Cotten1

Stacey Cotten

Chapter 1-3

Cotten2

Chapter I

I. Introduction

Researchers have been studying how to improve our educational school systems for decades.

Many top educational researchers have created lists of characteristics to describe effective

schools. Weather these list are known as correlates of effective schools, responsibilities of school

leaders, or best principal practices, these list have become the foundation of effective schools and

effective school leadership. Larry Lezotte and Ronald Edmonds discovered in the 1970s after

extensive research that certain school characteristics could indeed alter school improvement. In

1982, Edmonds published “Programs of School Improvement: An Overview”, where he list the

top 5 characteristics of effective schools:

1. The leadership of the principal notable for substantial attention to the quality

of instruction.

2. A pervasive and broadly understood instructional focus.

3. An orderly, safe climate conducive to teaching and learning.

4. Teacher behaviors that convey the expectation that all students are expected to

obtain at least minimum mastery.

5. The use of measures of pupil achievement as the basis for program evaluation

Later in 1991 Larry Lezotte built on the findings of Edmonds and developed what is known

today as The 7 Correlates of Effective Schools:

1. Instructional leadership.

2. Clear and focused mission.

3. Safe and orderly environment.

Cotten3

4. Climate of high expectations.

5. Frequent monitoring of student progress.

6. Positive home-school relations.

7. Opportunity to learn and student time on task.

Although very similar to Edmonds, Lezotte also included the importance of a school having a

good relationship with the home as well as student time on task. This new 7 Correlates of

Effective Schools is something that is still used today but, are these 7 Correlates still relevant in

this day and age? Can these 7 correlates be used to turn around failing schools?

Decades later, Marzano, Walters, and McNulty, (2005) and Kathleen Cotton (2003) have

developed a list of key characteristic of effective leadership/ principal behaviors that positively

affect student achievement. Marzano, Walters, and McNulty, believe that there are 21

Responsibilities of School Leaders that are essential to improve student outcome.

Leadership Responsibilities Meaning

1. Affirmation The leader recognizes and celebrates schoolaccomplishments—and acknowledges failure.

2. Change Agent The leader’s disposition to challenge the status quo.

3. Contingent Rewards The leader recognizes and rewards individual accomplishments.

4. Communication The leader establishes strong lines of communication with and between teachers and students

5. Culture The leader builds a culture that positively influences teachers, who, in turn, positively influence students.

6. Discipline The leader needs to protect teachers from issues and influences that would detract from their instructional time or focus.

7. Flexibility The leader adapts their leadership behavior to the needs of the current situation and is comfortable with dissent

Cotten4

8. Focus The leader establishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the forefront of the school’s attention.

9. Ideals/Beliefs The leader communicates and operates from strong ideals and beliefs about schooling

10. Input The leader involves teachers in the design and implementation of important decisions and policies

11. Intellectual Stimulation The leader ensures that faculty and staff are aware of the most current theories and practices regarding effective schooling and makes discussions of these a regular aspect of the school’s culture.

12. Involvement in Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

The leader is directly involved in the design and implementation of curriculum, instruction, and assessment activities at the classroom level.

13. Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and, Assessment

The leader is aware of best practices in these domains

14. Monitoring/Evaluating The leader monitors the effectiveness of school practices in terms of their impact on student achievement.

15. Optimizer The leader inspires others and is the driving force when implementing a challenging innovation

16. Order Establishes a set of standard operating procedures and routines

17. Outreach The leader is an advocate and a spokesperson for the school to all stakeholders.

18. Relationships The leader demonstrates an awareness of the personal lives of teachers and staff.

19. Resources The leader provides teachers with materials and professional development necessary for the successful execution of their job

20. Situational Awareness The leader is aware of the details and undercurrents in the running of the school and uses this information to address current and potential problems

21. Visibility The leader has contact and interacts with teachers, students, and parents

* all 21 responsibilities copied from Marzano, et al. pages 41-64

Cotten5

Cotton builds on this 21 and creates 26 Best Practice Leadership Principal Behaviors that lead to

highly effective schools. Past research has confirmed that there is a clear, significant relationship

between leadership and student success rate. Is the problem with high poverty high failing

schools their leadership? If one took a closer look at high poverty highly successful schools, will

they encompass all or most of these characteristics?

II. Problem Statement

“If you can control a man’s thinking, you don’t have to worry about his actions. If

you can determine what a man thinks you do not have to worry about what he will

do. If you can make a man believe that he is inferior, you don’t have to compel

him to seek an inferior status, he will do so without being told and if you can

make a man believe that he is justly an outcast, you don’t have to order him to the

back door, he will go to the back door on his own and if there is no back door, the

very nature of the man will demand that you build one.” ― Carter G. Woodson

This quote was written in 1933 in Dr. Carter G Woodson’s book entitled; “The Miseducation of

the Negro. The purpose of the book (which was originally part of his dissertation) was to discuss

how African Americans at the time were receiving subpar education due to lack of resources and

poor curriculum as well as to give a real constructive critique of the educational system at that

time. Unfortunately, most of those same issues that plagued African Americans back then are

now impacting schools today especially schools that are high poverty. Are high poverty schools

low performing because they have been so systematically oppressed that it has been ingrained in

the mental models of all of the stakeholders that they can never become high performing

schools? Are educators making students in HP/LP feel that they are inferior because their

Cotten6

educational systems are systematically incompetent? Are educators in HP/LP controlling the

minds of student and making them feel as outcast in order to keep this economically challenged

population oppressed? Or are high poverty schools, low performing schools because of its

deficient systems health?

There is no question that there is a disproportionate allocation of resources between

schools that are above the poverty level and schools that are considered high poverty schools.

Sadly, high poverty schools are also some of the lowest preforming schools in the nation. Most

would like to contribute this phenomenon to the lack of resources and other social ills that plague

poverty stricken areas. But what are the common characteristics of HP/LP schools? There is a

plethora of research on how to turn a HP/LP school into a HP/HP school however; there is not

much information on the main characteristics of HP/ LP schools. So after extensive research I

have concluded that most HP/LP schools share most of the following characteristics:

1. Poor Leadership

2. High poverty

3. Lack of parent/community involvement

4. Lack of accountability

5. No shared vision

6. Low expectations

7. Lacks effective staff development

8. Low morale

9. Lacks data driven instruction/decision making

10. Poor organizational structure

11. Lacks collaboration and articulation (vertical & horizontal)

Cotten7

However, some schools have flipped this paradigm on its head and have developed what is

known as high performing high poverty schools (HP/HP). Schools like P-Tech as singled out by

President Obama and the International School to name a few.

Is there a relationship between systems health and student achievement? According to the

National Center for Educational Achievement (NCEA), there is! “The National Center for

Educational Achievement (NCEA) is a department of ACT, Inc., a not-for-profit organization

committed to helping people achieve education and workplace success. NCEA builds the

capacity of educators and leaders to create educational systems of excellence for all students.”

(NCEA, 2011, page 2). The NCEA conducted and extensive research of over 550 schools and

300 school districts and concluded that there are 20 non- negotiable characteristic of HP schools.

This study will set out to prove that if any LP school adopts these characteristics, even if they are

HP, they will become HP/HP schools.

This study will explain why schools with poor systems health yield poor results by using

extended explanatory research design. This study will also incorporate both a quantitative and

qualitative research design to provide a more comprehensive picture of each aspect of the study.

I hoping that this study does yield, however, interesting insights into suggested areas for further

research, specifically those using qualitative designs as a basis for developing insight and gaining

understanding into the success of high poverty and highly successful schools.

III. Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study is to examine the system health of high poverty/high

performing schools (HP/HP) versus the systems health of high poverty/low performing schools

Cotten8

(HP/LP). To examine to what extent do high poverty/high performing schools (HP/HP) and high

poverty/low performing schools (HP/LP), implement Peter Senges Five Disciplines of Learning

Organizations: mental models, personal mastery, team leaning, shared vision, and systems

thinking.

Research Problem

Is Social Economic Status a predictor of success in schools?

What are the characteristics of effective leadership?

Is systems health a predictor of success in schools?

Research Questions

1. To what extent does a schools systems health impact student achievement?

2. What are the systems health characteristics of high

performing/high poverty schools?

3. What are the system health characteristics of high poverty/low

performing school?

4. Is there a relationship between systems health and student

achievement?

Variables

1. Social Economic Status

2. Systematic thinking

Cotten9

3. Student Achievement

4. Peter Senges Five Disciplines of Learning Organizations (personal

mastery, mental models, systems thinking, shared, vision, team

learning)

5. High performing Schools

Independent Variable

1. Systems Health

2. School Leadership

3. Effective Leadership

4. Systems practices

5. Academic success

6. High poverty schools

Definitions:

1. Systems Health- a organization that embraces Senge’s five disciplines: personal mastery,

mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking, in order to be

transformed into a functional learning organization

2. Systematic Incompetence - The methodical, ingrained, ineptitude of an organization.

3. High poverty schools -Schools where over 80% of the student population receive free and

reduce lunch

4. Low poverty schools -Schools where over 80% of the population do not receive free and

reduce lunch

5. High performing schools -Schools with a 70% or above graduation rate.

Cotten10

6. Low performing schools - Schools with a graduation rate of 50% or below.

7. Mental Models- reflecting upon, continually clarifying and improving our internal pictures of

the world, and seeing how they shape our actions and visions

8. Shared Vision -building a sense of commitment in a group, by developing shared images of

the future we seek to create, and the principles and guiding practices by which we hope to get

there

9. Personal Mastery - -Learning to expand our personal capacity to create the results we most

desire, and creating an organizational environment which encourages all its members to

develop themselves toward the goals and purposes they choose

10. Systems Thinking -a way of thinking about, and a language for describing and

understanding, the forces and interrelationships that shape the behavior of systems.

11. Team Learning -transforming conversational and collective thinking skills, so that groups of

people can reliably develop intelligence and ability greater than the sum of individual

members talents

12. Peter Senges Five Disciplines of Learning Organizations- Shared Vision, Personal

Mastery, Team Learning, Systems Thinking, Mental Models

13. Effective Leadership - A principal who constructs a shared vision with members of the

school community, convenes the conversations, insists on a student learning focus, evokes

and supports leadership in others, models and participates in collaborative practices, helps

pose the questions, and facilitates dialogue that addresses the confounding issues of practice.

14. Learning Organization: Senge refers to a learning organization as a company that facilitates

the learning of its members and continuously transforms itself. Learning organizations

develop as a result of the pressures facing modern organizations and enables them to remain

Cotten11

competitive in the business environment. A learning organization has five main features;

systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning.

15. Leadership capacity - Linda Lambert refers to leadership capacity as, a broad-based, skillful

participation in the work of leadership

16. Work of leadership - Linda Lambert refers to work of leadership as, reciprocal, purposeful

learning together in community

Chapter II

Review of Literature

There is no question that there is a disproportionate allocation of resources between

schools that are above the poverty level and schools that are considered high poverty schools.

Sadly, high poverty schools are also some of the lowest preforming schools in the nation. Most

would like to contribute this phenomenon to the lack of resources and other social ills that plague

poverty stricken areas. However, some schools have flipped this paradigm on its head and have

developed what is known as high performing high poverty schools (HP/HP). The study will

examine the practices of HP/HP schools and evaluate if these schools are incorporating Senge’s

Five Disciplines for Learning Organizations.

Peter Senge states that core of learning organizations are based on 5 learning disciplines

Personal Mastery -Learning to expand our personal capacity to create the results

we most desire, and creating an organizational environment which encourages all

its members to develop themselves toward the goals and purposes they choose

Mental Models -reflecting upon, continually clarifying and improving our internal

pictures of the world, and seeing how they shape our actions and visions

Cotten12

Shared Vision - building a sense of commitment in a group, by developing shared

images of the future we seek to create, and the principles and guiding practices by

which we hope to get there

Team Learning -transforming conversational and collective thinking skills, so

that groups of people can reliably develop intelligence and ability greater than the

sum of individual members talents

Systems Thinking -a way of thinking about, and a language for describing and

understanding, the forces and interrelationships that shape the behavior of

systems. This discipline helps us see how to change systems more effectively, and

to act more in tune with the larger processes of the natural and economic world.

(Senge, et al, 1994, page 6)

Figure 1 Theoretical Framework of Peter Senge

Cotten13

Each one of these disciplines according to Senge should be embraced concurrently in order to

move a learning organization forward. He also states that no one will ever be able to completely

master any of the disciplines. The goal is for the members of the learning organization to work

together to become lifelong learners. Thus, developing the capacity to improve and move the

learning organization forward.

So what are the characteristics of HP/HP? Do they follow all of Senge’s 5 disciplines or

just a few? Carnes, Stephen J., Ed.D. studied what we like to call unusual schools: schools that

are HP/HP. In his dissertation entitled, Resilience in Action: A Portrait of one

High-Poverty/High-Performing School, he identifies several factors that contribute to a schools

success. Carnes’ (2009) study found the following is essential in driving HP/HP:

1. The importance of utilizing the schools’ resources to its fullest extent and taking

advantage of opportunities for students to maximize their learning.

2. Principals demonstrate collaborative leadership, operate with a code of ethics,

inspire a shared vision, and provide opportunities for the staff to collaborate in

developing an ongoing school vision.

3. A culture of collaboration

4. Build positive relationships with each other and work together in meeting the

same goals.

Carnes also finds that student achievement increases when the teachers have a vested interest in

the community and the students. The study finds that when a teacher builds a positive

relationship with the student, they tend to have higher expectations, thus expecting and achieving

better results.

Cotten14

William H Parrett and Kathleen M Budge in their book, Turning High Poverty Schools to

High Performing Schools, echo some of the same sentiments as Carnes. Parrett and Budge stated

that in order for a school to be successful it must; build leadership capacity, fostering a healthy,

safe, and supportive learning environment, focus system learning, eliminate what is not working,

and practice shared decision making and collaboration. Mental Models are also discussed when it

comes to teacher expectations and student achievement. Pratt and Budge also created a

framework for action that HP/HP must have if they truly want to be successful. (see figure 1)

Figure 2 A Framework for Action: Leading High-Poverty Schools to High Performance

Cotten15

Pratt and Budge argue that in order to improve HP/LP the learning organization must first have

solid leadership capacity. As demonstrated in their framework, the actions of the leadership set

the tone and put the gears in motion to change school culture and influence all stakeholders.

Building an organizations leadership capacity is essential to produce long lasting school

improvements. Linda Lambert argues that it is time for educators to develop a new framework of

school improvement. Effective principals are no longer just a one man show. Shared decision

making and shared leadership build a learning organizations leadership capacity and provide

long lasting, sustainable improvements.  

Linda Lambert states that: In schools with high leadership capacity, learning and instructional

leadership become fused into professional practice. Such schools have some important features

in common.

Principal and teachers, as well as many parents and students, participate together as

mutual learners and leaders in study groups, action research teams, vertical learning

communities, and learning-focused staff meetings.

Shared vision results in program coherence. Participants reflect on their core values and

weave those values into a shared vision to which all can commit themselves. All

members of the community continually ask, “How does this instructional practice

connect to our vision?”

Inquiry-based use of information guides decisions and practice. Generating shared

knowledge becomes the energy force of the school. Teachers, principal, students, and

parents examine data to find answers and to pose new questions. Together they reflect,

discuss, analyze, plan, and act.

Cotten16

Roles and actions reflect broad involvement, collaboration, and collective

responsibility.Participants engage in collaborative work across grade levels through

reflection, dialogue, and inquiry. This work creates the sense that “I share responsibly for

the learning of all students and adults in the school.”

Reflective practice consistently leads to innovation. Reflection enables participants to

consider and reconsider how they do things, which leads to new and better ways.

Participants reflect through journaling, coaching, dialogue, networking, and their own

thought processes.

Student achievement is high or steadily improving. “Student achievement” in the context

of leadership capacity is much broader than test scores; it includes self-knowledge, social

maturity, personal resiliency, and civic development. It also requires attention to closing

the gap in achievement among diverse groups of students by gender, race, ethnicity, and

socioeconomic status. (Lambert, 2002, page 38)

Is there a relationship between systems health and student achievement? According to the

National Center for Educational Achievement (NCEA), there is! “The National Center for

Educational Achievement (NCEA) is a department of ACT, Inc., a not-for-profit organization

committed to helping people achieve education and workplace success. NCEA builds the

capacity of educators and leaders to create educational systems of excellence for all students.”

(NCEA, 2011, page 2). The NCEA conducted and extensive research of over 550 schools and

300 school districts and concluded that there are 20 characteristic of HP schools. These 20

characteristics are:

Cotten17

1. A Clear, District Curriculum Aligned to College and Career Readiness

Standards

2. PreK-12 Alignment Is Determined by the Needs of Graduates

3. Detailed, Curriculum Resources are Provided

4. The District Curriculum is Non-Negotiable

5. Principals Are Selected Based on Proven Performance

6. Internal Leaders Are Developed

7. Recruiting a Talented Teacher Pool is Prioritized

8. 3600 Support for New Teachers Focused on the District’s Teaching and

Learning Systems

9. Collaboration is Structured at All Levels

10. Instructional Coaches Thoroughly Support Teachers

11. Professional Development Focuses on Curriculum, Instruction, and

Assessment

12. Instructional Programs are Research-Based and Carefully Aligned

13. Proven Instructional Programs Are Implemented with Fidelity

14. A Data Management System is in Place

15. A Coherent Data Assessment System Provides Regular Data About Student

Learning

16. Regular Analysis is Part of the District Culture

17. Best Practices Are Studies and Shared

18. Struggling Schools Are Supported

Cotten18

19. District Interventions Supplement School and Classroom-Level Efforts with

Students

20. Data Drives Curricular and Instructional Improvements

The NCEA suggest that there must be a systematic, district wide approach to turning

struggling schools around. This led to the development of, The Core Practice Framework,

which is, a framework of core practices for high quality instruction “Rather than reinvent K-12

practices and processes, educators can turn to NCEA’s Core Practice Framework to learn what

makes a higher performing school work, and then apply those core teaching and learning

practices to their own systems.” (NCEA, 2011, page 3)

Figure 3

Cotten19

Reading from bottom to top, the path to readiness begins with ACT's College and Career Readiness Standards, State and Common Core Standards, and District Learning Objectives (curriculum) as the foundation. Applying the 15 Core Practices to the development and teaching of this curriculum leads to high-quality instruction, which in turn, creates the opportunity for college and career readiness for all students.

Chapter III

Research Design & Methodology

The purpose of this study is to:

1) examine to what extent does high poverty highly successful schools implement

Peter Senges Five Disciplines of learning organizations.

2) 2) to make a correlation between systems health and success in schools.

I plan to prove that there is a direct correlation between systems health, Senges 5 disciplines, and

success in schools therefore, the most appropriate research design would be extended

explanatory. I plan to explain why schools with poor systems health yield poor results.

This study will use both a quantitative and qualitative research design to provide a more

comprehensive picture of each aspect of the study. I hoping that this study does yield, interesting

insights into suggested areas for further research as a basis for developing insight and gaining

understanding into the success of high poverty and highly successful schools.

I plan to use an instrument created by Steven Seaford, and used by various other doctoral

candidates. Seaford created a Learning Organization Survey that evaluates the implementation of

Cotten20

Senges 5 Disciplines in organizations and to what degree do organizations consider themselves

learning organizations. The information gathered from survey will be used to evaluate if indeed

HP/HP schools have good systems health therefore they are successful as well as examine if

HP/LP have an overall poor systems health. This quantitative research will be followed up by

qualitative research which will be used to gain understanding of underlying reasons and

motivations.

Figure 4

Systems Health Components HP/HP School #1 HP/LP School #1

Mental Models

Shared Vision

Team Learning

System Thinking

Personal Mastery

.

The results from the survey will allow me to dig deeper and conduct an extended

explanatory approach where I will use the information gathered from my survey to create

interview focus questions to pinpoint why some schools with poor systems health yield poor

results. Lastly, I will analyze the data from the survey as well as my interview questions to make

my correlations between systems health and success in schools.

Cotten21

References

ACT Core Practice Framework. (n.d.). Retrieved May 16, 2015, from

http://www.act.org/products/additional-products-assessments/act-core-practice-framework/

Carnes, S. J. (2009). Resilience in action: A portrait of one high-poverty/high-performing school.

(Order No. 3353863, Aurora University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, ,155-n/a.

Cotton, K. (1996). School size, school climate, and student performance. School Improvement

Research Series,20,

Duffrin, E. (2006, 11). Teamwork drives up scores. Catalyst Chicago, 18, 10-11. Hughes, G. T.

(2010). Effective school practices and academic performance in urban charter schools: A

subgroup analysis across principals, teachers, and parents. (Order No. 3405782, Azusa Pacific

University).

Lambert, L. (2002). A Framework for Shared Leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37-40.

Klitgaard, R. E., & Hall, G. R. (1975). ARE THERE UNUSUALLY EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS?

The Journal of Human Resources, 10(1), 90.

Helen W. Williams, (2008) "Characteristics that distinguish outstanding urban principals:

Emotional intelligence, social intelligence and environmental adaptation", Journal of

Management Development, Vol. 27 Iss: 1, pp.36 - 54

Senge, P. (1994). <i>The Fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning

organization</i>. New York: Currency, Doubleday.

Cotten22

Senge, Peter (2006). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New

York: Doubleday.

The 20 Non-Negotiable Characteristics of Higher Performing School Systems: Aligning District

Practices to Support High-Quality Instruction. (n.d.). PsycEXTRA Dataset.

Marzano, R. (2012). The Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model. MARZANO Research

Laboratory.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From

research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Woodson, C. (1990). The mis-education of the Negro. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.