for modifications if 55% or more of the teachers at a given school

voted to override a particular provision. Each year at Ghering, 80% to 90% of the teachers voted

to integrate the 115 minutes into the regular school day to allow for small-group instruction.

During this time, all of the support staff, including intervention teachers, special education

144

teachers, teachers of ELL students, and instructional coaches, pushed into the classrooms and

provided intervention services for struggling students.

Ghering also offered summer programming as a support to its students although the

school’s summer program was separate from the district’s summer program. Because Ghering

had very few students who did not meet the state standards, the district would not allow the

school to serve as a summer school site. A formal summer school site in this district would have

served underperforming students in Grades 3 through 12 who were not proficient as measured by

the state assessment. Although the handful of Ghering students who did not meet standards

could have attended another summer school site, the principal did not believe in the model:

You have different teachers from different schools, different preparation. There is no one

size fits all so we have a structure that we put into place for students that we know need

to have the additional support in order for them not to lose ground during the summer.

So we use our own money.

Ghering School used its own resources to provide nearly 180 students with summer

programming. Although the total number of students who did not meet standards was far lower

than 180, the principal and teachers at Ghering were concerned about summer learning loss.

Consequently, they paid 14 teachers to provide intervention support, paid to open the school, and

paid for student breakfast and lunch. The regular district summer programs were funded by the

district office. Because of Ghering’s academic success, they had to pay for these services from

the school’s budget.

After-school classes were another critical element of the school’s academic

programming. Every class had after-school programming twice a week, and every teacher

participated twice per week with his or her class. Only 12 students per class participated in the

145

after-school classes for 90 minutes per session, and they were selected based upon their

academic performance during the school year. Additionally, selected students participated in

Saturday school from October through mid-May, from 9 a.m. through 12 p.m. Unlike the twice-

per-week, after-school classes, however, only one teacher per grade taught the Saturday school

intervention classes. If there was a need for more than 15 students per grade level to participate

in Saturday school, an additional support teacher was added. A fourth-grade teacher stated,

So all of that extra time that the students normally wouldn’t have, we try to offer that to

them and the parents love it, the kids love it, the kids know especially when it’s coming

up and they say to me, can we be in Saturday school? Obviously the goal is to have a

smaller, more compact class so that you can reach students more one to one because I

can’t have 29 students in Saturday school. But the students enjoy it, the parents love it;

it’s an option for them.

Finally, a Spring Break Boot Camp was offered for Ghering students immediately preceding the

administration of the high-stakes state assessment each year.

Social and extracurricular support(s) for students. Ghering School partnered with St.

Joseph’s Medical Center, a hospital, to provide students with school-based health services that

included medical and dental care. The hospital prided itself in establishing throughout the city

community-based clinics that provided medical and dental treatment, along with mental-health

services. Ghering was fortunate to house a school-based health center for its students and

families. The district provided additional services through social workers, occupational

therapists, physical therapists, and psychologists. The principal stated that the school was better

able to write educational plans for students as a result of the support from St. Joseph’s and

district related-services staff.

146

It appeared that there were few extracurricular supports for students. During the school

day, students participated in music and physical education classes, but not art. Because

principals had near total autonomy over their school budgets, they made difficult decisions

annually about how to best spend limited funds. Some staff members indicated that they worked

hard to include activities such as readers’ theatre into the academic program to address the lack

of drama and other arts programs. Another teacher shared that the after-school program offered

some arts programming but on a very limited basis. Based on conversations with faculty and

review of the school’s comprehensive plan(s), there appeared to be no student clubs or sports.

Every dollar was allocated for additional teachers, after-school and summer academic

programming, and parent programming.

Support for parents and families. Ghering School ensured that systems were in place

to support parent engagement. Parents played an active role at the school, and because many

parents walked their children to school, the principal and staff took measures to engage them on

a daily basis. Numerous formal structures were put into place to keep parents informed, to help

them support their children’s learning, and to allow parents to provide supports for school in

areas such as reading and science (e.g., school-wide gardening project).

To demonstrate his commitment to parent involvement and engagement, the principal

created a full-time position—a parent coordinator—to increase parental participation at Ghering.

Ghering’s parent coordinator served as the PTA president from 1991 to 1997 because, according

to her, “no one else wanted to be PTA president.” Once the principal created a parent

coordinator position, he invited the PTA president to apply because she lived in the community,

“did laundry together with the parents,” and was well respected by the parents and students. The

147

new parent coordinator took her responsibilities seriously. There were approximately 450

families at Ghering School; nearly 100-120 began to show up at monthly PTA meetings.

The new PTA sponsored speakers each month to address specific curricular issues and

to support parents and families in assisting their children with schoolwork. Parents created a

school garden to support science instruction, and parents signed up in shifts to care for the

garden alongside their children. The PTA developed rapidly, forming multiple functioning

committees in which more than 100 parents participated.

The parent coordinator also conceived of and implemented Parent Café. The café was

basically a monthly coffee–tea held during the school day. Parents would meet and mingle with

PTA members and then go upstairs to read with their children one time per month. During the

Parent Café, noncurricular–instructional workshops were offered on topics such as Internet

safety, health and wellness, or English as a second language. As was the case with the PTA

meetings, Parent Café was well attended. The parent participation in PTA and Parent Café

activities was quite amazing considering the work schedule of many of the families. One teacher

said, “We have many parents who work multiple jobs, so it’s very difficult for them to get here

to school.” The teacher then acknowledged, however, the school faculty’s responsibility to keep

even these parents involved: “So it’s really up to the teacher to make sure to maintain that

contact and maintain communication with families.” In addition to PTA meetings and Parent

Café, the parent coordinator worked to recruit parents for special activities, contacting them if

there were difficulties and providing support to help families with any school or non-school

issues that might arise.

Teachers openly discussed the importance of communicating with parents and concluded

that the ongoing communication was one of the reasons parents were so supportive. A teacher

148

said, “Parents are really supportive—the parents are very much on the teachers’ side and I think

that’s because they know that the teachers here genuinely want their kids to do well; they

genuinely care about their children.” Another teacher told of how she and a parent worked

together to engage and support a struggling student. The teacher shared that she could not seem

to engage him despite significant effort. After talking with the parents, she discovered an

interest of that student and began to relate classroom instruction to the interest. “Had I not had

that meeting [with his parents] early on, it is not something that I would have known and I would

have continued to struggle throughout the year,” she said.

Teachers explained that they kept parents regularly informed about the progress of their

children through weekly notices. Parents also had to sign every test. Reports cards were

distributed three times a year; parents had to attend a parent-teacher conference to receive their

student’s report card. Parent attendance at conferences was 100%. Given the large percentage

of Hispanic students and English language learners, communication could have posed a major

barrier in home-school communication; however, several teachers spoke about working with the

PTA in a formal way to provide translation services for all parents who required support.

Newer communication structures employed at Ghering included the use of e-mail and

texting. The principal estimated that the school was able to successfully communicate via e-mail

regularly with about 60% of the parents. More recently, the school had invested in a home-

school connection tool that would allow them to text important information to parents. It was to

be implemented by the end of the school year.


Grade-level planning. When Mr. Spadafora arrived as principal at Ghering more than

25 years earlier, he was keenly aware that teachers needed professional development. For the

149

most part, he used the two Title I teachers to provide coaching—whenever feasible—to the

classroom teachers. They provided a half-day of intervention services to children and a half-day

to support teachers. As the years passed, however, he knew that he needed to do more to

promote faculty learning. He said, “I had to create opportunities for them. According to the

contract, all teachers have a preparation period, so I made sure that all the teachers in the same

grade had the preparation period every day at the same time.” More recently, the principal had

restructured the day to allow for one 90-minute common planning period per grade level each

week. The instructional coaches not only monitored classroom practices but also participated in

the 90-minute common planning period for each grade level. The intervention teacher assigned

to the grade level and either the principal or vice principal participated in the grade-level

planning. The principal acknowledged that the four 50-minute planning periods each week were

the teachers’. With regard to the 90-minute planning period, however, he said, “That is mine.

Jointly we determine it, exactly what our agenda is.” The teachers agreed that the planning was

critical to school improvement. A fourth-grade teacher stated, “The collaboration amongst

us…is really the key to planning instruction so that students improve academically.” Another

said,

I think the whole structure of our school is set up for collaboration; basically every day

we have preparation time. So every day your preparation is the same as everyone on

your grade level. In addition to that, every week, we have a 90-minute meeting, where

we meet as a grade-level team with the assistant principal, also with the literacy coach

and the math coach for the grade. During the grade meetings, we look at assessments, we

look at assessment results, we plan, and we take a look at individual students that maybe

we need some assistance with.

150

Mr. Spadafora and the teachers further explained that they used this time to establish what they

intended to achieve at the end of each unit and to determine how to support Tier I and II students.

The principal described Tier I students as those that were not making necessary progress to meet

grade promotion criteria. Tier II student would likely meet grade promotion criteria but were in

danger of not meeting the state standards as measured by the state assessment. The common

planning time then was used to plan for these students. One teacher stated, “We are like hound

dogs in terms of measuring every decision that we’re making about instruction.” The teacher

further described the atmosphere within the grade-level planning meetings: “So if you’re having

a difficult time with your class, one of your colleagues, or the coaches, or the assistant principal

would have an opportunity to discuss with you what’s going on and brainstorm. It’s a very

collegial atmosphere.”

Job-embedded professional learning through coaching. Job-embedded professional

learning in the form of coaching was provided for all teachers at Ghering School. Coaching for

teachers was provided by the three instructional coaches, intervention teachers, the vice

principal, and the principal. New teachers received very intensive coaching. A second-grade

teacher who was in her 5th year of teaching explained the support she received in planning for

the school year: “New teachers…they get a lot of time at the beginning of the year.” She said,

“There’s always someone in your room, the kids don’t even get fazed by it, and because

someone is always coming in and out…it is a very common thing here.” She explained,

In the first couple of weeks, coaches help you with planning and setting up your

classroom, and getting yourself started, so that way you start off on the right foot and

then from there, the support continues. And as you advance…the support is still there.

One new teacher said,

151

As a new teacher, it was nerve wracking. There’s questions you have and things that you

don’t know if you’re doing the right way, and he encouraged constantly by sending more

experienced teachers in the room to show me how to do a lesson, to show me how it’s

done, and find me time to sit with them and ask questions and learn from them…which is

one of the things I loved most about working here.

She explained that even after her 2nd

year, experienced teachers still came into her classroom and

worked with small groups of students or with her: “I was just speaking to another teacher in the

school who was a substitute, and I was telling her that one thing I liked about the school was that

everyone was so welcoming and so open to questions.”

The instructional coaches provided job-embedded professional development for new

teachers in 6-week cycles. Instructional coaches would observe the new teacher’s classroom,

assess skill level and performance, and then jointly develop a professional learning plan that

focused on one or two pedagogical skills. The instructional coaches spent a great deal of time

with new teachers, but all Ghering teachers benefited from the professional learning cycles,

which typically lasted 4 weeks for a more experienced teacher.

Although instructional coaches assisted teachers with professional learning goals, they

selected only two school-wide professional learning goals for all staff to focus on. One of the

coaches realized,

Teachers in the school can only rally around a certain number of goals at a time and can

only change a certain number of things at a time, and so although we have a laundry list

of grades to work on or teachers to work with, we decide what’s most important right

now. We let certain things go.

152

Instructional coaches expended a great deal of time in classrooms observing teacher practice;

they spent the rest of their time reviewing student data and assessment results, and then devising

a plan for teacher and student support and improvement. One of the improvement strategies that

the instructional coaches implemented was to have teachers produce all work that students were

to produce. For example, if students were required to write persuasive essays, the teachers did so

first. The coaches saw that understanding the process that the students go through was

imperative for effective teaching.

Professional learning network. Schools within the district were able to “purchase”

additional professional learning support from the school district or from an external organization.

Ghering chose a local teacher’s college. The teacher’s college, ranked among the best in the

nation, offered workshops for teachers in all subject areas during the school day, after school

hours, and during the summer. There were also numerous online course offered by this

institution, and teachers were encouraged to participate in those as well. Instructional coaches at

Ghering worked with individual teachers throughout the year to make certain that they were

participating in workshops that improved instructional practice and helped them in meeting

school-wide and individual professional goals. A second-grade teacher stated, “[The

instructional coach] would set it up for us so that we could attend; she covered our classes with

substitutes and gave us that opportunity to go and learn outside of the building.” Ghering School

also worked with the teacher’s college on professional learning initiatives such as the Reading

and Writing Project. Ghering participated in that project for more than 10 years and, during that

time, had become one of the project’s model schools, hosting educators from across the city,

state, and nation. The teacher’s college also sponsored a major math project that focused on

improving math pedagogy and the design and implementation of “do-your-own assessments.”

153

Ghering teachers took advantage of the school’s partnership with the teacher’s college to

improve student math achievement and to increase teacher assessment literacy.

Teacher Practices

Flexible use of instructional staff. When Mr. Spadafora was first appointed principal

of Ghering School, he chose two teachers to transfer into Ghering with him. He shared his

vision of what Ghering would become and trained the two teachers intensely. He made those

teachers Title I intervention teachers. Mr. Spadafora “renovated” the school’s auditorium upon

arrival at Ghering by removing all of the seating. He created small learning spaces for the Title I

teachers to provide small-group instruction. This was his first attempt to provide focused,

academic supports for students more than 2 decades ago. Over the years, Mr. Spadafora and his

team became more strategic about providing academic support services for Ghering students. He

divided the day into 50-minute segments and made certain that classroom teachers had support

staff in their rooms for 50 minutes at a time to provide small-group instruction in reading,

writing, and mathematics. The support staff included ESL teachers, special education teachers,

coaches, and intervention teachers. These teachers “pushed in” to the classroom and provided

small-group instruction to whichever students needed the support. Mr. Spadafora said,

How stupid can we be if we believe that a Title I teacher or an ESL teacher or a special

education teacher, resource room, or whatever you want to call it, or any other service

provider or gifted educator is only, only qualified to service those children? Which

means that child is only serviced for one period a day. The rest of the day the poor child

is a victim of individuals who are not qualified to instruct him or her? How stupid can

we be?

He continued,

154

So my philosophy has always been exactly the way it is that the federal government saw

the light [concerning Title I]. Now they should see the light with special education

students, English as second language or bilingual students, and gifted students. Meaning

the educator, the teacher has to have the ability to teach all those learners. We all should

be specialized.

Despite the fact that federal and state guidelines related to certification, students with

disabilities, and English language learners is still fairly prescriptive, as principal, Mr. Spadafora

bucked the rules. Ghering teachers reported that they had at least one support staff member for

part of each teaching segment (reading, writing, and math) and, sometimes, two teachers. A

fourth-grade teacher shared that during math he always had two other adults supporting

instruction: “So now you have the group of 29 split up to a group of 10, 6, and 13 and that makes

it so much easier to follow and have eyes on students at all times.” Small-group instruction took

place in the classroom, the auditorium, and even in the hallways.

Use of time. The principal made it clear that every moment in the day was spent in

instruction, from 8:15 until 3:05. He stated, “At a particular moment, 8:15, teachers start

teaching. The teachers stop teaching at 3:05. They [students] don’t get in line at 3:00 in order to

be dismissed.” This practice appeared to be a part of the school culture and was known by all.

One would notice that just prior to dismissal, parents were lined up outside the building waiting

for their children. The hall monitor commented, “I don’t know why they come so early. The

children don’t come out at 3:05. The teachers are still teaching. It takes the students a while to

get their things together and be dismissed.”

The principal took responsibility for structuring the school day to ensure that teachers had

time for instruction, assessment, planning, collaboration, and professional development. He had

155

manipulated the schedule so that in addition to individual planning periods each day, once a

week, grade-level teams had back-to-back planning. This schedule was accomplished by

utilizing the services of intervention specialists, coaches, and special area staff such as music and

physical education teachers. One of the teachers explained how the master schedule was

structured:

Periods are 50 minutes each, and we try to stick to that time period as closely as possible,

especially when you know an intervention teacher is coming in the next period. You

don’t want to spill over with writing when they are coming in for math…. Again, one

period a day, we have our planning period where students will go to one of their [special]

classes or lunch.

In addition to noting a tightly structured school day, teachers frequently referred to the

notebooks in which teachers communicated with each other, the principal, intervention

specialists, the parents, and even the students. The notebooks ensured continuity of instruction

and support for students throughout the highly structured school day. Teachers indicated that

they used these notebooks on a daily basis, writing notes about what they had done with

individual students, whether the need existed for additional instruction or support, and whether

the student was ready to move to a higher level or choose another book, for example. The

principal explained that there was a folder for every child in reading, writing, and math; the

folders were the property of all who serviced that student. Staff members were responsible for

writing what they had taught or assessed so that the next teacher who worked with that child

would be aware of any difficulties and no instructional time would be lost.

Differentiated instruction. Teachers at Ghering, deeply influenced by their teacher’s

college network readers’ and writers’ project, employed the readers’ workshop, which had four

156

major components: (a) the mini-lesson, (b) independent reading time, (c) individual and small

group work, and (d) share time–closing. The read-alouds occurred beyond the designated read-

aloud time. The mini-lessons were designed to be approximately 10 minutes each and focused on

a particular topic or skill. Independent reading time allowed students to select books of their

choice and develop reading stamina. Small-group time allowed teachers to either work with

small groups of students on skills or to engage in individual student conferencing. A second-

grade teacher at Ghering stated,

I take a lot of time at the beginning of the year to teach routines so that the class runs

smoothly during workshop time and so that [students] are not wasting time. Teachers

create their own sense of classroom culture—“we’re here to work and learn”; I don’t

waste time and I don’t expect the kids to waste time.

At Ghering, teachers also implemented a math workshop model that was structured

similarly to the readers’ workshop model. Elements included number study, where students

explored and practiced how numbers work (10 minutes); content lesson or whole-group lesson

(45-60 minutes); small group support or individual conferencing, where students were grouped

by need (30 minutes); and independent practice or workstations, where students engaged in

independent practice of concepts (20 minutes). Intervention teachers pushed into both readers’

and math workshop time to support small-group instruction. Instructional coaches supported the

teachers by observing lessons and modeling lessons and even teaching small groups from time to

time.

Ghering teachers had shown tremendous success with the vast majority of students, but

after contemplating the implementation of the Common Core Standards and the effectiveness of

instruction with all students, teachers at Ghering decided that modifications were needed. In

157

Ghering’s Comprehensive Education Plan, the school planning team outlined the changes to the

school’s workshop model and instructional strategies, citing the need to more effectively serve

students. The plan stated,

A focus group of teachers, coaches and supervisors studied the different instructional

structures we currently had in place; read aloud, mini-lessons, word study instruction,

vocabulary instruction, strategy and guided reading groups, and individual conferences in

literacy in math. After close teacher and student observation as well as teacher feedback,

we revised the current structures in order to maximize student engagement and ownership

over the content and processes required to excel in each of the subject areas. These

structures were shared and further revised in grade conferences. One of the biggest shifts

was made in the mini-lesson structure. We will no longer follow a traditional mini-lesson

format (present a teaching point, demonstrate a strategy, set up an active involvement,

and close with a “link”. Instead, teachers will pose the teaching point as a question, or

elicit the teaching point from the students. Then, teachers will move directly into guided

practice with all eyes on one text, where the students are naming the what, how, and why

as they are engaging in the strategy. The teacher (or a student) will sum up the focus for

that lesson by restating what, why, how, and when of the day’s skill or strategy. This

structure will help ensure that students carry what they’ve learned previously to the day’s

work, and the structure involves students engaged in their work for a larger portion of the

time. Finally, the predictability of the what, why, how, and when of each strategy will

help anchor the lesson.

158

Science instruction was integrated into English language arts and math although a science

teacher provided direct classroom instruction. Social studies instruction was integrated through

English language arts instruction.

Data-driven instruction. Data, both formal and informal, were used on a daily basis at

Ghering School to identify student needs and to align instruction to those needs. Teachers were

assisted in this effort by the principal, the intervention teachers, the coaches, and their

colleagues. The principal discussed how data were used at Ghering: “We don’t use off-the-shelf

assessments.” He explained that his staff used DYOs (do-your-owns), meaning that teachers

developed formative assessments, developed with assistance from the teacher’s college, to assess

student performance and growth over time. Mr. Spadafora said,

During the first 2 weeks, we assess each and every child, so by the 2nd

week, we have a

profile on each child as a learner, and we also look at information from the previous year.

The assessments come from the colleagues that push in…we look at the independent

work, the on-demand work…. We develop an individual improvement plan for each

child every 2 months that is shared with the parents. We limit it to only one or two areas

that we are going to focus on and develop an action plan.

Both the principal and teachers spoke about how they tracked student progress across the year.

The instructional coaches had set up an electronic monitoring system that allowed the principal,

coaches, and classroom teachers to check the progress of each student and to intervene when

necessary. A teacher described the system: “Every class in the school has their own spreadsheet

for reading, writing, and math. Every time we have an assessment, we enter the information, so

it is easy to see student improvement or students struggling in certain areas.” She further

explained:

159

I had a student who started out very strong in the beginning of the year…and by the third

unit, I was able to stop and say, ”Something is happening here”…. I worked with that

student and discovered she was having hearing problems, so we got her an FM unit and

things went back up.

Another of the teachers spoke of using informal assessments: “For me, conversation is

huge. I feel like you learn so much just from having a conversation with the students. We have

our conference notebooks and are able to track from the last time we met with them.” The coach

discussed how teachers used these notebooks and how they sent them home for parents to review

and make comments. She further explained, “They write in their notebook, and they can do their

work in their notebook, and then when I sit with them, a lot of times I’ll have their jobs

preprinted on a piece of paper and staple that in [their notebook].” Additionally, “The notebooks

are not for grading, just for monitoring and making sure [the students] are doing what they are

expected to do.”

Frequency of assessments. The frequent use of assessments appeared to be a key

structure in improving student performance. When asked how often students were assessed, the

fourth-grade teacher responded, “Really every day because you plan questions during your

lessons to do a quick assessment of your students’ understanding.” In actuality, Ghering

administered beginning-of-the-year assessments, midyear assessments, and end-of-year

assessments. In September, every student was assessed although teachers had a great deal of

information about them from the previous year. The principal stated, “So by the second week of

school, we already have a complete profile on each child as a learner with the information from

the preceding year but also with information that we gather during those 2 weeks.” Every 2

months, the school developed an individual improvement plan for each child that was shared

160

with the parents. The Individual Learning Plan (ILP) was translated into the parent’s native

language and included tips on what families could do to assist their children in meeting the goals

identified within the ILP.

Ghering teachers had devised a comprehensive system to track student performance. A

teacher explained: “They [teachers] keep track of end-of-unit assessments and take conferencing

notes every day with any kid they are meeting with or any group they are meeting with; they take

notes and then share them with intervention providers and coaches.” The digital monitoring

system was stored on a shared drive so that all teachers could share information about each

student. Another teacher explained further:

Every month [the instructional coaches] record [students’] reading levels and then also

math assessments; those scores are put online as well as reading assessments, writing,

published writing—all that is shared and that’s another way that we monitor [student

progress].

Asked about the tools and assessments teachers in the school used besides state exams to

make determinations about a student’s achievement, a teacher reiterated that assessment was

ongoing, through the use of notes, questioning during lessons, end-of-unit tests, and

observations. Another teacher explained: “Sometimes I think about what kids are demonstrating

they can do…and other times if we see a student lacking in a particular area, we plan for small

group or individualized instruction during independent work time.” Another teacher summed it

up: “Looking at student data and regular consistent observations was the number one method for

deciding what needed to be improved because what really mattered was how the kids were

doing.”

161

Conclusion

Ghering School of Excellence placed a strong emphasis on basing decisions on what

every student needed to be successful, even when, at times, those decisions might cause

inconvenience for staff. Having served the school for more than 25 years, the principal was very

familiar with the students’ needs and individual faculty members’ strengths and matched them

accordingly. All teachers were dually certified in regular and special education, and about a

third of the teachers were fluent in Spanish. Collaboration was highly valued—not just within

the school, but in establishing and maintaining close community ties as well. A strong academic

focus was provided by establishing goals, not just at the school level, but also for individual

teachers and students, which then provided the basis for directing support and enrichment.

Staffing was organized around the needs of the students and the strengths of the staff.

Assignments were made based on the value that teachers could add to a particular group of

students, and they were regularly modified to reflect students’ changing needs. Instruction was

transparent throughout the school, with systems in place that allowed the teachers, coaches, and

administrators to closely follow the progress of every student and intervene when appropriate.

Opportunities to collaborate throughout the week were frequent and varied so that teachers

received support in planning, assessing, and differentiating instruction to meet the needs of every

student in their classroom. Nothing was left to chance at Ghering School: Student achievement

and instructional decisions were examined frequently, openly, and collaboratively to ensure that

all students received the differentiated support they needed to be successful.

162

CHAPTER 5

CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS

These case studies suggested similarities among the three schools that were consistent

with the research about effective schools and successful school turnarounds. Examining the

specific components of these schools’ critical structures and processes that supported the

schools’ improvement efforts, as well as teacher and principal actions, allows the educational

community to better understand how to successfully turn around low-achieving schools serving

high-poverty schools with high percentages of students of color. Practices among the three case

studies schools were examined in depth, according to each research question.

Research Question 1

What are the school-wide organization, structures, and processes used by high-poverty

elementary schools with high percentages of students of color to become high performing?

Academic Structural Supports

Although specific academic programming varied from school to school, the schools had

consistent approaches to integrating academic structural supports into students’ instruction amid

a culture of high expectations and ongoing improvement. Each of the schools used a rigorous

and coherent standards-based curriculum that was differentiated for individual students’ learning

needs, with instructional decisions intentionally based on multiple and timely assessment results.

These supports are identified in Table 16.

163

Table 16. Academic Structural Supports by School

Abernathy Elementary

Dennison Elementary

Ghering School

Utilization of a rigorous and coherent standards-based curriculum

Curriculum guided by the district curriculum planning guides, which were based on the state standards School-wide focus on developing consistency in content and practice

Curriculum guided by the district curriculum planning guides, which were based on the state standards School-wide focus on developing cohesion in all subject areas

Partnership with a teacher’s college to develop customized curriculum, units of study, and lessons that were based on the district curriculum framework and materials, all aligned to Common Core Standards and state standards

Differentiated instruction Spanish dual-language programming in Kindergarten Departmentalization in Grades 1-6 Mixed-age classrooms in first and second grades (to be phased out with the rollup of dual-language programming) District curriculum planning guide’s differentiation for remediation and enrichment resources

Bilingual programming Departmentalization in Grades 2-6 District curriculum planning guide’s differentiation for remediation and enrichment resources

Intervention specialists at each grade level Support staff pushing into classrooms for flexible skill-based groups

Multiple and timely assessments

District comprehensive assessment system: DIBELS (screening & progress monitoring)

TPRI

DRA (semiannually)

mClass math

District-developed benchmarks in Grades 2-5 in reading, math, science, and social studies

District comprehensive assessment system: DIBELS (screening & progress monitoring)

TPRI

mClass math

District-developed benchmarks in Grades 2-5 in reading, math, science, and social studies; use of released state assessments, teacher observations

Teacher-created formative assessments (3 x year), end-of-unit assessments, and daily informal assessments such as questioning and observations

164

Abernathy and Dennison used district curriculum planning guides to provide a coherent

curriculum for the students. Although Ghering School’s curriculum was based on the district’s

standards-based curriculum framework, the faculty took the extra step of partnering with a

teacher’s college to create their own units and lessons based on the needs of their students.

Teachers received a compilation of units, lessons, and curricular resources for every subject

taught.

Dual language and traditional transitional bilingual education (TBE) programming

supported differentiation efforts at Abernathy Elementary and Dennison Elementary, so that

English-language learners’ needs were met. Mixed-age classrooms in first and second grades at

Abernathy Elementary, used to differentiate instruction, were to be phased out with the rollup of

dual-language programming. Abernathy also incorporated departmentalization. Ghering School

invested heavily in providing additional staffing to support differentiation. Each grade level had

one intervention specialist; in addition, support staff pushed into classrooms on a daily basis.

All three of the schools used multiple assessments to monitor student progress in a timely

manner, but the types of assessments varied. Abernathy Elementary and Dennison Elementary

both relied on their district’s comprehensive assessment system as the primary means to measure

student performance. Ghering School did not utilize a district-created assessment system.

Instead, the school, in partnership with a teacher’s college, developed formative assessments,

which were used at multiple times throughout the year.

Staffing Structural Supports

Flexible use of staffing was another structural element geared toward making the content

accessible to all students. The principal at each of the three schools was given latitude by the

district to flexibly assign staff to meet identified needs within the school. Abernathy and

165

Dennison used departmentalization. Teachers’ grade-level assignments were determined by the

principal at two of the schools. Ghering School’s principal adjusted staffing assignments

annually.

Staffing was also used as a process to integrate services into classroom instruction.

Although the processes were unique to each building based on staffing resources, all of the

schools utilized available staff to provide direct instructional support to students. At Abernathy

and Dennison, teacher leaders provided mentoring and coaching support to teachers. Dennison

Elementary utilized co-teaching to provide a more inclusive environment for students; bilingual

teachers also flexibly pushed into classrooms to support English language learners. Support staff

at Ghering, which included ESL teachers, special education teachers, coaches, and intervention

teachers, pushed into classrooms daily. Staffing structural supports are depicted in Table 17.

166

Table 17. Staffing Structural Supports by School

Abernathy Elementary Dennison Elementary Ghering School

Flexible assignment of staff

Departmentalization Mixed-age classrooms

Departmentalization Teacher grade-level assignments determined by the principal

Teacher grade-level assignments determined by the principal Change of staffing on an annual basis

Use of staff to integrate student services

Small-group support by teacher leaders to target skills deficits

Co-teaching and push-in support to meet students’ learning needs

Push-in support system to facilitate small-group targeted instruction and classroom teacher support

Collaborative Processes

Common planning time was formally scheduled at each of the schools. Time was spent

prioritizing and planning instruction to make the curriculum relevant for students, developing

teachers’ instructional strategies and content knowledge, and evaluating progress toward goals.

The amount of time formally scheduled for common planning varied by school, ranging from 45

minutes daily at Dennison and Abernathy to 270 minutes weekly at Ghering School. Table 18

shows the similarities in areas of focus during common planning time among the three schools:

167

Table 18. Areas of Focus During Common Planning Time by School

Formal common

planning


Allocated time 45 minutes daily 45 minutes daily 90 minutes weekly (1x per week); 45 minutes

daily (4x per week)

Curriculum mapping Yes Yes Yes

Instructional strategies Yes Yes Yes

Assessment results Yes Yes Yes

Lesson planning Yes Yes Yes

Extended and Enrichment Learning Supports

Each of the three schools offered extended academic support to students via the provision

of Saturday school and after-school tutoring. Abernathy Elementary was the only school to offer

extensive enrichment activities for students. An extended school day and a Spring Break Boot

Camp, held immediately prior to the administration of state assessments to boost students’ skills,

were offered as additional learning supports at Ghering. Table 19 illustrates each school’s

supports.

168

Table 19. Extended and Enrichment Learning Supports by School


After-school tutoring 15 students selected per group to attend 2-hour sessions up to three times a week

50% of the student population for 40+ minute sessions 2-4 times per week

12 students selected per class for 90-minute sessions twice a week taught by their classroom teacher

Saturday school 3-hour sessions January through April for students in the tested grades

2½-hour sessions starting in December for 30% of the student population

3-hour sessions October-May for about 15 students per grade level

Extended school day Not implemented Not implemented 115 added minutes per week for 100% of students

Enrichment activities Academic, cultural, and athletic

Very few Very few

Additional extended learning supports

None None Site-based summer programming

Spring Break Boot Camp

Parent and Family Structural Supports

All three schools prioritized building community relationships with families by providing

a number of structural supports. Although using traditional means of communicating student

progress, such as report cards, notes home, and parent-teacher conferences, the three schools also

took strides to proactively customize parent and family support structures to actively engage

them in supporting student achievement. Table 20 shows the formal structures each school had

put in place to keep parents informed and help them support their children’s learning.

169

Table 20. Parent and Family Structural Supports by School


Communication supports

Progress reports sent home every 3 weeks

Weekly notices Phone calls to parents Newsletters Report cards Parent–teacher

conferences

Progress reports every 3 weeks

Phone calls to parents Email Report cards Parent–teacher

conferences

Weekly notices Translation services Email and texting Report cards Parent–teacher

conferences

Activity supports

Student performances and exhibitions at PTA meetings

Math and science nights Parent volunteers

Student performances and exhibitions at PTA meetings

Speakers at PTA meetings address curricular issues

Parent Café

Parent volunteers

Outreach services

Home visits

Parent workshops

Library usage

Parent–teacher conferences @ apartment complexes

Weekly parenting classes in partnership with AVANCE

English classes

Parent workshops School-based health

services in partnership with St. Joseph’s Medical Center

Specialized personnel

None mentioned

School counselor provides workshops

Full-time parent coordinator fosters involvement

Research Question 2

What are the principal and teacher actions that fostered high-performance?

Five key actions were found to be present across the three schools. They are described in

Table 21 and further detailed subsequently.

170

Table 21. Principal and Teacher Actions by School


Dennison Elementary

Ghering School

Staffing used flexibly to target student achievement

Principal navigates around district-forced placement systems

Departmentalization Mixed-age classes

Principal navigates around district-forced placement systems

Departmentalization Flexible grade-level

staffing assignments

Principal navigates around district forced-placement systems

Flexible grade-level staffing assignments

Scheduling leveraged to maximize instructional time and support collaboration

Bell-to-bell instruction Collaboration time

formally scheduled Grade-level preparation

times consistent across a grade level

Bell-to-bell instruction Collaboration time

formally scheduled Lunches among and

between grade levels scheduled at the same time

Grade-level preparation times consistent across a grade level

Bell-to-bell instruction

Collaboration time formally scheduled

Grade-level preparation times consistent across a grade level

High expectations for students and staff are established, with principals’ advocating to change instruction and remove barriers to success

Principal openly communicates high expectations with staff

Staff focuses on commended performance and exemplary ratings

Continuous parent communication to support expectations


Staff focuses on commended performance and exemplary ratings

Continuous parent communication to support expectations


Digital system is used to monitor students’ progress in meeting expectations

Continuous parent communication to support expectations (continued)

171

Shared instructional leadership used to create a student-focused school inclusive of teachers in the decision-making process

Principal acts as collegial change agent

Campus Instructional Leadership Team

Principal acts as a collegial change agent

Campus Instructional Leadership Team

Principal acts as collegial change agent

Transparent decision making

Data-driven differentiated instruction is prioritized

Consistent and purposeful use of flexible groupings

My Data Portal used to support prescriptive intervention

Funding protected for intervention teachers and coaches


My Data Portal used to support prescriptive intervention

Focus on remediating transitional skills

Funding supports supplemental assessments and instructional materials


Teacher-created assessments used to develop individual learning plans for students

Limit of two target skill focus areas

Conferencing notes shared with intervention providers

Funding directed to providing intervention specialists at every grade level, after-school classes, and summer school programming

Flexible staffing. In all three of the schools, principals used staffing to target student

achievement. Each of the schools’ principals successfully navigated around district forced-

placement systems. The principals carefully assigned staff to the grade levels or positions that

would allow them to advance the goals of the school. Mixed-age classes and

departmentalization were expanded under the role of Abernathy’s principal to improve

consistency in teachers’ approaches to teaching. In addition, Abernathy and Dennison teachers

who excelled in the classroom were provided the opportunity to advance as master teachers.

Departmentalization also was used to draw on teachers’ strengths and meet student language

172

needs. At Ghering, changes to teacher assignments occurred frequently to meet the evolving

needs of the school’s students.

Scheduling. Principals in the three schools also leveraged scheduling to maximize

instructional time and support collaboration. Their scheduling emphasized bell-to-bell,

differentiated instruction, student interventions, and formal collaboration time for teachers.

High expectations. The next consistent action was the establishment of high

expectations for students and staff, with principals’ advocating changes in instruction and

removal of barriers to success. The principal at Abernathy Elementary conducted instructional

conferences with teachers to improve instructional delivery, attended team meetings, reviewed

lesson plans, and provided staff notes reminding them of the high expectations focused on

student achievement. Ghering’s principal consistently conveyed his deep belief that all students

would not simply have the potential to succeed but would succeed, and he communicated his

expectations for staff and students within daily notes to teachers. An intensive focus on student

learning permeated each of the schools. The staffs at Abernathy Elementary and Dennison

Elementary focused on commended performance and exemplary ratings instead of students’

merely passing assessments. Expectations and student progress were clearly communicated to

parents.

Shared leadership. Another consistent action found across the schools was the sharing

of instructional leadership, a practice used to create a student-focused school with teachers

included in the decision-making process. The Abernathy Elementary principal was viewed by

teachers as a collegial change agent who led her staff to high performance instead of forcing

them. Interviews with teachers at Dennison Elementary also revealed that the principal served as

a collegial change agent, working closely with staff to establish a student-centered culture of

173

accountability and collaboration. Decisions at Ghering were made collectively, with

transparency emphasized to the staff. Leadership teams in two of the schools analyzed data and

plans, implementing and monitoring the goals of the school improvement plan. The Abernathy

Elementary Campus Instructional Leadership Team met on a weekly basis to discuss

instructional issues and plan professional development. The Dennison Campus Instructional

Leadership Team also was responsible for assisting the principal in professional training

throughout the school year.

Data-driven instruction. Finally, data-driven differentiated instruction was prioritized,

with funding directed toward supporting the instructional process. This differentiation was based

on effective and ongoing assessment of learner needs, with flexible grouping used consistently

and purposely. Faculty at Abernathy Elementary entered and accessed assessment data via the

district’s My Data Portal, which were then used by teachers to create prescriptive instruction for

students and to gain information about the effectiveness of their instruction. Similar to the

practice at Abernathy Elementary, Dennison Elementary teachers entered and accessed

assessment data via the district’s My Data Portal. The faculty at Ghering School used both

teacher-created formal and informal data every 2 months to develop an individual learning plan

for each child, which was communicated with parents. To highly focus interventions, targeted

skill focus areas were limited to one or two, and student progress was tracked via a shared

comprehensive monitoring system. Teachers took conferencing notes every day and shared them

with intervention providers and coaches to ensure that there was instructional continuity for

students.

Research Question 3

How is professional learning leveraged and supported to foster high performance?

174

Professional learning practices used at the schools are presented in Table 22; more

detailed information follows.

Table 22. Professional Learning Practices by School


Dennison Elementary

Ghering School

Common planning structures

Common planning, grade level planning, and vertical planning on a daily formal basis

Examination of student progress

Curriculum mapping and planning instructional supports

Collaborative lesson planning with the support of instructional coaches and the principal

Vertical planning every 6 weeks

Common planning, grade-level planning, and vertical planning on a weekly formal basis


Curriculum mapping and planning instructional supports

Collaborative lesson planning with a focus on consistency

Vertical planning every 6 weeks

Common planning and grade-level planning on a weekly formal basis


Goal setting Planning instructional

supports for Tier 1 and Tier 2 students

Collaborative planning with the intervention specialists, instructional coaches, and the principal or vice principal

School-wide planning

Campus Improvement Leadership Team

Target areas for improvement identified

Collaboration with district curriculum specialists to coordinate professional development for faculty

Campus Improvement Leadership Team

Target areas for improvement identified

Facilitation of professional development for faculty

Two school-wide professional learning goals selected for staff to focus on collectively

(continued)

175

Job-embedded support used to enhance teachers’ instructional practices to improve student learning

Monthly PLC meetings Embedded instructional

support provided by two half-time instructional coaches

Monthly PLC meetings Use of instructional

coaches

Embedded instructional support provided by three instructional coaches, intervention specialists, and administration

Teachers’ meeting with the principal to establish individual learning goals

Professional learning collaboration with a local teacher’s college

Mentoring used to accelerate the effectiveness of new teachers

Master teachers assigned to provide mentoring and coaching support

New teachers observe demonstration lessons on a regular basis

PLC participation

Veteran teachers assigned to provide mentoring support

New teachers observe demonstration lessons on a regular basis

PLC participation

Instructional coaches provide embedded support to new teachers in 6-week cycles.

Experienced teachers sent into the classrooms of new teachers to model lessons

Formal teacher workshops and trainings

Reading and math academies

Training offered on district initiatives

14 hours mandated by district

PD for CILT members for turnkey training

Reading and math academies

Training offered on district initiatives

14 hours mandated by district

PD for CILT members for turnkey training

Participation in teacher’s college network workshops

Participation in teacher’s college online training

Collaborative planning structures were used within the three schools to improve

instructional practices by enabling data-driven conversations about student learning. All three

schools provided formal grade-level planning time on a weekly basis, but the amount of time

varied widely, from 45 minutes scheduled daily at Abernathy and Dennison Elementary Schools

to 270 minutes scheduled weekly at Ghering School. Abernathy Elementary and Dennison

Elementary also utilized vertical planning.

176

School-wide planning also was used to leverage professional learning and support high

performance. Although the means varied, each of the schools in the case studies used

disaggregated data to collaboratively set priority goals for the school. Abernathy Elementary and

Dennison Elementary utilized Campus Improvement Leadership Teams to analyze and

disaggregate student performance data to identify school-wide priorities and set school goals and

instructional plans for the year. At Ghering School, school-wide professional learning goals

were set by the principal and instructional coaches after consulting with teachers.

Next, job-embedded support was used to enhance teachers’ instructional practices to

improve student learning. All three schools utilized instructional coaches to provide new and

experienced teachers job-embedded professional development. Coaching at Ghering also was

provided by intervention specialists, the vice principal, and the principal.

All schools participated in external teacher professional development trainings and

workshops; however, Ghering was the only school that partnered with a local teacher’s college to

provide additional professional learning support in the form of workshops and online courses.

Abernathy Elementary and Dennison Elementary used district-designed professional learning

communities to allow teachers to learn from their peers and to share ideas and resources

Finally, mentoring was used to accelerate the effectiveness of new teachers. At

Abernathy and Dennison, veteran teachers were assigned to new teachers to provide coaching

and mentoring support, presenting demonstration lessons on a regular basis. New teachers at

these schools also participated in PLCs to receive support with planning and instructional

strategies. At Ghering School, new teachers received very intensive coaching by the

instructional coaches on 6-week cycles, and experienced teachers were sent into the teachers’

177

rooms to model lessons. Specific time was set aside for new teachers to meet with their

colleagues to discuss teaching and learning issues.

Summary

There were a number of similarities in how each of the three elementary schools in the

case studies approached supporting high-poverty populations with large numbers of students of

color. School organizational structures and processes were prioritized toward providing rigorous

and focused differentiated academic support for students. Principals skillfully utilized staffing

and funding resources to directly support a collaborative and supportive environment based on

shared leadership and high expectations for students and staff. Teachers utilized data-driven,

differentiated instructional strategies while collaborating closely with their colleagues and

students’ parents to ensure that all students’ learning needs were met. Ongoing professional

learning via a collaborative and job-embedded process emphasized coherence in educating

students.

178

CHAPTER 6

FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND IMPLICATIONS

Introduction

This final chapter examines the findings of the study, draws conclusions, and discusses

the implications for high-poverty schools with high percentages of students of color seeking to

become high performing. First, the chapter summarizes the multisite case study by reviewing the

three research questions and the related literature that served as the conceptual foundation for

this research study. The next section presents a general review of the findings from the three

case studies. The conclusion section then serves as an analysis of these findings. The next two

sections—implications for practice and implications for research—address other issues raised

during the course of this research. Consequently, several recommendations for further study

regarding school turnaround are made.

Summary of the Study

This study examined how high-poverty elementary schools with large percentages of

students of color became high performing. Despite the decades of educational reform,

innovation, and federal legislation specific to improving educational outcomes, poor African

American and Latino children have lagged dramatically behind their White peers in academic

achievement. The undereducation of masses of American children will have a devastating effect

on the nation’s standing in a global economy and its existence as a true democracy.

Consequently, it is imperative to seek and learn from schools that have been successful in

realizing high achievement for all students by exploring the school-wide organization, structures,

and processes they used to become high performing.

179

This was a qualitative, multisite case study. Three elementary schools were identified by

utilizing the National Longitudinal School-Level Assessment Score Database (NLSLSASD)

funded by the U.S. Department of Education and developed by the American Institutes of

Research (AIR). At the time the study began, the NLSLSASD was the only database that

provided some demographic and achievement data for most public schools in the United States.

In addition to reviewing the NLSLSASD database, I contacted state education departments to

attain listings of schools that performed in the top 10% in the state while also meeting the other

criteria of the study. The criteria selected for this study consisted of requirements that each

school (a) have a high percentage of students of color (more than 50% of students being African

American or Latino); (b) reflect “high poverty” (more than 50% of students eligible for free or

reduced-price lunch); and (c) be “high performing” (above the 67th

percentile in average state

standardized test scores).

The following research questions were developed to identify and understand the

organization, structures, and processes used for school turnaround and high performance:



performing?



Also guiding this study was a review of the literature, which began with the theoretical

work on effective schools; effective schools research was groundbreaking in that with its onset,

researchers began to focus on school factors, rather than students’ home environments, that

contributed to low student achievement. Next, I examined the literature on professional

180

development for school improvement with the primary goal’s being improvement in teaching

and learning; review of this literature increased understanding about the professional

development processes within these high-performing schools. The final core body of literature

reviewed concerned principal instructional leadership and was supported by research on change,

turnaround, and transformational leadership. It served as a framework for determining specific

leadership actions that have led to improvement in the quality and quantity of teaching and

learning. Other relevant literature reviewed included research on teacher expectations and data-

driven instruction.

Findings

The three schools in the study had consistent approaches to integrating academic

structural supports into students’ instruction amid a culture of continuous improvement and high

expectations. Each of the schools used a rigorous and coherent standards-based curriculum that

was differentiated for individual students’ learning needs, with instructional decisions

intentionally based on multiple and timely assessment results.

Abernathy and Dennison used their school district’s standards-based curriculum planning

guides (CPGs) to provide coherent, rigorous curriculum for students. Teachers were given

flexibility in how to teach the standards and the curriculum but little flexibility with respect to

what was taught. Teachers at Abernathy Elementary ensured that the curriculum was made

relevant to students, making certain that students could relate what they were learning to their

lives outside school. Although Ghering’s staff developed their curriculum from the district’s

standards-based curriculum framework, the faculty decided not to use the district curriculum

framework in its totality, instead partnering with a teacher’s college to develop their own units of

181

study and lesson plans based on the needs of their students. Teachers received a compilation of

units, lessons, and curricular resources for every subject taught.

To address the specific learning needs of English language learners, dual-language

programming and transitional bilingual education were provided to support differentiation at

Abernathy Elementary and Dennison Elementary. Nevertheless, because the quality of the

district curriculum had improved over time, including the provision of strategies, tools, and

resources for intervention and acceleration, the mixed-age classrooms in first and second grades

at Abernathy Elementary, used to differentiate instruction, were to be phased out with the rollup

rollout of dual-language programming. Abernathy also incorporated departmentalization in the

effort not only to ensure that teachers deeply understood the content being taught, thereby

strengthening their ability to effectively differentiate instruction, but also to meet students’ needs

with regard to bilingual education. Both Abernathy Elementary and Dennison Elementary

heavily utilized the district curriculum planning guides’ differentiation for remediation and

enrichment resources to ensure instruction was appropriately targeted to meet students’ learning

needs. Ghering invested significantly in staffing to support differentiated instruction. Each

grade level had one intervention specialist to provide students with more individualized

instruction. In addition, support staff pushed into classrooms on a daily basis to allow for each

teacher or coach to work with flexible groups that changed based on identified learning needs.

All three of the schools used a variety of assessments to monitor student performance, but

the types of assessments varied. Abernathy Elementary and Dennison Elementary both utilized

their district’s assessment system as the foundation for measuring student performance. This

system included the DIBELS reading assessment for screening and progress monitoring, TPRI as

a comprehensive K-2 reading assessment, mClass for math progress monitoring, and district-

182

developed benchmarks in Grades 2-5 for reading, math, science, and social studies. Dennison

Elementary also supplemented the assessments with released state assessments, school-created

assessments that were known as “The Principal’s Test” given 6 weeks prior to the state

assessment, and teacher observations. Abernathy supplemented the district’s assessment system

with the DRA to support appropriate student grouping for guided reading. Unlike Abernathy

and Dennison, Ghering did not rely upon a district-directed assessment system. Instead, the

school, in partnership with a teacher’s college, developed formative assessments, which were

used three times a year, as well as end-of-unit assessments. Informal assessments, such as

questioning, were incorporated into daily instruction during lesson planning.

Flexible use of staffing was another school structural component in supporting a culture

of improvement and high performance. The principal at each of the three schools was given

latitude by the district to assign staff flexibly. Abernathy and Dennison used departmentalization

to draw on teachers’ strengths and develop their deep content knowledge to provide effective

differentiated instruction for students. Teachers’ grade-level assignments were determined by

the principals at two of the schools. The Dennison Elementary principal assigned teachers with

the primary goal of building strong grade-level teams. The Ghering School principal adjusted

staffing assignments annually, with 10% of teacher assignments changed annually and 40%

changed every 3 years, to ensure that teachers’ strengths consistently matched existing student

needs.

In all three schools, efficient and effective staffing was used to integrate services into

classroom instruction and provide systematic academic and linguistic scaffolding to make the

content accessible to all students. Although the staffing choices were unique to each school

based upon human and fiscal resources, all three schools utilized all available staff to provide

183

instructional support to students. At Abernathy and Dennison, teacher leaders were selected

through the district according to Classroom Effectiveness Indices data. These teachers provided

mentoring and coaching support to their peers as well as instructional support to small groups of

students. Dennison Elementary chose a co-teaching model to provide a more inclusive

environment for students receiving special education services to ensure they received access to

grade-level content. Bilingual teachers also flexibly pushed into classrooms to support English

language learners and general education students, in lieu of providing instruction in self-

contained classrooms. Support staff at Ghering School—ESL teachers, special education

teachers, coaches, and intervention teachers—pushed into each classroom for a minimum of 50

minutes per day to directly assist struggling students in reading, math, and writing. Support was

based on need, not eligibility for service. In addition to working with small groups, the reading

and math coaches taught whole-group lessons, freeing up classroom teachers to work directly

with small groups as well.

All three schools developed structures and processes for teacher collaboration to promote

professional growth among teachers through creating a supportive environment with shared

expectations and reflection. Common planning time was very intentionally and thoughtfully

scheduled at each of the schools, and it involved (a) examining work to assess students’

understanding, (b) fine-tuning the curriculum to meet student needs, and (c) refining instructional

practices to address learning gaps. Time was spent prioritizing and planning instruction,

developing teachers’ instructional strategies and content knowledge, and evaluating progress

toward goals. The amount of time scheduled for common planning was similar for all three

schools, ranging from 225 minutes per week at Dennison and Abernathy to 270 minutes per

week at Ghering.

184

Extended academic supports for students were offered in all three schools. Abernathy,

Dennison, and Ghering offered Saturday school and after-school tutoring. Abernathy

Elementary was the only school that offered extensive enrichment activities for students. These

learning supports were not offered at Dennison Elementary or Ghering School because of

increasing budgetary reductions. Ghering School was unique in that it used its own school-based

budget to provide site-based summer programming for its students. At Ghering, the traditional

school day was slightly lengthened for all students, and a Spring Break Boot Camp—held

immediately prior to the administration of state assessments to boost students’ skills—was

offered. Interviewed staff at all three schools expressed a belief that extended learning supports

were a critical element in their schools’ success.

All three schools provided a number of structural supports with respect to informing,

engaging, and empowering parents. The schools prioritized building relationships with families.

Each school had a communication support system in place. Phone calls, e-mails, and text

messages allowed faculty at the three schools to keep parents informed about student progress.

Recognizing that the school’s communication efforts were not always successful due to language

barriers, Ghering also provided translation services to afford all parents the opportunity to

engage in their children’s education. The principals at Abernathy Elementary and Ghering

Elementary were fluent in Spanish, making it easy to communicate directly with students and

families, whereas the Dennison principal was not. Nevertheless, all three principals had been

successful in developing support systems for parent communication. Progress reports were sent

home by the teachers at Abernathy Elementary and Dennison Elementary to ensure that parents

were provided with timely and pertinent information about students’ achievement between report

cards.

185

Understanding that active parental involvement in the school’s PTA was mutually

beneficial, each of the three schools appealed to parents’ interests to solicit participation. The

faculty at Abernathy Elementary and Dennison Elementary ensured that there were student

performances and exhibitions at PTA meetings to entice students’ families to attend. At

Ghering, the PTA sponsored speakers to address specific curricular issues and to support families

in assisting their children with schoolwork.

Meaningful opportunities to involve parents in school improvement and to support their

children’s achievement also were provided by all three schools. Parent workshops were offered

at Abernathy Elementary and Ghering School, with topics ranging from effective reading

practices and questioning techniques to Internet safety. Weekly parenting skills training classes

were held at Dennison Elementary to prepare parents to be partners in their children’s education.

Each school provided outreach services to connect parents with community resources that better

allowed them to support their children.

My second research question examined principal and teacher actions that fostered high

performance. Five key actions were found to be present across the three schools. In all three of

the schools, principals used staffing as a lever to improve student achievement. Each school

principal successfully navigated around deleterious teacher forced-placement systems within

their districts. The submission of teacher resignation letters was timed to occur after all of the

district’s excess teachers were placed (Abernathy Elementary), vacancies were purposely left

unfilled until the excess teacher pool was depleted (Dennison Elementary), or the school

instituted a dual-certification requirement in general and special education, as well as a substitute

teaching requirement, to weed out potential placements of low-skilled teachers (Ghering School).

The principals carefully assigned staff to the grade levels or positions that would best allow them

186

to advance the goals of the school. Mixed-age classes and departmentalization were expanded

under the role of Abernathy’s principal to ensure consistency in teachers’ approaches to

instruction. In addition, Abernathy and Dennison teachers who excelled in the classroom, as

evidenced by Classroom Effectiveness Indices, were provided the opportunity to advance as

master teachers to provide mentoring and coaching support for new teachers and teachers

needing support for struggling students. The principal at Dennison Elementary assigned teachers

to grade levels based on where support was needed to advance school achievement goals.

Departmentalization also was used to leverage teachers’ strengths and address student language

needs. The principal at Ghering School judiciously assigned teachers to specific grade levels

based on each teacher’s strengths. Changes to teacher assignments were made as frequently as

necessary to address students’ ever-changing learning needs.

Principals in the three schools also leveraged scheduling to maximize instructional time

and to support professional collaboration. Their scheduling emphasized bell-to-bell instruction

and formal teacher planning during which teachers spent their time collaborating and analyzing

student data to determine where instructional modifications were necessary. Principals also were

cognizant of informal opportunities for teachers to collaborate, and they used scheduling to

support these practices. The Dennison Elementary principal purposely scheduled lunch periods

to allow time for teachers not only to informally collaborate with the teachers at their grade level

but also to have the opportunity to collaborate with teachers in the grade level directly above or

below theirs. The Ghering School principal scheduled contractually required, duty-free teacher

preparation times within each grade level concurrently to support teachers seeking informal

collaboration opportunities.

187

All of the schools set high expectations for students and staff. The principals at

Abernathy Elementary and Dennison Elementary employed strategies such as instructional

conferences with teachers, participation in team meetings, participation in professional learning

communities, and review of lesson plans. The Ghering School principal consistently conveyed

his deep belief that all students would succeed and communicated his expectations for staff and

students within daily notes to teachers. The staffs at Abernathy Elementary and Dennison

Elementary focused on commended performance and exemplary ratings instead of the minimum

standard of students’ reaching proficiency. Ghering used a digital student monitoring system

that allowed the principal, coaches, and classroom teachers to check the progress of every

student and intervene when expectations were not being met. Expectations and student progress

were clearly communicated to parents. Teachers at Abernathy Elementary called parents at night

if students were missing assignments or seemed to be having difficulty. Teachers at Dennison

were expected to be very clear with parents with respect to where students were performing

academically to prevent surprises when report cards were sent home. At Ghering School tests

were sent home for parent signature to ensure that parents were continuously informed about

how their children were performing.

Another consistent action found across the schools was the sharing of instructional

leadership, resulting in teacher buy-in for school-wide initiatives. Both the Abernathy and

Dennison principals were perceived by teachers as collegial leaders skilled in leading school-

wide change. Teachers at Ghering also indicated that decisions were made collectively, and the

principal emphasized transparency. Leadership teams at the schools analyzed data and planned,

implemented, and monitored the goals of the school improvement plan. All teams met regularly

and included professional development as a key component of their planning process.

188

Finally, data-driven differentiated instruction was prioritized at Abernathy, Dennison, and

Ghering. Faculty at Abernathy Elementary and Dennison Elementary entered and accessed

assessment data via the district’s My Data Portal, which were then used by teachers to develop

instructional plans for students and to gain information about the effectiveness of their

instruction. Abernathy’s principal prioritized school funding to support data-driven

differentiated instruction by maintaining two intervention teachers to provide direct

differentiated support to students and two half-time coaching positions to collaboratively assist

teachers in making effective instructional decisions. The instructional staff reported that

assessments were used to determine where student strengths were and what weaknesses existed.

These data were used to identify and prioritize the transitional skills that students were on the

bubble of grasping: Students simply needed some instructional booster sessions to master the

skills. Once these transitional skills were learned, teachers then turned their focus to teaching the

skills of which students had minimal understanding. Dennison’s principal formalized the

process of analyzing student data to include conversations about successful intervention and

where improvements were necessary. School funding was directed toward the purchase of

additional assessments, as well as supplemental materials that assisted teachers in ensuring that

every learning gap was met.

The faculty at Ghering School used both teacher-created formal and informal assessment

data to develop every 2 months an individual learning plan for each child, which was

communicated to parents. Student progress was tracked via a shared, comprehensive monitoring

system. Teachers utilized daily conferencing notes to ensure that there was instructional

continuity for students. The principal stretched site-based funding sources to ensure that

differentiated support was prioritized at the school through the provision of an intervention

189

specialist at every grade level, after-school classes to work intensively on remediating student

learning gaps, and site-based summer programming to ensure that all students received the

intensity of services they needed to be successful.

The final research question examined how professional learning was leveraged and

supported to foster high performance. Collaborative planning structures were used within the

three schools to improve instructional practices by enabling data-driven conversations about

student learning. All three schools provided formal grade-level planning time on a weekly basis.

Abernathy Elementary and Dennison Elementary also utilized vertical planning on a 6-week

basis to ensure vertical alignment and instructional continuity. Abernathy Elementary used

common planning time to focus on curriculum mapping, instructional strategies, assessment, and

pacing. Teachers collaborated with the instructional coaches and principal to plan lessons based

on identified student needs, discuss struggling students, and share instructional strategies. As did

Abernathy Elementary, Dennison Elementary used common planning time to analyze assessment

results and focus on curriculum mapping and instructional strategies. Teachers reviewed

upcoming units and planned lessons together to create consistency across the subject areas.

Running logs of student progress were examined to identify areas where students needed

additional intervention. Ghering ensured that teachers received support from the instructional

team, including the intervention specialists, instructional coaches, and the principal or vice

principal, during grade-level meetings. The time was used to review assessments and assessment

results and establish goals for the end of each unit to determine where additional targeted support

to students might be needed.

School-wide planning also was used for goal setting, to leverage professional learning

and raise student performance. Data were used extensively in these schools to set performance

190

goals. Abernathy Elementary and Dennison Elementary utilized Campus Improvement

Leadership Teams to review and analyze student performance, allowing for accurate

identification of school-wide priorities, goals, and instructional plans for the year. The CILT

members, chosen by the principals at both schools, planned professional development based on

identified student and staff needs. Abernathy Elementary CILT members closely collaborated

with district curriculum specialists. At Ghering School, the principal and instructional coaches

set school-wide professional learning goals. The number of goals was limited to two to help

teachers focus intensely on school priority areas.

Job-embedded professional development was used extensively to support teachers and to

improve student learning. All three schools utilized the instructional coaches to provide

professional development to both new and experienced teachers. Coaching at Ghering School

was also provided by intervention specialists, the vice principal, and the principal, and teachers

were requested to produce all work that students would be asked to produce to deepen their

understanding of learning processes that must be supported. Additionally, the principal met with

each teacher to develop focused individual learning goals to further the teacher’s professional

understanding. Of the three schools, Ghering School was the only one that partnered with a local

teacher’s college to provide additional professional development; the school’s instructional

coaches facilitated teachers’ selections of courses based on school-wide and individual

professional goals. Abernathy Elementary and Dennison Elementary used well-developed,

district-based professional learning communities to support their peers. Instructional ideas and

strategies were shared, and opportunities were provided for teachers to collaboratively plan units

and lessons. At Abernathy Elementary, there was a PLC that met monthly for each content area,

191

led by two CILT members. The principal tied teachers’ involvement in PLCs to their

evaluations.

Finally, mentoring was used at all three schools to increase the effectiveness of new

teachers. At Abernathy and Dennison, veteran teachers were assigned to new teachers to provide

coaching and mentoring support; they exercised modeling on a regular basis. New teachers at

these schools also participated in PLCs to provide support with planning and instructional

strategies. At Ghering, 6-week instructional cycles were developed to provide new teachers with

very intensive coaching; instructional coaches also modeled lessons. At all three sites, specific

time was set aside for new teachers to meet with their colleagues.

Conclusions

The findings from this study indicate that there were several organizational and structural

factors that contributed to elevating high-poverty, elementary schools to high-performing

schools. Processes are defined as a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular

end, and we tend to think of processes in a very linear way. However, the findings of the study

were clearer about organizational and structural factors, and less apparent about specific

processes that led to the improvement of the schools. The findings highlighted; however, the

complexity of leadership in the school settings that were studied. The findings suggest that

factors such as the principals’ problem-solving ability, customization of practice, and

understanding of contextual idiosyncrasies played a significant role in the schools’ success.

The changing role of the principalship and increased responsibilities around instructional

and school improvement, as well as increased expectations with respect to effective talent

management has redefined the role of building principal. Principals who are successful at school

turnaround and/or at school improvement require a new set of competencies in teacher

192

development and data-driven instruction. Additionally, the expectation that principals will

continue to serve as effective building managers has not dissipated. Navigating the new role of

the principal requires complex problem-solving and decision-making skills while understanding

the particular context of both school and district. Each of the principals in the study understood

how to frame the problems they were faced with and effectively utilized appropriate staff in

carefully thinking about how to solve each issue. These principals customized evidence-based

practices based upon a clear understanding of their context: the political factors that existed and

the human and fiscal resources that were available. This contextual understanding and skillful

problem-solving allowed the principals to effectively lead change and set up school-wide

organization, structures and processes that led to increased student academic performance.

Another key finding regarding the multitudinous factors that led to each school’s success

was the trust displayed in each school—particularly between staff and the building principal, but

also between staff and students and staff and families. Researchers Bryk and Schneider (2003)

contend that there is a growing body of research which indicates that social trust is imperative for

meaningful school improvement. They assert:

District role relationships characterize the social exchanges of schooling: teachers with

students, teachers with other teachers, teachers with parents, and all groups with the

school principal. Each party in a relationship maintains an understanding of his or her

role’s obligations and hold some expectations about the obligations of the other parties.

For a school community to work well, it must achieve agreement in each role relationship

in terms of the understandings held about these personal obligations and expectations of

others. (Bryk & Schneider, 2003, n.p.)

193

There is evidence that the relational trust built among groups in the schools within this study was

foundational to the development and successful implementation of school-wide organization,

structures and processes.

What are the school-wide organization, structures, and processes used by high-


performing?

The way(s) in which the schools organized themselves, in addition to the academic

structures, student-support structures, parent and family support structures, and data-driven

decision-making structures they put in place, contributed to the turnaround of the case-study

sites.

Schools put into place extensive academic and support structures and practices to

increase student academic performance. Each school made a conscientious effort to utilize a

standards-based curriculum, including making the transition to the Common Core Standards.

The use of a guaranteed and viable curriculum to improve schools has been well established in

the literature (Marzano, 2003; Reeves, 2003). Although many schools within the district(s)

studied allegedly chose not to implement the district curriculum planning guides (CPGs), the

case-study schools implemented them with fidelity, only making adjustments for reteaching as

warranted by student assessments. The final school (Ghering) used the standards-based

curriculum as a framework to guide instruction and built upon the framework through the

development of units of study and lesson plans designed in partnership with a local teacher’s

college. As did the staffs at the first two schools, Ghering staff understood the value of students’

mastering rigorous, learning standards that expressed clear expectations of what all students

should know and be able to do.

194

As a critical support structure, each school implemented extended learning time. In the

early 1980s, Eubanks and Levine (1983) concluded that increased time is a critical element for

improving schools and that instructional support for students necessitated significant

commitment of time from school personnel. Later studies, including Johnson and Asera’s (1999)

Hope for Urban Education and Reeves’s (2003) High Performance in High Poverty Schools:

90/90/90 and Beyond, along with more recent studies on school turnaround (Fryer, 2014; Mass

Insight Education & Research Institute, 2007), all confirmed the role that maximizing learning

time plays in turning around low-performing schools. The schools employed extended-day

strategies to provide more instructional time for struggling students. Two of the schools

provided after-school and Saturday-school programs, whereas the other provided those options

as well as summer school. One school also added time to each day for 100% of the students. All

three schools understood that adding time to the school day or year could have a positive impact

on student outcomes, and they were able to make the changes within the context of their current

district policies or collective bargaining agreements.

Strategic and innovative hiring and staffing practices were used to leverage teachers’

instructional strengths, maximize use of limited staff to support struggling students, and increase

educator capacity to support larger numbers of students. Effective organizational teaching

arrangements were identified in early effective schools research as a means to increase

collaboration and teacher instructional capacity (Levine et al., 1985). Although the schools

within this study were not required by legislation or through Race to the Top (RTT) or School

Improvement Grant (SIG) regulations to remove the principal or staff, the principals removed

teachers as needed to ensure the staff were aligned in vision, mission, and strategies. Strategic

practices in recruitment, hiring, and assignment, as well as removal of ineffective teachers, were

195

regularly cited in more recent research on school turnaround (Dee, 2012; Fryer, 2014; Hansen,

2013; Herman & Huberman, 2012; Mass Insight Education & Research Institute, 2007; Miller &

Brown 2015).

The three case-study schools prioritized strengthening parent–family relationships with

school and implemented a number of structural supports to inform and engage parents and

families. The schools initiated formal reporting structures for reporting on student progress,

including individual student learning plans, interim progress reports, report cards, and formal

parent conferences. One school even hosted the parent conferences in the housing development

where most of the families resided. Schools sent e-mails and text messages, en masse, to parents

and families to make certain they were informed about important school events. In all of the

buildings, the principals expended time and human resources in rebuilding the parent–teacher

organization and using the organization to provide important information, offer parent-training

sessions, or showcase student performances. All three schools also partnered with external

organizations and agencies to provide parents and families with resources and services that

allowed them to better support their children.

What are the principal and teacher actions that fostered high-performance?

The research has been overwhelmingly conclusive that low-performing schools can

indeed become high-performing schools given the right leadership (Bryk et al., 2010; Carter,

2000; Dee 2012; Hansen 2013; Louis et al., 2010). Leaders with strong organizational

management who focus on developing organizational structures for improved instruction

including hiring, supporting and retaining good teachers and developing or removing ineffective

ones are most likely to foster high performance (Brinson & Rowal, 2008; Horng & Loeb, 2010;

Leithwood et al., 2004; Miller & Brown, 2015; New Leaders for New Schools, 2009; Steiner &

196

Hassel, 2011). Reeves (2004) argued that high-performing leadership sets high expectations and

strives to help school staff work as an effective team. In all of the schools studied, the principals

had high expectations of staff. The principals hired and relieved staff based upon the staff

members’ adherence to the school’s mission and very high standards for staff and student

performance. Principal expectations were expressed in words and actions (e.g., classroom visits,

staff notes, individual conferences with teachers, and communication with parents), and staff in

all three schools exhibited clear understanding of what was expected of them as teachers.

Researchers (Brophy, 1987; Jussim et al., 1996; Rubie-Davies et al., 2006) have maintained that

teacher and principal expectations have an effect on student academic outcomes and on school

effectiveness.

Shared decision making and transparency in decision making in all three schools fostered

teacher buy-in for the transformation of the schools. Two of the school leaders were specifically

described as “collegial” and the other school leader as “transparent”; all were viewed as highly

supportive of teachers and students. The three schools developed extensive team structures to

guide decision making, information sharing among staff, and professional learning. Although

one of the team structures was mandated by the district office, the principal used the structure

skillfully to build support for district- and school-wide initiatives and to instill a sense of urgency

for turnaround within the teaching staff.

All three schools sought to implement a variety of instructional strategies to support

general education students, struggling learners, students with special needs, and English

language learners. One school utilized dual-language programming to address the academic

language needs of its large and ever-growing bilingual population. Two of the schools utilized

departmentalization to leverage teacher strengths, focus limited professional learning time and

197

fiscal resources, and simply use staff more flexibly. One school utilized mixed-age classrooms

to ensure consistency in approach to instruction and differentiation. Two of the schools utilized

the district curriculum planning guide’s differentiation for remediation and enrichment resources

to make certain that instruction appropriately targeted student needs. Two of the schools used

highly trained special education, bilingual, and ESL teachers in a flexible manner to reach more

students. In the two schools, assignment of these teachers was not based upon student eligibility

for programming but upon the needs of all students in a setting. The flexible use of teachers also

strengthened the co-teaching model and belief of the teachers that they were fully supported by

their leaders.

Scheduling was leveraged in all of the case-study sites to maximize instructional time and

support professional collaboration. Principals organized the school day, and even the facilities,

to ensure bell-to-bell instruction and collaborative planning time for teachers. A common theme

within studies of high-performing, high-poverty schools is the utilization of focused

collaboration time to analyze the impact of instructional practices on student learning (Berry et

al., 2005; DuFour, 2004; Strahan, 2003; Supovitz, 2002). As is consistent with the research,

teachers in the study schools utilized the collaboration time to analyze student data and

determine instructional course corrections. The principals in all three schools considered formal

and informal structures for collaboration when building their schedules. Teachers in these

schools engaged in formal school-wide planning, grade-level planning, vertical-team planning,

and planning for new teachers. One of the three principals even used an oft-overlooked

provision of the contract to increase the length of the school day.

Data-driven decision making was prioritized in all three schools. Datnow et al. (2007)

acknowledged that data-driven decision making to improve instruction is a key reform strategy

198

and that school system action with respect to the use of data is a prerequisite for school

improvement. All three of the schools used a variety of assessments to monitor student

performance; student progress was continuously tracked through a comprehensive monitoring

system. Two of the study sites utilized a district-supported web-based tool to support the

warehousing and analysis of data. The other school developed a digital tool to support the

maintenance and analysis of student data. In all schools, detailed data were accessed to improve

both instruction and student outcomes. Teachers and building principals had a high level of

assessment literacy and were able to identify problem areas within their schools and set goals for

improvement. In all schools, individual learning plans were developed for students. Funding

was realigned to support differentiated instruction through the hiring of full- or part-time

instructional coaches and intervention teachers. Funding also was directed to support data-

driven differentiated instruction in after-school, extended day, Saturday, and summer school

programming.

How is professional learning leveraged and supported to foster high performance?

School leaders in successful high-poverty schools create opportunities for teachers to

work, plan, and learn together, with schedules’ prioritizing collaboration (Johnson & Asera,

1999). Well-designed collaborative planning structures were implemented in all of the schools

to improve instructional practices and student academic outcomes. The schools used weekly,

grade-level planning; vertical teaming, and monthly, school-wide planning time to engage in

data-driven conversations about instruction and student performance. Cross-grade as well as

within-grade collaboration among teachers has been found to assist teachers to better understand

each other’s curricula and expectations (Lein et al., 1997). The planning time in all of the

schools was used extensively for instructional planning including curriculum mapping and

199

determination of specific instructional strategies for individual or groups of students. Moreover,

the time was used to review assessments and assessment results and to set goals.

Job-embedded professional development was utilized in all three schools. All schools

used instructional coaches to provide new and veteran teachers with professional development;

additionally, the principal and vice-principal at one school provided formal coaching to teachers.

Ongoing development of professional learning communities in two of the schools allowed for

extensive training on district instructional initiatives and follow-up via monthly school-based

PLCs. One of the schools used school financial resources to receive technical assistance from a

prestigious local teacher’s college to support reading, writing, and mathematics. Finally,

mentoring and collaboration time were provided for all new teachers at all three schools through

formal structures that were either district designed (i.e., master teacher program) or building

designed (i.e., principal-designated teacher leaders). Principals at all sites recognized the

tremendous amount of support required for new teachers and acted accordingly.

Implications for Practice

The findings from this study have several implications for schools and school districts

seeking to turn around high-poverty, low-performing schools with high percentages of students

of color. As a superintendent in a large, urban school district, I am particularly interested in

taking high-performing schools to scale in way that is sustainable. Therefore, I offer

recommendations including (a) the hiring and staffing of leaders and teachers in

underperforming schools; and (b) finding time for teacher collaboration and professional

learning, student interventions, and the expansion of student enrichment. Next,

recommendations are offered for scaling principal and teacher actions that foster high-

performance, specifically a recommendation for considering personalized learning systems. The

200

final recommendation addresses how professional learning is leveraged and supported to foster

high performance and offers a new, potentially dynamic system of professional learning for

teachers.

Implications for school-wide organization, structures and processes. The turnaround

field guide by Herman et al. offered two recommendations for hiring and staffing in schools

where turnaround is necessary: “signal the need for dramatic change with strong leadership”

(Herman et al., 2008, p. 10) and “build a committed staff” (Herman et al., 2008, p. 27). The

research on the role that leadership plays in school turnaround is compelling; however, the

research on removal of teachers or staff in underperforming schools to improve student academic

outcomes is not definitive. There is, however, ample evidence that teacher quality has a

significant effect on student learning and, therefore, student outcomes. The issue of teacher

hiring and selection in low-performing schools is important: in all three case-study sites, the

principals manipulated and navigated their school systems to hire great teachers and remove or

terminate ineffective staff. Significant legal roadblocks, including state laws and restrictive

collective bargaining agreements, impede implementation of progressive talent management

strategies. In school districts where teachers and administrators enjoy tenure privileges,

implementation of Race to the Top hiring and staffing requirements for failing schools result in

nothing more than transferring teachers and principals from school to school, potentially

exacerbating some of the problems faced by underperforming schools. Many state education

departments are not providing assistance to districts in identifying and recruiting highly effective

principals and have no capacity to assist with the teacher issue. My recommendation is that the

USDOE allow state education departments flexibility regarding this provision of RTT, requiring

the replacement of staff and the principal only when they do not meet identified performance

201

criteria over the three-year SIG grant period. This means that the school district would have the

flexibility—after careful review and consideration of data and all pertinent factors—to either

replace the staff immediately, at any time during the SIG grant period, or at the end of the SIG

grant period. This will possibly improve chances that students are not further harmed by a well-

intentioned policy. Simultaneously, states must strengthen teacher evaluation systems and build

confidence in the legitimacy of said systems.

My second recommendation reconsiders the use of time in underperforming schools. All

of the schools in the study found ways to increase instructional time for students. The schools

also thoughtfully provided teachers with time for collaboration and data-driven planning. Yet,

two of the schools did so at the expense of important student enrichment programming. The

National Center on Time and Learning (NCTL) (http://www.timeandlearning.org/research)

suggests that the research examining the link between time and learning—both for students and

teachers—can be categorized into three distinct, though interdependent, fields: (a) unpacking the

connection between time and learning, as it relates to academic classes and learning; (b)

understanding how time for teacher collaboration and embedded professional development links

to measures of instructional quality; and (c) examining the effects of student time spent in

enrichment classes and activities. Because the research on the link between time and learning is

promising, it is important to increase time that results in (a) interventions for struggling students,

(b) teacher collaboration and job-embedded professional learning, and (c) enrichment

opportunities that provide disadvantaged students with the same or similar opportunities

experienced by their more affluent, generally middle- and upper-class peers. Low-performing

schools should consider using school improvement grants to extend the academic day for 100%

of their students, building in structures for teacher collaboration and student enrichment.

http://www.timeandlearning.org/research

202

Exploration of models that utilize community-based organizations and educators hired through

arts consortiums, science or technology museums, and local universities, for example, can prove

an effective means of providing teachers with collaborative planning time while simultaneously

providing enrichment instruction for students in the arts and sciences. For many students in

underperforming schools, enrichment instruction would not be otherwise available, given the

narrow focus on reading–English language arts and mathematics.

Implications for principal and teacher actions that foster high performance.

Academic support structures were key in the turnaround of each of the case-study sites; however,

with unstable funding streams such as School Improvement Grants (SIG), insufficient fiscal and

human resources to ensure a sound basic education for all students, ongoing reductions in student

programming and professional development for staff, and rigorous reform initiatives such as the

implementation of the Common Core Standards, it is unclear how long turnaround schools can

sustain the programming that led to their improvement (i.e. academic tutoring, summer school,

professional development, etc.); this means that the sustainability of the schools’ academic gains

is also at risk. Personalized learning environments, which include personal leaning plans,

uniquely designed learning paths, competency- and performance- based advancement, and

flexible learning environments, may present a viable solution for meeting the needs of and

motivating individual learners. A personalized learning system offers positive and radical

changes in teaching and learning and in the ways in which time is used to support student

learning. Transitioning to a personalized learning model offers optimism for dramatic changes in

differentiated learning practices, more effective use of time and learning space, interactions

between teachers and students, and ultimately the impact these practices may have on student

academic outcomes.

203

Implications for leveraging professional development. Offering high-quality relevant

professional development in a rapidly changing era of educational reform poses significant state,

school district, and school-level challenges. Some school districts are moving toward a

competency-based approach to teacher professional learning. Through the use of technology,

teachers will be able to document and share practices online, as well as receive district (and

state-level) “credit” in the form of digital badges indicating mastery of specific content area or

active participation in specific learning communities (e.g., third-grade math learning

community). Such a system will use digital badges to acknowledge teachers’ professional

development milestones and achievements. An online professional learning program differs

from traditional models of teacher professional development that financially compensate teachers

for “seat-time” rather than demonstrable competence. Innovation in professional learning

models is more critical now than ever as educational reforms, such as implementation of the

Common Core Standards, require massive, expensive, differentiated teacher training. School

districts often have not developed the expertise to offer well-designed (or even basic)

professional learning programming for staff. A competency-based, online system would allow

teachers to share practices and learning across schools and districts.

Implications for Research

The research on how high-poverty schools with high percentages of students of color

become high performing, while growing, continues to be limited. With thousands of

underperforming schools relegated primarily to urban areas, more research must be conducted to

ensure that the hundreds of thousands of students these schools serve will be prepared for

college, career, and civic responsibility. There are two specific areas for consideration for future

204

research: (a) sustainability of change within the current accountability system(s) and (b) taking

school turnaround to scale.

Even when schools make substantial progress in increasing student achievement, they are

faced with the daunting task of sustaining this achievement in an environment of constantly

changing leadership at the school and district levels and diminishing fiscal resources.

Sustainability of change requires additional study. Fullan contended,

Where schools or districts have been turned around, two serious problems are apparent.

First, in spite of the tremendous effort to accomplish the turnaround, the gains can be

undone when one or two key leaders leave or when the pressure is off. The progress is

real but not deep. The second problem is that improvement strategies tend to be

instituted in only a small proportion of schools and cannot be replicated on a large scale.

(Fullan, 2000, p. 80)

Effective schools research is limited and represents a fairly new area of improving large

numbers of schools in the same system (Fullan, 2000). McGee pointed out that “it is important

to note, that despite national study, policy recommendations and funding, education—and by

extension closing the achievement gap—is still a state and local responsibility” (McGee, 2004, p.

30). Successful districts are collaborative but need critical external support to adopt research-

based strategies for creating effective schools, as well as detailed information and guidance

regarding what it takes to turn around a failing school; it is recommended that states and districts

act as greater support systems for schools by disseminating research findings on school reform

methods in formats that are useful and practical to school staff (U.S. Department of Education,

2001). More recent research on school turnaround, as compiled by Miller and Brown has

suggested that “school turnaround is possible in the presences of a concerted strategy that

205

incorporates evidenced-based best practices” (Miller & Brown, 2015, p. 10). More conclusive

studies on the evidence-based practices, particularly related to governance and staffing, are

necessary. Then the recommendations, combined as a viable set of actions, might result in the

meaningful turnaround of chronically underperforming schools.

Summary and Conclusion

High-poverty elementary schools with high percentages of students of color utilized

varied organizational structures, academic and support structures, and parent–family engagement

structures and processes to become high performing. The schools studied did not employ the

same specific structures, processes, and practices to improve; however, they did ensure that

students received academic supports during and outside the school day. These schools also

provided structures to communicate more effectively with parents and to ensure that parents and

family members could assist in their children’s education. These structures, designed and

offered to parents, were a combination of school-based supports and supports offered by the

school district or community organizations.

The schools utilized formal and informal collaborative structures to engage in high-level

instructional planning and to address instructional strategies and student academic performance.

Data-driven decision making was key to the design of interventions for struggling students,

organization of the school day and academic programming, use of staff, and implementation of

differentiated instructional practices. The differentiated instructional structures and practices

were varied but included mixed-age classrooms; dual-language programming; transitional

bilingual education programs; departmentalization; and flexible use of specialized staff such as

ESL teachers, teachers of students with disabilities, and teachers of bilingual students.

206

The leadership and staff in these schools had high expectations for all students as well as

a “no-excuses” attitude. Teachers planned, taught, and re-taught until students were successful.

Principals—through critical problem-solving and building relational trust—made sure that they

created the conditions and structures and provided the resources for teachers to be successful

with every single student.

Ron Edmonds said, “Inequity in American education derives first and foremost from our

failure to educate the children of the poor” (Edmonds, 1979, p. 15). Nevertheless, the growing

body of research regarding sustainable school turnaround is promising and, if taken under serious

consideration by policymakers, legislators, educators, parents, and citizens, may dramatically

improve the nation’s economic competitiveness, its standing as a leading democracy, and most

importantly, the life outcomes of the millions of students that the nation’s schools serve.

207

REFERENCES

Ahearn, C., & Nalley, D. (Eds.). (2000). The U.S. Department of Education’s improving

America’s schools summer institute 2000 proceedings: Strategies for turning around low

performing schools. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED453568)

Ahn, T., & Vigdor, J. (2104, August). The impact of No Child Left Behind’s accountability

sanctions on school performance: Regression discontinuity evidence from North

Carolina. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 20511. Retrieved from

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20511

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2011). Graduation by the numbers: Putting data to work for

student success. Education Week, 29(34).

Alliance for Excellent Education, (2012a). Culture shift: Teaching in a learning-centered

environment powered by digital learning. Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org/files/

CultureShift.pdf

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2012b). The Nation’s schools are stepping up to higher

standards. Retrieved from www.all4ed.org/steppingup.pdf

Alston, J. A. (2004). The many faces of American schooling: Effective schools research and

border-crossing in the 21st century. American Secondary Education, 32, 79-93.

Austin, G. R., & Garber, H. (Eds.). (2014). Research on exemplary schools. Waltham, MA:

Academic Press.

Barth, P., Haycock, K., Jackson, H., Mora, K., Ruiz, P., Robinson, S., & Wilkins, A. (1999).

Dispelling the myth: High poverty schools exceeding expectations. Washington, DC:

Education Trust.

Bell, J. A. (2001). High-performing, high-poverty schools. Leadership, 31(1), 8-11.

Berends, M., Kirby, S. N., Naftel, S., & McKelvey, C. (2001). Implementation and performance

in new American schools: Three years into scale-up. (No. MR-1145). Santa Monica, CA:

RAND Corporation.

Berry, B., Johnson, D., & Montgomery, D. (2005). The power of teacher leadership. Educational

Leadership, 62(5), 56.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to

theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Brinson, D., Kowal, J., Hassel, B. C., Rhim, L. M., & Valsing, E. (2008). School turnarounds:

Actions and results. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation and Improvement.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20511

http://www.all4ed.org/files/%20CultureShift.pdf

http://www.all4ed.org/files/%20CultureShift.pdf

http://www.all4ed.org/steppingup.pdf

208

Britton, E., Paine, L., Pimm, D., & Raizen, S. (Eds.). (2003). Comprehensive teacher induction:

Systems for early career learning. San Francisco, CA: Kluwer Academic Publishers and

WestEd.

Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn.

Educational Leadership, 45(2), 40-48.

Bryk, A. S. & Schneider, B. (2003, March). Trust in schools: A core resource for school

reform. Creating Caring Schools, 60, 40-45.

Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., & Allensworth, E. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement:

Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Carlson, D., Borman, G. D., & Robinson, M. (2011). A multistate district-level cluster

randomized trial of the impact of data-driven reform on reading and mathematics

achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), 378-398.

Carter, S. C. (2000). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing, high-poverty schools.

Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED440170)

Center for Collaborative Education. (2000). Turning points. Transforming middle schools:

School structures that support learning and collaboration. Boston MA: Author.

Chrisman, V. (2005). How schools sustain success. Educational Leadership, 62, 16-20.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher

learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 249-305.

Cooper, H. M. (1979). Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher expectation communication

and performance influence. Review of Educational Research, 49(3), 389-410.

Council of the Great City Schools. (2015). School improvement grants: Progress report from

America’s great city schools. Retrieved from

http://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/87/SIG%20Report%20201

5.pdf

Cuttance, P. (1998). Quality assurance reviews as a catalyst for school improvement in Australia.

In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan., & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International

handbook of educational change, Part II (pp. 1135-1162). Dordrecht, Netherlands:

Kluwer Publishers.

Daggett, W. R. (President, International Center for Leadership in Education). (2014, June).

Successful schools: From research to action plans. Presented at Model Schools

Conference, Orlando, FL.

http://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/87/SIG%20Report%202015.pdf

http://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/87/SIG%20Report%202015.pdf

209

Danielson, C. (1996). Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice. Alexandria,

VA: ASCD.

Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M., & Cohen, C. (2009). Preparing

school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development

programs – Final report. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Education Research Institute.

Datnow, A., Park, V., & Kennedy-Lewis, B. (2013). Affordances and constraints in the context

of teacher collaboration for the purpose of data use. Journal of Educational

Administration, 51(3), 341-362.

Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing

school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los Angeles, CA:

University of Southern California, Center on educational Governance.

Dee, T. (2012, April). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 stimulus. (No. w17990).

Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

DePaul, A. (2000). Survival guide for new teachers: How new teachers can work effectively with

veteran teachers, parents, principals, and teacher educators. Jessup, MD: U.S.

Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Diamond, J., & Spillane, J. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools:

Challenging or reproducing inequality? The Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145-

1176.

DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”? Educational Leadership,

61(8), 6.

DuFour, R. (2011). Work together: But only if you want to. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 57-61.

Duke, D. (1987). School leadership and instructional improvement. New York, NY: Random

House.

Duke, D. (2006). What we know and don’t know about improving low-performing schools. Phi

Delta Kappan, 87, 728-734.

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

Elliott, S. N., & Clifford, M. (2014). Principal assessment: Leadership behaviors known to

influence schools and the learning of all students. Retrieved from

http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/literature-syntheses/

Eubanks, E. E., & Levine, D. U. (1983). A first look at effective schools projects in New York

City and Milwaukee. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(10), 697-702.

http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/literature-syntheses/

210

Friedrich, A., Flunger, B., Nagengast, B., Jonkmann, K., & Trautwein, U. (2015). Pygmalion

effects in the classroom: Teacher expectancy effects on students' math achievement.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 1-12.

Fryer, R. G. (2014). Injecting charter school best practices into traditional public schools:

Evidence from field experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(3), 1355-

1407.

Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of educational reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 581-584.

Fullan, M. (2001). How to make a turnaround succeed. Journal of Staff Development, 22, 80.

Fullan, M. (2002a). Leadership and sustainability. Principal Leadership, 3, 14-17.

Fullan, M. (2002b). Moral purpose writ large. School Administrator, 59, 14-16.

Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. London, UK: Routledge Falmer.

Fullan, M. (2004). New lessons for district-wide reform. Educational Leadership, 61, 42-46.

Fullan, M. (2005). Turnaround leadership. The Educational Forum, 69, 174-181.

Fullan, M. (2007a). Change the terms for teacher learning. Journal of Staff Development, 28(3),

35-36.

Fullan, M. (2007b). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B. A., Saunders, W. M., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). Moving the learning

of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry

teams. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 537-553.

Garet, M., Porter, A., Desmoine, L., Birman, B., & Kwang, S. K. (2001). What makes

professional development effective? American Educational Research Journal, 38(4),

915-946.

Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between

teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7),

807-818.

Goddard, Y., Goddard, R., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical

investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in

public elementary schools. The Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877-896.

Goertz, M. E., Floden, R. E., & O’Day, J. A. (1996). Studies of education reform: Systemic

reform (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

211

Goldhaber, D. (2002). The mystery of good teaching: Surveying the evidence on student

achievement and teachers’ characteristics. Education Next, 2(1), 50-55.

Goldhaber, D., Brewer, D. J., & Anderson, D. (1999). A three-way error components analysis

of educational productivity. Education Economics, 7(3), 199-208.

Goodwin, B. (2011). Simply better: Doing what matters most to challenge the odds for student

success. Denver, CO: ASCD.

Grangeat, M., & Gray, P. (2007). Factors influencing teachers’ professional competence

development. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 59(4), 485-501.

Guskey, T. R. (1982). The effects of change in instructional effectiveness on the relationship of

teacher expectations and student achievement. The Journal of Educational Research,

75(6), 345-349.

Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and

transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33, 330-351.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school

effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157-191.

Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1998). Unseen forces: The impact of social culture on school

leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 73, 126-151.

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1987). Assessing and developing principal instructional leadership.

Educational Leadership, 54-61.

Hansen, M. (2013, February). Investigating the role of human resources in school turnaround: A

decomposition of improving schools in two states. Working Paper 89. Calder.

Washington, DC: American Institutes of Research.

Hanushek, E. A. (1992). The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal of Political

Economy 100(1), 84-117.

Hargreaves, D. H. (1994). The new professionalism: The synthesis of professional and

institutional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 423-438.

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every

school. New York, NY: Teachers College.

Harris, D. N. (2006a). Ending the blame game on educational inequity: A study of “high flying”

schools and NCLB. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University, Education Policy Studies

Laboratory.

212

Harris, D. N. (2006b). High flying schools, student disadvantage and the logic of NCLB.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Achievement Gap Initiative.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003, Spring). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age

3. American Educator, 4, 4-10.

Hattie, J., & Reeves, D. (2011). Activate: A leader’s guide to people, practices, and processes.

Englewood, CO: Lead and Learn Press.

Hattie, J. A., Clinton, J., Thompson, M., & Schmidt-Davies, H. (1995). Identifying highly

accomplished teachers: A validation study. Greensboro, NC: Center for Educational

Research and Evaluation, University of North Carolina.

Haycock, K. (2001). Helping all students achieve: Closing the achievement gap. Educational

Leadership, 58(6), 6-11.

Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., Redding, S., & Darwin, M. (2008).

Turning around chronically low performing schools: A practice guide. Retrieved from

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides

Herman, R., & Huberman, M. (2012, Fall). Differences in the policies, programs, and practices

(PPPs) and combination of PPPs across turnaround, moderately improving, and not

improving schools. Paper presented at the research conference of the Society for

Research on Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC.

Horng, E. & Loeb, S. (2010, November). New thinking about instructional leadership. Phi

Delta Kappan, 66-69.

Huffman, J. B., Hipp, K. A., Pankake, A. M., & Moller, G. (2014). Professional learning

communities: Leadership, purposeful decision making, and job-embedded staff

development. Journal of School Leadership, 11(5), 448-463.

Institute for Learning. (2015). Principles of learning. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.

Retrieved from http://ifl.pitt.edu/index.php/educator_resources/principles_of_learning

Irvine, J. J. (1990). Black students and school failure. Policies, practices, and prescriptions.

Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Johnson Jr., J. F., & Asera, R. (1999). Hope for urban education: A study of nine high-

performing, high-poverty urban elementary schools. Retrieved from ERIC database.

(ED438362)

Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. (2003). Pursuing a sense of success: New teachers explain their

career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581-617.

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides

http://ifl.pitt.edu/index.php/educator_resources/principles_of_learning

213

Jordan, W. J., & Cooper, R. (2001). Racial and cultural issues related to comprehensive school

reform: The case of African-American males. Retrieved from ERIC database.

(ED452315)

Jussim, L., Eccles, J., & Madon, S. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and teacher

expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. Advances

in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 281-388.

Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns

and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 9(2), 131-155.

Kannapel, P. J., Clements, S. K., Taylor, D., & Hibpshman, T. (2005). Inside the black box of

high-performing high-poverty schools. A report from the Prichard Committee for

Academic Excellence. Lexington, KY: Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.

Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2008). Estimating teacher impacts on student achievement: An

experimental evaluation. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Kotter, J. P. (1995, March-April). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard

Business Review OnPoint, 1-10.

Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59, 37-40.

Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Lambert, L. (2005). Leadership for lasting reform. Educational Leadership, 62, 62-65.

Lambert, L. (2006). Lasting leadership: A study of high leadership capacity schools. The

Educational Forum, 70, 238-254.

Lampert, M., & Graziani, F. (2009). Instructional activities as a tool for teachers’ and teacher

educators’ learning. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 491-509.

Learning Point Associates. (2010, December). What experience from the field tells us about

school leadership and turnaround (A District and School Improvement Thought Paper).

Naperville, IL: Author. Retrieved from

www.learningpt.org/pdfs/leadership_turnaround_schools.pdf

Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in

achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68(4), 241-270.

Lee, V. E., Smith, J. B., & Croninger, R. G. (1997). How high school organization influences the

equitable distribution of learning in mathematics and science. Sociology of Education,

70(2), 128-150.

http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/leadership_turnaround_schools.pdf

214

Lein, L., Johnson, J. F., & Ragland, M. (1997). Successful Texas school-wide programs:

Research study results, school profiles, voices of practitioners and parents. Austin, TX:

Charles A. Dana Center, the University of Texas at Austin.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences

student learning. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED485932)

Levine, D. U., Levine, R. F., & Eubanks, E. E. (1984). Characteristics of effective inner-city

intermediate schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 707-711.

Levine, D. U., Levine, R. F., & Eubanks, E. E. (1985). Successful implementation of instruction

at inner-city schools. Journal of Negro Education, 54, 313-332.

Lezotte, L. W. (1996). Learning for all: What will it take? The Educational Forum, 60, 238-243.

Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers

College Record, 105(6), 913-945.

Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010, July). Investigating the

links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. St. Paul, MN:

University of Minnesota. Retrieved from

http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofF

ocus/EducationLeadershhip/Documents/Learning-from-Leadership-Investigating-Links-

Final-Report.pdf

Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional learning community affect the

classroom? Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American

Journal of Education, 106(4), 532-575.

Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in

restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757-798.

Marzano, R. J. (2001). A new era of school reform: Going where the research takes us. Aurora,

CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From

research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

215

Mass Insight Education & Research Institute. (2007). The turnaround challenge: Why America’s

best opportunity to dramatically improve student achievement lies in our worst

performing schools. Retrieved from

http://www.massinsight.org/publications/turnaround/50/file/1/pubs/2010/04/15/TheTurna

roundChallenge_ExecSumm.pdf

May, H., & Supovitz, J. A. (2011). The scope of principal efforts to improve instruction.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 332-352.

McGee, G. W. (2003, April). Closing Illinois’ achievement gap: Lessons from the “golden

spike” high-poverty high-performing schools. Paper presented at the American

Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.

McGee, G. W. (2004). Closing Illinois’ achievement gap: Lessons from the “golden spike”

high-poverty high-performing schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk.

9(2), 97-125.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning

communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study application in education. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, T. D., & Brown, C. (2015). Dramatic action, dramatic improvement. Washington, DC:

Center for American Progress.

Moller, S., Mickelson, R. A., Stearns, E., Banerjee, N., & Bottia, M. C. (2013). Collective

pedagogical teacher culture and mathematics achievement: Differences by race, ethnicity,

and socioeconomic status. Sociology of Education, 86(2), 174-194.

Moolenaar, N. M., Sleegers, P. J., & Daly, A. J. (2012). Teaming up: Linking collaboration

networks, collective efficacy, and student achievement. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 28(2), 251-262.

Murphy, J. (1990). Principal instructional leadership. In P. W. Thurston & L. S. Lotto (Eds.),

Advances in educational administration (Vol. 1 Pt. B). Changing perspectives on the

school (pp. 163-200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., Weil, M., & Mitman, A. (1984). Instructional leadership: A conceptual

framework. The Education Digest, 50, 28-31.

Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., Weil, M., & Mitman, A. (1985). School effectiveness: A conceptual

framework. The Educational Forum, 49, 361-374.

http://www.massinsight.org/publications/turnaround/50/file/1/pubs/2010/04/15/TheTurnaroundChallenge_ExecSumm.pdf

http://www.massinsight.org/publications/turnaround/50/file/1/pubs/2010/04/15/TheTurnaroundChallenge_ExecSumm.pdf

216

Nelson, S. W., & Guerra, P. L. (2013). Educator beliefs and cultural knowledge implications for

school improvement efforts. Educational Administration Quarterly. doi:

10.1177/0013161X13488595.

Nelson, T. H. (2009). Teachers’ collaborative inquiry and professional growth: Should we be

optimistic? Science Education, 93(3), 548-580.

New Leaders for New Schools. (2009). Principal effectiveness: A new principalship to drive

student achievement, teacher effectiveness and school turnarounds. (ED532064)

Retrieved from http://www.newleaders.org

Newmann, F. M., King, M. B., & Youngs, P. (2000). Professional development that addresses

school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. American Journal of Education,

108, 259-299.

Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for

intellectual quality. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Perez, S. A. (2000). An ethic of caring in teaching culturally diverse students. Education, 121(1),

102.

Peterson, K. D. (1996) Planning schoolwide projects. Reform Talk, 7, 1-2.

Phillips, J. (2003). Powerful learning: Creating learning communities in urban school reform.

Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(3), 240-258.

Picucci, A. C., Brownson, A., Kahlert, R., & Sobel, A. (2002). Driven to succeed: High-

performing, high-poverty, turnaround middle schools. Volume I: Cross-case analysis of

high-performing, high-poverty, turnaround middle schools. Austin, TX: University of

Texas at Austin.

Platt, A., Tripp, C. E., Fraser, R. F., Warnock, J. R. & Curtis, R. E. (2008). Skillful leader II:

Confronting conditions that undermine learning. Acton, MA: Ready About Press.

Preston, C., Goldring, E., Guthrie, J., & Ramsey, R. (2012, June). Conceptualizing essential

components of effective high schools. Paper presented at the National Conference on

Achieving Success at Scale: Research in Scaling up Effective Schools, Nashville, TN.

Reeves, D. B. (2003). High performance in high poverty schools: 90/90/90 and beyond.

Center for Performance Assessment, 1-20.

Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability in action. Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.

Reeves, D. (2007). New ways to hire educators. Educational Leadership, 64(8), 83-84.

http://www.newleaders.org/

217

Robbins, P., & Alvy, H. B. (2014). The principal’s companion: Strategies to lead schools for

student and teacher success (4th

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student

outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. F. (1968). Teacher expectations for the disadvantaged. Scientific

American, 218(4), 19-23.

Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to

organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. School

Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 179-199.

Rowan, B., Chiang, F. S., & Miller, R. J. (1997). Using research on employees’ performance to

study the effects of teachers on students’ achievement. Sociology of Education, 70, 256-

284.

Rubie-Davies, C. (2007). Classroom interactions: Exploring the practices of high- and low-

expectation teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 289-306.

Rubie-Davies, C., Hattie, J., & Hamilton, R. (2006). Expecting the best for students: Teacher

expectations and academic outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3),

429-444.

Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future

student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, Value-Added

Research and Assessment Center.

Saunders, W. M., Goldenberg, C. N., & Gallimore, R. (2009). Increasing achievement by

focusing grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective, quasi-

experimental study of Title I schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4),

1006-1033.

Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education

and the social sciences (2nd

ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Smith, T. M. (1995). The educational progress of Black students. Findings from the condition of

education 1994. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED38519)

Steiner, L. & Hassel, E. A. (Public Impact). (2011). Using competencies to improve school

turnaround principal success. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia, Darden/Curry

Partnership for Leaders in Education. Retrieved from www.DardenCurry.org

Strahan, D. (2003). Promoting a collaborative professional culture in three elementary schools

that have beaten the odds. The Elementary School Journal, 104(2), 127-146.

http://www.dardencurry.org/

218

Supovitz, J. A. (2002). Developing communities of instructional practice. Teachers College

Record, 104(8), 1591-1626.

Szczesiul, S., & Huizenga, J. (2014). The burden of leadership: Exploring the principal’s role

in teacher collaboration. Improving Schools, 17(2), 176-191.

Timperley, H. (2008). Teacher professional learning and development. International Academy

of Education, 15(1), 61-74.

Timperley, H. S., & Phillips, G. (2003). Changing and sustaining teachers’ expectations through

professional development in literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 627-641.

Turner, J. C., Christensen, A., & Meyer, D. K. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs about student learning

and motivation. In L. J. Saha & A. G. Dworkin (Eds.), The new international handbook

of teachers and teaching (Vol. 1). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of school reform.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). School improvement report: Executive order on actions

for turning around low-performing schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education, Office of the Under Secretary and Office of Elementary and Secondary

Education.

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional

learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 24(1), 80-91.

Wang, M. C., & Wong, K. K. (Eds.). (1997). Implementing school reform: Practice and policy

imperatives. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED433391)

Weinstein, R. (2002). Reaching higher: The power of expectations in schooling. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Weinstein, R. S., Madison, S. M., & Kuklinski, M. R. (1995). Raising expectations in schooling:

Obstacles and opportunities for change. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1),

121-159.

Wong, J. (2004). Induction programs that keep new teachers teaching and improving. NASSP

Bulletin, 88(638), 41-58.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

219

APPENDICES

Participant Recruitment Letter

Participant Recruitment Script

Dissertation Proposal Abstract

Interview Protocol for Principals

Interview Protocol for Teachers

Research Participant Information and Consent Form

220

APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT LETTER

2011

Dear (Insert administrator, teacher or parent name here),

I am currently a doctoral candidate in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy

Analysis at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I am working on a dissertation under the

guidance of Dr. Kent Peterson.

My interest surrounds the organizational processes utilized by high-poverty, high-minority

elementary schools to become high performing. Your school has been selected because it is: (1)

“high minority” (more than 50 percent of students are African American and/or Latino); (2)

“high poverty” (more than 50 percent of students receive free or reduced lunch); and (3) is “high

performing” (above the 67th

percentile in average state standardized test scores). Your school is

even more unique in that it demonstrated performance above the 67th

percentile in average state

standardized test scores in reading and math, in at least two grade levels, and for at least two

consecutive years. Only 0.3% of the schools in the nation have accomplished such standing.

I will call you soon to discuss your interest in arranging individual and focus group interviews

that will be conducted over a two-three day period during spring 2011. Each of the interviews

will be about 60-90 minutes in length. Your name and the name of your school will not be

identified in my study. To assure the privacy of all involved; under no circumstances will I

reveal the identity of the participants.

I would be grateful for your participation and support. Your participation is essential to the

success of this study. However, you may choose to decline participation. If you do choose to be

involved, I will provide you with a description of the results as well as a copy of the dissertation

once the study is complete.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at 770-500-0547 or by email at

[email protected]. Thank you very much for your time.

In the Interest of Children,

Sharon L. Contreras

mailto:[email protected]

221

APPENDIX B: PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT SCRIPT

Hello, my name is Sharon Contreras and I am the Chief Academic Officer for the Providence

School Department. I am also a doctoral candidate in the Department of Educational Leadership

and Policy Analysis at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I am calling to speak with you

about your very unique school. I have a list of elementary schools in the New England area that

are (1) “high minority” (more than 50 percent of students are African American and/or Latino);

(2) “high poverty” (more than 50 percent of students receive free or reduced lunch); and (3)

“high performing” (above the 67th

percentile in average state standardized test scores). High-

performing means that your school demonstrated performance above the 67th

percentile in

average state standardized test scores in reading and math, at a minimum of two grade levels, and

for at least two consecutive years.

Is it accurate that your school meets the aforementioned criteria? (If yes, then…)

Congratulations! Were you the supervising administrator/principal/a teacher/a parent at the

school before the school was high-performing? (If yes, then…)

Have you been the supervising administrator/principal/a teacher/a parent during the entire period

that your elementary school improved to become high performing? (If yes, then…)

Did you know that only 0.3 % of the elementary schools in the nation have accomplished what

your school has accomplished in respect to high academic achievement? Would you be

interested in talking more about the research to determine if you are interested in participating in

the study? (If yes, then…)

Do you have time to talk now, or would it be possible to set up another telephone conversation?

A recent study by Douglas Harris (2006) describes only 0.3% of America’s elementary and

middle schools serving predominantly poor, minority children as high performing. The

consequences of under-educating masses of American children will have a devastating effect on

our nation’s standing in a global economy and as a true democracy. Consequently, it is

imperative to seek out and learn from schools that are successful in realizing high-achievement

for all students. In this study, I will explore the organizational processes used in high-minority,

high-poverty elementary schools to become high performing. Your participation is crucial for

understanding more about these schools.

Let me tell you a little bit more about what your involvement would entail.

1. This study is for the completion of the requirements for my Ph.D.

2. I will maintain confidentiality. Your identity or that of your school will not be shared.

3. I will interview you individually/within a focus group for 60-90 minutes during spring

2007. I may have to contact you again via telephone to clarify statements made during

the interview/focus group.

4. I may correspond with you to seek SIP documents, PTA documents, grade-level meeting

documents or any other documents that shed light on the processes used to improve your

school.

222

5. I will provide you with the conclusions of the study so that you may review them to

clarify their accuracy.

6. Upon your request, I will provide you a copy of my final dissertation.

Do you have any questions or concerns regarding the study?

Are you interested in becoming a participant in this study? (If yes, then…)

May we schedule a time for our first interview?

223

APPENDIX C: DISSERTATION PROPOSAL ABSTRACT

The University of Wisconsin – Madison

Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis

Sharon L. Contreras

[email protected]

[email protected]

What are the organizational processes used in high-minority, high-poverty elementary schools to

become high performing?

Advisor:

Kent D. Peterson

Committee:

Jerlando F.L. Jackson

Eric M. Camburn

November 29, 2006

Dissertation Proposal Abstract

Nearly thirty years ago, educator Ron Edmonds (1979) proclaimed: “Inequity in American

education derives first and foremost from our failure to educate children of the poor” (15).

Despite decades of educational reform, innovation and federal legislation, poor, African-

American and Latino children lag dramatically behind their white peers in academic

achievement. A recent study by Douglas Harris (2006) describes only 0.3% of America’s

elementary and middle schools serving predominantly poor, children of color as high

performing. The consequences of under-educating masses of American children will have a

devastating effect on our nation’s standing in a global economy and as a true democracy.

Consequently, it is imperative to seek out and learn from schools that are successful in realizing

high-achievement for all students. In this study, I will explore the organizational processes used

in high-minority, high-poverty elementary schools to become high performing.

This study will be a qualitative, multi-site case study. Yin (2003) asserts that the multi-site case

study has some distinct advantages over a single-site case study. Most obvious is that “the

evidence from multiple cases is often considered more compelling, and the overall study is

therefore regarded as being more robust” (p.46). Each of the three cases will provide insight into

the larger question of how high-poverty, high-minority elementary schools become high

performing. This is the purpose of using a multi-site case study design; through the identification

of themes across the cases, a theory can be developed (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Merriam, 1988).

The conceptual framework for this study is developed from the theoretical work on effective

schools (Edmonds, 1979; Levine, Levine & Eubanks, 1984, 1985; and Lezotte, 1996);



224

professional development for school improvement with the primary goal being improvement in

teaching and learning (Guskey, 1994; Guskey & Sparks, 1996; and Newmann, 2006); and

principal instructional leadership supported by the literature on change and transformational

leadership (Duke, 1987, 2006; Fullan, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005; Hallinger, 1992, 2003;

Hallinger, Bickman & Davis, 2006; Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998; Hallinger & Leithwood,

1998; Hallinger & Murphy, 1983, 1986, 1987; Lambert, 2002, 2005, 2006; Leithwood, et al.,

2004; Murphy, 1990 and Murphy, et al., 1984, 1985).

Schools for this study will be identified by utilizing the National Longitudinal School-Level

Achievement Database (NLSLSASD) developed by the U.S. Department of Education. The

criteria selected for this study requires that each school: (1) is “high minority” (more than 50

percent of students are African American and/or Latino); (2) is “high poverty” (more than 50

percent of students receive free or reduced lunch); and (3) is “high performing” (above the 67th

percentile in average state standardized test scores). High-performing schools should produce

high achievement over time and in multiple grade levels. Consequently, this study will examine

high-poverty, high-minority elementary schools that meet the 50 percent plus criteria for poverty

and race, however, these schools should demonstrate performance above the 67th

percentile in

average state standardized test scores in reading and math, at a minimum of two grade levels, and

for at least two consecutive years.

In short, data collection is about asking, watching, and reviewing. Yin (2003) points out that

using multiple sources of evidence is the primary principle of data collection, particularly when

conducting case studies. I will commence the data collection process for this study with the

review of archival documents: professional development plans, school improvement plans,

existing surveys and other ancillary documents. Review of archival data will contribute to the

development of interview questions. The primary method of data collection for this study will be

through interviews. I will conduct individual and/or focus group interviews with the principal,

key parents, key teachers and a central office administrator. Highly structured interview

questions will be used to gather demographic data regarding the informants. Semi-structured

open-ended questions, however, will make up the core of the interview. Finally, Merriam (1998)

advises that “some time is spent in an unstructured mode so that fresh insights and new

information can emerge” (p.75).

The focus of this study is relatively new in that there have been multiple studies, and even

several meta-analyses, conducted about the characteristics of high performing schools. However,

there is much to learn about how improvement actually happens. Findings regarding how high-

minority, high-poverty schools improve may provide much needed guidance to schools and

districts about the process of developing a high-performing, high-minority, high-poverty

elementary school. Understanding the organizational processes necessary for high performance

may save educators, parents and policymakers critical time and limited funds. Ultimately, new

insights have the potential of saving the lives of the millions of poor, children of color that our

nation’s schools serve.

225

APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR PRINCIPALS

Exploring Organizational Processes to Improve Student Achievement

Interview Protocol for Principals

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

1. How long have you been a principal at this school?

2. How long, if ever, had you been a principal at other schools?

3. How long were you a teacher and at which grade level/subjects?

4. How long have you worked in this school district?

5. How many years in total have you been in the field of education?

6. Did you have another career before coming into the field of education?

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP

1. How do you work with others (i.e., teachers, support staff, other school administrators) to

improve student learning?

2. Were there obstacles in the school to professional collaboration?

3. I noticed that your school has improved; what were the approaches that you took?

4. How have you had to be flexible in your efforts to improve student achievement?

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

Change

5. What changes have occurred in the school to impact successful achievement for all students?

Planning

6. How is instruction planned and implemented so that students improve academically?

7. What process is used to determine a plan for reaching learning and instruction targets across

the academic year?

226

Instructional Strategies/Intervention

8. How do you monitor instructional activity within the classroom?

9. How do you ensure that teachers are making the most of instructional time (i.e., bell-to-bell

teaching)?

10. What instructional strategies is the school using to maximize/increase student learning?

11. How are interventions identified and selected?

Assessment

12. What role does assessment play in your school?

13. How do you monitor student progress?

Use of Data

14. What tools and information do you use to determine a student’s level of achievement?

15. What data do you use on a regular basis?

16. What process do you use to move from understanding the data to impacting instruction?

Resources and Support

17. What resources within your school do you most frequently rely upon to support your efforts

to improve student achievement?

Structures

18. What is the structure of your instructional day or week?

19. What type of additional learning opportunities, including those outside of the school day, are

provided to support student achievement?

Professional Development

20. What professional development did you find necessary to improve instructional

effectiveness?

227

21. How is professional development organized for teachers within the building?

22. To what extent has teacher participation in professional development contributed to the

school’s improvement?

Parent Engagement

23. What is the role of parents in your school?

DISTRICT CONTEXT

District Support

24. How does your District support principals in their efforts to improve student achievement?

25. How does the District support teachers in their efforts to improve student achievement?

Accountability

26. How does the district hold your school accountable for student results/improvement?

27. Are accountability measures consistent across the District?

Hiring/Staffing

28. How are staffing decisions made at your school?

29. Are hiring/staffing practices consistent across the District?

30. What barriers, if any, do hiring and staffing decisions have in your school’s ability to

continue to impact student achievement?

228

APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR TEACHERS

Exploring Organizational Processes to Improve Student Achievement

Interview Protocol for Teachers

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

1. How long have you been a teacher at this school?

2. How long, if ever, had you been a teacher at other schools?

3. At which grade level and/or what subjects do you teach at this school?

4. How long have you worked in this school district?

5. How many years in total have you been in the field of education?

6. Did you have another career before coming into the field of education?

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP

1. How does your principal encourage work with others (i.e., other teachers, support staff, etc.)

to improve student learning?

2. Were there obstacles in the school to professional collaboration?

3. I noticed that your school has improved; what were the approaches that the principal took to

improve the school?

4. How does your principal support teachers in your efforts to improve student achievement?

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

Change

5. What changes have occurred in the school to impact successful achievement for all students?

6. How have you had to be flexible in your efforts to improve student achievement?

Planning

7. What type of school improvement does your school engage in?

229

8. How is instruction planned and implemented so that students improve academically?

9. What process is used to determine a plan for reaching learning and instruction targets across

the academic year?

Instructional Strategies/Intervention

10. How is instructional activity monitored within the classroom?

11. How do teachers ensure that they are making the most of instructional time (i.e., bell-to-bell

teaching)?

12. What instructional strategies is the school using to maximize/increase student learning?

13. How are interventions identified and selected?

Assessment

14. What role does assessment play in teachers’ efforts to improve student learning?

15. How do teachers in your school monitor student progress?

Use of Data

16. What tools and information do teachers in your school use to determine a student’s level of

achievement?

17. What data do teachers in your school use on a regular basis?

18. What process do teachers in your school use to move from understanding the data to

impacting instruction?

Resources and Support

19. What resources within your school do teachers most frequently rely upon to support efforts

to improve student achievement?

Structures

20. What is the structure of your instructional day or week?

230

21. What types of additional learning opportunities, including those outside of the school day,

are provided to support student achievement?

Professional Development

22. What professional development did you find necessary to improve instructional

effectiveness?

23. How is professional development organized for teachers within the building?

24. To what extent has teacher participation in professional development contributed to the

school’s improvement?

Parent Engagement

25. What is the role of parents in your school?

DISTRICT CONTEXT

District Support

26. How does the District support teachers in their efforts to improve student achievement?

Accountability

27. How does the District hold your school accountable for student results/improvement?

28. Are accountability measures consistent across the District?

Hiring/Staffing

29. How are staffing decisions made at your school?

30. Are hiring/staffing practices consistent across the District?

31. What barriers, if any, do hiring and staffing decisions have in your school’s ability to

continue to impact student achievement?

231

APPENDIX F: RESEARCH PARTICIPANT INFORMATION AND CONSENT FORM

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON

Research Participant Information and Consent Form

Title of the Study: Organizational processes used in high-minority, high-poverty elementary and

middle schools to become high performing.

Principal Investigator: Kent D Peterson (phone: 608-263-2720) (email:

[email protected])

Graduate Student Researcher: Sharon L Contreras (phone: 770-500-0547) (email:

[email protected])

DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH

You are invited to participate in a research study about the organizational processes used in high-

minority, high-poverty elementary and middle schools to become high performing.

You have been asked to participate because you were a teacher or principal in a school that is:

(1) “high minority” (more than 50 percent of students are African American and/or Latino); (2)

“high poverty” (more than 50% of the students receive free or reduced lunch); and (3) is high

performing (more than 90% of the students meet or exceed state standards measured by your

state’s high-stakes assessment). Your school is even more unique in that it demonstrated high

levels of performance in reading and math, in at least two grade levels, and for at least two

consecutive years. Very few schools in the nation have accomplished such standing.

The purpose of the research is to seek out and learn from schools that are successful in realizing

high-achievement for all students.

This study will include teachers who taught in these schools, and the principals who led these

schools during the period of improvement.

Interviews will be conducted at the school site or at a site of your choosing.

You will be digitally audio recorded during your participation in this research. The principal

investigator and the researcher will review audio recordings to ensure accuracy in interpretation

of participant responses. The recordings will only be used to inform the study outlined above.

The recordings will be kept for three years before they are destroyed.

WHAT WILL MY PARTICIPATION INVOLVE?

If you decide to participate in this research, you will be asked to participate in an interview.

Your participation will last approximately 120 minutes for the first session and may require an

additional sixty-minute session. In all, the interview will require three hours in total.

ARE THERE ANY RISKS TO ME?

While there is the possibility of the participant’s supervisor identifying a participant through

their responses or participants experiencing minor stress or discomfort by engaging in interview

and document review processes, all efforts have been taken to minimize these.

ARE THERE ANY BENEFITS TO ME?

It is expected that the results of the study will inform your ongoing professional practices with

respect to improving educational outcomes for students of color living in poverty. There are no

direct benefits for participating in this research.



232

HOW WILL MY CONFIDENTIALITY BE PROTECTED?

Participation in this study is confidential. Neither your name nor any other identifiable

information will be recorded with any data collected from you or your school. When reporting

findings, only general descriptions will be used. Pseudonyms will be used, as well.

If you participate in this study, direct quotes from participants may be used, but they will not be

attributed to participants by name, school, or other identifiable information. If you agree to

allow the researcher to quote you in publications, please initial the statement at the bottom of this

form.

WHOM SHOULD I CONTACT IF I HAVE QUESTIONS?

You may ask any questions about the research at any time. If you have questions about the

research, you should contact the Principal Investigator Kent D Peterson at 608-263-2720. You

may also call the graduate student researcher, Sharon L Contreras at 770-500-0547.

If you are not satisfied with response of research team, have more questions, or want to talk with

someone about your rights as a research participant, you should contact the Education Research

and Social & Behavioral Science IRB Office at University of Wisconsin in Madison at 608-263-

2320.

Your participation is completely voluntary. If you decide not to participate or to withdraw from

the study, it will not affect your employment status.

Your signature indicates that you have read this consent form, had an opportunity to ask any

questions about your participation in this research and voluntarily consent to participate. You

will receive a copy of this form for your records.

Name of Participant (please print):________________________________________

______________________________________________ _________________

Signature Date

____________ I give my permission to be quoted directly in publications without using my

name.