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.