dr. margaret curette patton, phd dissertation defense, dr. william allan kritsonis, dissertation...

8/14/2019 Dr. Margaret Curette Patton, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dr-margaret-curette-patton-phd-dissertation-defense-dr-william-allan-kritsonis 1/80

Factors Influencing Greatness inEconomically-Challenged Minority Schools

Presented to the Whitlowe R. Green College of Education

Prairie View A & M University

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Presented by

Margaret Curette Patton

Dissertation Committee

Douglas S. Hermond, PhD., Chair

Camille Gibson, PhD., Member

David E. Herrington, PhD., Member

William A. Kritsonis, PhD., Member

March 2009



Purpose of Study

To explore the universal distinguishing factors thatexist among high achieving economically

challenged minority (ECM) schools compared tosimilar acceptable performing schools in thestate of Texas.



Problem Statement

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

1 0 0

M a t h 2 0 0 6 M a t h 2 0 0 7

Academic scores of minority

groups, namely African andHispanics, continue to fallwell below Caucasianstudents.

The gap between

economically-challengedpopulations of students andtheir more affluentcounterparts continue to exist.

Texas has not been able to

eliminate the gaps betweenminority students and other more affluent sub-groups.

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

1 0 0

M a t h 2 0 0 6 M a t h 2 0 0 7

11th Grade TAKS Scores5th Grade TAKS Scores

March 2006 March 2007 March 2006 March 2007

• African

American

•Hispanic

•White

•Econ.

Challenged

-Texas Education Agency 2007 State AEIS Report



Significance of the Study

Opportunity for the education system to improve theaccessibility and quality of education for its entirepeople and to enrich their future;

Motivation for school leaders to transform acceptableECM schools into self-sustaining great schools;

Avenue for children of all backgrounds to receive ahigh quality of education.



Research Questions

1. What universal distinguishing characteristicspredict that economically-challenged minority(ECM) schools will be recognized or exemplaryin the state of Texas?

2. What practices associated with the transitionfrom elementary to middle schools arepredictive of student achievement in highperforming economically-challenged minority(ECM) feeder groups?



Limitations

• No high schools met the combined criteria for being partof the sample.

• The leadership team in the selected schools may haveexperienced some turnover over the past four years.

• Feeder groups are similar but not identical in size anddemographics due to the varying populations of the highachieving ECM schools.

• A small number of years of data were used for the study

(Post-TAKS years).



Limitations continued

• The sample was selected based on the finalaccountability rating rather than specific indicatorslike attendance, drop-out rate, and subgroup testscores.

• The final sample of schools was selected from thesame educational Region in Texas.

• The application of all of the components of theGood to Great corporate model may not be easilyand fully replicated in the school system.



Assumptions

• Some students fall into both the minority andeconomically challenged groups.

• Although there are differences between specificminority groups of students, this study will

group African American and Hispanic studentsinto one group that will be referred to as aminority group.



Definitions

Comparison schools: Schools that are similar indemographic data: percentage of economicallydisadvantaged and minority populations; schoolsize; and campus location, but different in

academic achievement scores. For example,“matched pairs” was the terminology used in theArizona Study – schools that are alike in mostways, yet different in the performance

measurement that is of interest (Waits, et al.,2006).



Definitions

Economically-challenged student: A student whois eligible for the National School LunchProgram/free/reduced-price school lunch: (a)eligible for free or reduced-price meals under theNational School Lunch and Child NutritionProgram; (b) from a family with annual income ator below the federal poverty line (e.g. annualincome for a family of three is less than$22,880); (c) eligible for Temporary Assistance

to Needy Families or other public assistance;and (d) eligible for benefits under the FoodStamp Act of 1977 (McMillion & Roska, 2007).



Definitions

Economically-challenged Minority School (ECM):a school with at least 50% low income, minority(African American or Hispanic) students (Jerald,

2001).



Definitions

Minority school status: A measure of the level of historically disadvantaged minority studentgroups being served in a school. Low minority

schools have less than 5% disadvantagedminority students. Medium minority schools have5 to 50% disadvantaged minority students. Highminority schools have over 50% disadvantagedminority students (Shettle, et al., 2005).

http://nationsreportcard.gov/glossary.asp

http://nationsreportcard.gov/glossary.asp



Conceptual FrameworkGood to Great ™ – Jim Collins

Input Principles

Stage 1: Disciplined People

Level 5 LeadershipFirst Who, Then What

Stage 2: Disciplined Thought

Confront the Brutal FactsThe Hedgehog Concept

Stage 3: Discipline Action

Culture of DisciplineTechnology Accelerators

Output Results

Delivers Superior Performance relative to itsmissionMakes a Distinctive Impact onthe communities it touchesAchieves Lasting Endurancebeyond any leader, idea or setback

Visit www.jimcollins.com

to take the Good to Great™ survey.

http://www.jimcollins.com/

http://www.jimcollins.com/




Disciplined People•Level 5 Leaders are self-effacing, quiet, reserved, and evenshy. These leaders are a blend of personal humility andprofessional will.

•The great companies made sure to hire the right people for

the right positions (First Who then What) before setting avision or creating the strategy of how to reach the company’s

goal.




Disciplined Thought

•Each good to great company maintained unwavering faiththat they would prevail in the end, no matter the difficulties,while always confronting the brutal facts of its current reality.

•The Hedgehog Concept reflects a deepunderstanding of those things thatindividuals are deeply passionate about,what they can be the best in the world

at, and what drives their economicengine.




Disciplined Action

In the culture of discipline, disciplined people with disciplinedthought combined with an ethic of entrepreneurship yields

great performance.

Technology accelerators were found to have never been aprimary role in achieving excellence, but when carefully

selected assisted in transforming companies.



Making Literature Connections What does Good to Great ™ have to do with Economically-Challenged Minority Schools?

INPUT FACTORS

Disciplined People

Collaborative leadershipPurpose-driven Staff

Disciplined Thought

Address Student NeedClear visionCurriculum FocusData DrivenHigh Expectations/NoExcusesStreamlined Activities

Discipline Action

Assessment for

improvementDistributed AccountabilityLearning Communities

OUTPUT RESULTS

High levels of proficiency amongstudents

Continued gains in

achievement;

Effective andenduring practicesand policies arewidespread.

Output Results in2007 Texas Accountability Rating Terminology

Recognized Exemplary

TAKS (Met Standard)

Reading/ELA 75% 90%

Math 75% 90%

Writing 75% 90%

Science 75% 90%

Social Studies 75% 90%

SDAA II All Subjects 70% 90%

Completion Rate I 85.0% 95.0%

Annual Dropout Rate 0.7% 0.2%

The literature on high-performing ECM schools reveals…



Research Procedure

Schools selected for the study met the following sampling

criteria…

1. Received an Exemplary or Recognized rating for at least two of the four years from 2004-2007 . Each middle school had to beassociated with an elementary school that received a rating of

Recognized or Exemplary within the same years.2. Consisted of at least a 50% economically disadvantaged

population;

3. Consisted of at least a 50% minority (African American andHispanic) population.

4. Considered a small, medium or large campus; and5. Located in or near one of the three largest urban areas in Texas –

Houston, San Antonio, or Dallas/Fort Worth.



Comparison Schools

The comparison schools…

– Received an Acceptable rating under theaccountability rating system for Texas public schoolsfrom 2004-2007.

– Are associated with an elementary school with anAcceptable rating from 2004-2007.

– Met criteria numbers 2-5 on the previous slide.



Why these groups?2006 Accountability State Summary Report – Texas Education Agency

Exemplary, 7.1%

Recognized, 35.5%

Acceptable, 45.1%

Unacceptable, 3.6%

Not Rated, 8.7%



Sample

School Total Econ Dis. Min. 2004 2005 2006 2007

High Performing ELEM1 653 81.3 96.2 E E E E

Sixth -1 1112 68.9 88.5 R R R R

MID2 1299 67.9 83.7 R A R R

MID1 938 68.3 93.1 R A R A

Comparison CELEM1 696 73.7 96.5 A A A A

CMID1/2 1090 61.7 98.8 A A A A

High Performing ELEM3 891 88.8 98 E E E E

Fifth-Sixth3 949 90.8 95.9 R A A R

MID3 971 86.5 96 R R R R

Comparison CELEM3 799 92.4 98.2 A A A A

Cfifth-Sixth3 780 87.3 97.6 A A A A

CMID3 971 79.9 96.4 A A A A

High Performing ELEM4 613 83 88.9 R R R E

MID4 841 92.2 95.1 R R R A

ELEM5 591 90.5 90.2 R A R A

MID5 878 79.2 85.3 R A R R

Comparison CELEM4/5 839 81.9 80.7 A A A A

CMID4/5 958 71.1 77.7 A A A A



Participants

Why Houston Area/Region IV?

• Over 50% of the schools located in Houston area

• High performing elementary school feeding into highperforming middle schools

Region IV of Texas• 12 Campuses

• 3 Districts

• 60 Staff

– Five participants on each campus include:• Administrators

• Teachers/Department Heads



Instrumentation

• Researcher used as “instrument of choice” –(Lincoln & Guba, 1985) – Interest in processes at ECM schools

– Interest in deep understanding

• Objectivity – Journal (Gibson, 2002)

– Monitor effects of interview on researcher

• Transcribe data within two-three hours of interview



Data Collection

Triangulation

• On-line responses to interviews (Survey Monkey)w/follow-up conversations when necessary

• Private one-on-one interviews• Review of news clippings, campus publications,

and district website



Sample Interview Questions

Research Question 1

2. What do you see as the top five factors that contributed to or caused the upward shift in performance during the years 2004-2007 (years since TAKS)?

3. Now let’s return to those five factors, and I’d like you to allocate a

total of 100 points to those factors, according to their overallimportance to school improvement (total across all five factorsequals 100 points).

Research Question 2

18. Describe any activities or communications that goes on betweenyour feeder schools that assist students in the school community

with academics and/or transitions from one school to another.



Sample Coding System

• Coding matrix contained key themes from the Good to Great

Model

• Responses were coded based on categories.

• Example categories…

– Coding Category 1 – Leadership: Who are the leaders? Whatare the characteristics of the leaders? Is leadership distributedto others?

– Coding Category 2 – Recruiting and Retaining Highly Qualified:

What are the hiring practices? Is there collaboration beforehiring? What types of qualities are looked for in staff? Is there

autonomy in hiring?



Data Analysis

APPENDIX E - CODING MATRIX – HIGH-PERFORMING SCHOOLS

ResponsesFreq. Significant Quotes

Disciplined People Category 1:

Leadership

Category 2:Recruiting andRetaining Staff

Discipline

dPeople



Displaying the Findings - Chart

APPENDIX F –Checklist Matrix: Predictors of Recognized or Exemplary ECM Schools

Category Exemplary/RecognizedCampus

Acceptable Campus

Level 5Leadership

First WhoThen What

Disciplin

edPeop

le



Displaying the Findings - Narrative

Transform the data into consistent and easy tounderstand chunks which are:

•Descriptive

•Explanatory

•Comparative



Respondents

• 11 of 12 ECM schools participated – 87% of staff from exemplary/recognized schools

– 85% of staff from acceptable schools

• 43 participants

– 26 teacher leaders

– 17 campus administrators

• 19 participated in on-line interview only

• 13 participated in face-to-face interview only• 11 participated in both online and face-to-face



Performance Factors

Top factors that contribute to school performance between 2004-2007…

Category Exemplary/Recognized(2400 points)

Acceptable

(1900 points)

Disciplined People Leadership (8.1%)

Teamwork (11.8%)Staff (11.8%)

Leadership (16.3%)

Teamwork (3.7%)Staff (10.9%)

DisciplinedThought

Data Use (5.6%)

Curriculum & Instruction(15%)

Data Use (2.4%)

Curriculum & Instruction(15.8%)

Disciplined Action Intervention (12.1%) Intervention (2.4%)



Distinguishing Factors

0

2

4

6

810

12

14

16

18

Leadership Teamwork Data Use Intervention

Distinguishing Factors

O

v e r a l l I m p o r t a n c e ( % ) Recognized/Exemplary Acceptable



Leadership

Collins (2001)…

The leadership in the Good to Great companies knew the key to lastingsuccess. “Those who build great companies understand that theultimate throttle on growth for any great company is not …competition,or products. It is one thing above all others: the ability to get and keepenough of the right people (p. 54).”

Literature Review…Leadership was a strong indicator of strong performance in high achieving

ECM schools (Waits et al., 2006; Williams, 2005; Barr & Parrett, 2007).

“The research evidence consistently demonstrates that the quality of leadership determines the motivation of teachers and the quality of teaching in the classroom.” (Harris, et. al., 2006, p. 121)



Leadership FindingsExemplary/Recognized Schools

“Strong leadership was the key that led the way for success.The energy and ‘can do’ attitude filtered down from the topto the teachers and then to the students.”

“The principal supported the teachers with what they weredoing in the classroom. She counted on the teachers touse their professionalism to do what was needed and didn’tdictate to them how they should teach.

The administrators and teachers collectively “paid attention tothe real needs of the staff and students. They were awareof the subtle forces that shaped the daily life of our staff.”



Leadership FindingsAcceptable Schools

“Our principal worked with department chair people to conduct

needs assessments and to analyze data.”

“The top leader did not hold teachers accountable and therewas too much teacher autonomy.”

“Leadership was confusing. There was no articulation of aclear vision or plan of action. Bad decisions were oftenmade.”

“There is less administrative involvement in daily campusroutines…and don’t have positive contact with teachers andstudents.”



Teamwork

Collins (2001)…

“The good-to-great leaders understood this…,creating aculture wherein people had a tremendous opportunity to beheard and, ultimately, for the truth to be heard (p. 74).”

Literature Review…

Trimble (2002) found that high performing, high povertyschools have built-in criteria for making decisions. Theseprocedures are crucial when numerous issues attempt tocause distractions that could take the campus off track fromtheir goals.



Teamwork FindingsExemplary/Recognized Schools

“Collaboration is the key to any campus becoming successful.

Our teachers have really come together to make our schoolsuccessful. Relationships and trust are of high importanceto our staff. This makes the collaboration process morecohesive.”

“The teachers felt that their input was valuable. Teachers feltcomfortable sharing ideas, plans, activities, and tests. Theenvironment was a learning one.”

“In addition, our principal has scheduled a common planning

time for grade level teachers to meet to plan lessons,develop assessments, and talk about student data.”



Teamwork FindingsAcceptable Schools

“There is not enough organized and/or focusedteaming and planning time (data driven/strategies).Planning and teaming time is not focused.

Teachers do not bring success stories to share ,

ideas, or concerns, but use time to gripe and/or complain about students, other teachers, parentsor administration.”

“The school collaborated with its stakeholders prior to

making any decision. Several meetings and mocksessions were held on developing goals.”



Data Driven Decisions

Collins (2001)…

“When you start with an honest and diligent effort to determine thetruth of your situation, the right decisions often become self evident.It is impossible to make good decisions without infusing the entireprocess with an honest confrontation of the brutal facts (p. 88).”

Literature Review…

“Focus on the needs of the individual child as they look atachievement per classroom, per teacher, per student. Thisapproach unmasks poor performance and forces everyone at theschool to take responsibility for student performance.” (Waits, 2006,p. 6).



Data Driven Decisions FindingsExemplary/Recognized Schools

“Vertical teams reviewed the AEIS report, INOVA,ADM data, and the Campus Improvement Plan.Professional Learning Communities usedassessment data and tracked reading levels of

students.”“In 2007, our principal initiated professional learning

communities to allow teachers additional time todisaggregate data and make instructional

decisions.”



Data Driven Decisions FindingsExemplary/Recognized Schools

“Looking at data and training teachers to look at datahas also been a shift in our thinking and ultimatelyto our success. Data drives instruction. Our

teachers are trained to look at data, andcollaborate on the results to decide what the nextstep is in aligning our curriculum to meet anddifferentiate for student needs.”



Data Driven Decisions FindingsAcceptable Schools

“Our principal worked with department chair people to conductneeds assessments and to analyze data. Bi-monthlymeetings are held to monitor progress and to adjuststrategies as needed.”

“Our campus also lacked a data-driven decision makingprocess. Teachers all gave routine test on Friday, but didnot use the data to impact instruction. They never looked

back at the results. They just moved on to the nextconcept. The basic response was ‘my students did not dowell’ rather than ‘I didn’t teach that concept well’.”



Student Intervention

Collins (2001)…

According to Collins (2001), the more an organization knows what it canexcel in; it eliminates those things that are not being productive, andconcentrates on those things that provide opportunities for growth.

Literature Review…“In the ‘built to suit’ paradigm, high achieving schools went beyond the

big picture that standards posed to focusing on the individualperformance of each child. In essence, what was present was a vitalcycle of instruction, assessment, and intervention.” (Waits, 2006, p. 7)

S d I i Fi di



Student Intervention FindingsExemplary/Recognized Schools

“Struggling students work with instructional specialists inreading and math to receive extra help in a small groupsetting. Other interventions used are computer assistedinstruction, mentoring, and scheduled tutorial or enrichmenttimes, both during the school day and after school.”

Another teacher listed several interventions, “Extended day,extended year, pullouts, use of programs within the schoolday such as PLATO and READ 180, and double blocking

classes are used for students who are not being successfulin math.”

St d t I t ti Fi di



Student Intervention FindingsAcceptable Schools

“Students were grouped in below expectation, metexpectation, and exceed expectation. These results wereused for tutorials.”

“An organized intervention plan” was one of the top fivefactors that contributed to their academic performance.

Wh t k d t iti ?



What sparked a transition? Exemplary/Recognized Schools

•Changes were sparked by the increased availability of data and the need to focus in certain areas.

•These schools cited specific subject areas, grade levels,

and student groups in need of attention.

•Change was initiated by greater expectations and ademand for collaboration in working as a team accountablefor increasing student performance.



What sparked a transition? Exemplary/Recognized Schools

“Data initiatives were undertaken to improve student

performance. Status quo was not accepted. There was a

school-wide culture to excel.”

“When the science TAKS test first came about, this kept

our school from becoming exemplary, so a consciousdecision was made to focus on science. Our goal is for all

students to pass to the best of their ability.”

“We haven’t made a major transition. We just looked closer at what we were already doing, and decided that we

needed to work smarter, not harder.”

?



What sparked a transition? Acceptable Schools

•Change in leadership and high teacher turnover were themajor impetus causing a conscious transition in theoperation of the school.

•District initiatives and academic concerns were major reasons for beginning a transition.

Wh t k d t iti ?



What sparked a transition? Acceptable Schools

“Teachers left based on academic problems, discipline problems,

principal/teacher relationships, and principal/community relationships.”

“In 2005, accountability as well as administrative changes, i.e. new

superintendent and new principal” sparked the transition.

“The district became increasingly involved in our day to day routine.Tests were provided. In Language Arts, layered lesson plans were

introduced.”

“When classroom observations showed that teachers were still

teaching using TAAS strategies, we began disaggregating data oftenand used it to begin the critical thinking process.”

H d i i d ?



How are decisions made? Exemplary/Recognized Schools

“The school went about making decisions through collaboration. We

have a Site Based Management Team that consists of teachers,

parents, and administrators, as well as community members. Any

major decision is brought before this team to discuss and decide. That

information is then brought before the rest of the campus to get

feedback.”

“Student needs were at the core of all decisions. Grade level teams

addressed needs of individual students. School wide initiatives were

addressed through grade level, vertical teams and the SBDM (site-

based decision making team).”

“Our principal, met with vertical team leaders, specialists, and teacher

leaders on the campus to create new strategies. She also studied

success stories from other successful campuses.”

H d i i d ?



How are decisions made? Acceptable Schools

“The school collaborated with its stakeholders prior to making any decisions.

Several meetings and mock sessions were held on developing goals.”

“As the principal, I could not do it all on my own. We developed a school-wide

decision making process of looking at data. We decided to put the data up-front

and let it guide all of our decisions.”

“The principal made decisions solely…did not accept recommendations fromadministrative team. There was no collaboration.”

“There was a shell of a Campus Building Leadership Team that held meetings

twice a month. Everything looked good on paper. Administrators began doing

classroom walk-throughs (CWTs). The data collected from the CWTs showed

that we were a “seat work” campus. We collected data, but there was no follow-

up as to what to do next. Decisions were ultimately made by the principal, dean

of instruction, and associate principal.”

C f S



Confidence ScoreLevel of confidence in campus decisions

On a scale of 1-10 (10 meant great confidence in good decisions.)

Exemplary/Recognized = 8.82“10. Decisions were not made arbitrarily. They were based on solid research and

student need.”

“10. I knew the principal and the teachers on the site based team had the

children's best interest in mind.” “10. Leadership”

2 Acceptable Schools = no score

3 Acceptable Schools = 7.85

“8, I think that having the school all on the same page is a good move. I trust our principal and her leadership. I feel like I have a say in what we do.”

“8, we were not shooting in the dark. We let the data guide us. We also

researched any program or plan we considered implementing.”



Participant Perceptions of Differences in School GroupsExemplary/Recognized

What are they missing?

AcceptableWhat do they have that we don’t?

Strong leadershipData Driven

Collaborative environment

Student Interventions

Self-disciplined teachers

High expectations

“Whatever it takes” attitude

Parent/Community involvement

Trusting/Positive climate

District support

Student needs are priority

Caring relationships

Builds leadership capacity

Effective use of data

Collaboration


Committed teachers

High expectations

“No excuses” attitudeParent involvement

Campus culture

District support

Monitoring

Play accountability gameDifferent communities

Only a few percentage points

R h Q ti 2



Research Question 2

What practices associated with the transition fromelementary to middle schools are predictive of student achievement in high performing

economically-challenged minority (ECM) feeder groups?

F d G B h i



Feeder Group Behavior

Exemplary/Recognized Acceptable•Systematic andcomprehensivecommunication

•Partner school•Curriculum Focus –Meetings to share bestpractices

–Subject area networks

–Specialist meetings –Principal meetings

•Beginning/End of Year transfer of records

•Fine Arts communication

•International Baccalaureateand AVID meetings

•Principal visit elementaryschool



Stages in School Improvement Process

Stages in School Improvement Process

Transitional Transforming Transparent

School Improvement Stage

“Whatever it

takes” attitude.

Individual student needs

addressed

immediately.

Group’s needs

are known, but

effective actionnot in place.

Staff training on

best practices.



Transitional Stage



Schools in the transitional stage had:

•Constant transition in leadership and teacher

turnover that shifted direction of school.

•Transitions mandated by the districts to

address the need for curriculum alignment and accountability with no training.

•Staff members who blame external

circumstances for its academic status.



Transforming Stage



Schools in the

transforming stage

had:

• A collaborative

environment.

•Ongoing staff

development that

addressed the needs of

the campus.

•Staff that lacked the full commitment and the

complete faith that

students could be

successful, no matter

the circumstances.



Transparent Stage



Schools in the transparent stage had:

•Stakeholders who were well-informed of

the goals and vision of the school.

•Staff and students who worked collaboratively to establish, monitor, and

reach goals.

•The “no excuses” attitude that permeated

the schools, staff, and students.

L d hi



Leadership

Transparent Stage:

• Shared leadership• Leadership expectations filtered

throughout the school

• Hands-on, action oriented leaders

• Took action rather that being reactionary

• Effective school functionality in

principal’s absence• Two-way trust between leaders and staff

• Believed student performance resultedfrom hardworking staff and students

• Blamed self for certain academicperformance delays

• Supported students and staff.

Transitional Stage:• Principal sole leader and decision

maker

• Few expectations shared with staff or students

• Reviewed data, but little or nomonitoring of supposed goals

• Staff members hesitant about takingon leadership responsibilities

• ‘Blame the leader’ thinking

• Leader blamed the poor attitude andknowledge base of staff for academicperformance

• Leaders reacted to change whennecessary.

• Student behavior/discipline focus

L d hi



Leadership

Transparent Stage:

“We had a principal thatwasn’t afraid to try things.She supported her

teachers in every way.

As long as you did your job, she was your bestcheerleader.”

“Our leaders are aware of

the subtle forces thatshaped the daily life of our staff.”

Transitional Stage:“The leadership focus

was not onacademic/curriculum

…dealing withdiscipline issues(drugs). Top leader did not hold teachers

accountable.”

Team ork



Teamwork

Transparent Stage:• Environment of trust

• Each person’s input valuable

• All accountable for school’s goals

• Strategic planning (custodian toprincipal)

• Decision-making meeting (all

represented)• Common planning time for grade level

subject area teachers – plan, createassessment, and reflect on data

• Constant dialogue based on currentdata

•Everyone familiar with campusprocesses and school improvementplan

Transitional Stage:• Constant turnover of staff

• Limited teacher involvement

• Mandates distributed at meetings

• Ineffective campus decision makingteam

Teamwork



Teamwork

Transparent Stage:

“The teachers felt thattheir input wasvaluable. Teachers

felt comfortablesharing ideas, plans,activities, and tests.The environment was

a learning one.”

Transitional Stage:

“There was a shell of aCampus BuildingLeadership Team that

held meetings twice amonth. Everythinglooked good onpaper.”





Transparent Stage:• Achievement per child per classroom

• Teachers plan, assess, and discuss studentdata

• Common assessment aligned with curriculum

• Assessment given often

• Data drove instruction

• Administrators monitored instruction• Reflective practices used to monitor student

and teacher practices

• Checkpoint meetings to assess school’s goalsand vision

• Academic data plastered all over campus

• Collaborative effort to ensure student

academic performance

Transitional Stage:• No ownership of teaching and learning

process

• Created a paper trail to provemandates were accomplished

• No modeling or support for

instructional mandates• Individual lesson planning andassessment

• No standard process or “check andbalance” on curriculum, instruction,and assessment

•Understood need to gather data; noeffective use





Transparent Stage:

One principalresponded that it washer responsibility to

“monitor studentprogress (and)…remove theuncommitted

(teachers).”

Transitional Stage:

“Teachers say, ‘Mystudents didn’t do wellrather than I didn’t

teach the conceptwell.’”





Transparent Stage:• Wide variety of interventions

• Pinpoint child’s need for intervention

• Analyze data down to objective level

• Intervention individualized, flexible,and different from original instruction

• Team decides on proper intervention• “No-excuses” approach to ensure

student success

Transitional Stage:• Interventions were group oriented (one

size fits all)

• Worst teachers in charge





Transparent Stage:

“A student entered the school from another district with what seemed to be behavior

problems. Within the school’s process, thestudent was evaluated and found tostruggle with numeration, subtraction,

multiplication, and division skills. Anintervention plan that included 20 minutes aday with the math specialist was created toassist with the deficient areas. The student began feeling more successful causing a

positive attitude and behavior shift.”

Transitional Stage:

“The principalput the worstteacher with

the studentsthat have thegreatestneed.”

Conclusion



Conclusion

• High performing ECM schools are different fromacceptable schools in the following areas: – Leadership (shared)

– Teamwork (collaboration)

– Data driven decisions

– Immediate and individual student intervention

– Culture of transparency

– “No excuses” attitude

– Focus on needs of each student

Value of Study



Value of Study

The value of this study resides in the hands of educators and policymakers and their willingness to apply the factors revealed to be

the most effective and predictive of successfulECM schools.

Things That Principals of High Performing



Things That Principals of High Performing

Schools Do Differently

1. Define and articulate goals;

2. Make data (multiple sources) driven decisions;

3. Inspire a “whatever it takes” attitude;

4. Focus on students;

5. Assist students in need, immediately;6. Create a collaborative environment;

7. Supply necessary training for staff;

8. Provide leadership opportunities to staff;

9. Support and value staff; and10. Demand high expectations from everyone.

Recommendations



Recommendations Leadership Training

1. Leadership Training• Redefine leadership

• Turnaround strategies

• Relationships• Building leadership capacity

• Real-environment training

Recommendations



RecommendationsHigh Quality Educators

2. High Quality Educators• Hire based on quality and qualifications

• Strong collaboration between districts and

campuses• Infuse teaching into hiring process

• Involve campus educators in hiring process

• Implement incentives

• Higher pay

• Leadership opportunities

Recommendations



RecommendationsDeeper Understandings via Data

3. Deeper Understandings via Data• Integrate methodical, collaborative, and reflectiveapproach to utilizing data• Create various forms of data

• Analyze data to determine student need

• Utilize data to inform instruction

• Immediately, determine and provide student intervention

based on data

• Monitor and adjust teaching and learning process

• Allocate time• Common planning time during the day

• Monitor and adjust process

Recommendations



RecommendationsTransparent Organizations

4. Transparent Organizations• Create an accountability culture• “No-excuses” mentality

• Collaborative decision-making

• Non-existent walls between people

• Trust in each other

• Value differences of opinion

• No Secrets

• Integrate Training• Staff Development on each portion of the school

improvement process

• Leaders as strong models of transparency

Suggestions for Future Research




The depth of this study could have been enhanced byadding an observation component. Future researcherscould select one high performing school along with acomparison school to conduct observations of instruction, decision making meetings, faculty

meetings, and other campus activities. The additionalannotations could provide a more thoroughunderstanding of each of the areas reported in thefindings. Additionally, gathering data through student

interviews could have provided another perspective.





• Several participants in the high performingschools mentioned having a “no-excuses” or “whatever it takes” attitude. Future researchers

may want to look at how these mentalities aredeveloped in ECM schools.





Clearly, staff is crucial to all schools. There has beenresearch on what causes staff retention and turnover atschools (Barr & Parrett, 2007), but there is limitedresearch on the type of training certain teachers andleaders bring to a campus. How much of a principal’sor teacher’s success or lack thereof has to do with pre-service training? Researchers may want to examinethe type of institutions/organizations that are supplying

effective teachers and leaders to ECM schools.





• The notion of student interventions surfaced inevery high performing ECM school.Educational researchers need to capitalize onthis academic trend. What types of interventions are creating academic successesfor students in economically challengingenvironments?





• In an age where there are so many mechanisms andtechnologies that lend themselves well to makingclassrooms and schools transparent, there are stillmany issues of inequalities and ineffectiveness.

Researchers should take a look at successful schoolsthat are transparent. How does a leader bringeveryone to the table? What factors contribute to

creating a “culture of transparency”?

References



References

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and other’s don’t. NewYork, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

Gibson, C. (2002). Being real: The student-teacher relationship and African American maledelinquency. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

Harris, S. (2006). Best practices of award winning secondary school principals. Thousands Oak, CA:Corwin Press and National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Kannapel, P., & Clements, S. (with Taylor, D., & Hibpshman, T.) (2005). Inside the black box of high-performing high-poverty schools. Lexington, KY: Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Reeves, D. (2007). How do you sustain excellence? Educational Leadership, 65 (3), 86-87.

Senge, P. (2000). Schools that learn: a fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyonewho cares about education. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Texas Education Agency. (2007). Texas assessment of knowledge & skills performance report..Austin, TX: Agency Division of Performance Reporting-Academic Excellence Indicator System.Retrieved September 23, 2007, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/index.html.

Trimble, S. (2002). Common elements of high performing, high poverty middle schools. MiddleSchool Journal, 33(4), 1-13.

Waits, M. J., Campbell, H. E., Gau, R., Jacobs, E., Rex, T., & Hess, R. K. (2006). Why some schoolswith Latino children beat the odds…and others don’t. Tempe, AZ: Morrison Institute for PublicPolicy School of Public Affairs, College of Public Programs Arizona State University and Phoenix,AZ: Center for the Future of Arizona.

dr. margaret curette patton, phd dissertation defense, dr. william allan kritsonis, dissertation...

Documents