JES Spring Journal 2006

Spring 2006

Journal for Effective Schools research practice policies

The Journal for Effective Schools

Spring 2006

Volume 5, Number 1

In This Issue The Scoutmaster’s Dilemma

Lawrence W. Lezotte and Kathleen M. McKee Developing District Vision and Mission as Entry-Level Superintendents

William Berube, Robin Dexter, and Robert McCarthy

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

Leslie S. Kaplan and William A. Owings

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

Our Mission The Journal for Effective Schools provides educators and administrators involved or interested in the Effective Schools Process with the opportunity to share their research, practice, policies, and expertise with others.

Ebrahim Maddahian, Penny Fidler, and Kathy Hayes

Volume 5, Number 1

Published by the Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness College of Education Idaho State University

Journal for Effective Schools

Spring 2006 EXECUTIVE EDITOR E. E. (Gene) Davis, Idaho State University ASSOCIATE EDITOR Susan Jenkins, Idaho State University ASSISTANT EDITOR Charles Zimmerly, Idaho State University PRODUCTION EDITOR Vicki Fanning, Idaho State University EDITORIAL BOARD William J. Banach, Banach, Banach and Cassidy, Inc. Ben A. Birdsell, Association for Effective Schools, Inc. Anthony Bisciglia, The Effective Schools Report Gordon Cawelti, Educational Research Service Janet H. Chrispeels, University of California – Santa Barbara Daniel Drake, Cleveland State University Tom C. Farley, Effective Schools Consultant Ivan Fitzwater, Management Development Institute Hal Guthrie, Hal Guthrie and Associates, Inc. Larry B. Harris, Idaho State University Ronald H. Heck, University of Hawaii Edie Holcomb, National Center for Effective Schools Dianne Lane, Southeast Center for Effective Schools Lawrence W. Lezotte, Effective Schools Products, Ltd. Judith March, Effective Resources Associates, Inc. Jerry Mathews, Mississippi State University T. C. Mattocks, Bellingham Public Schools (Massachusetts) Deborah McDonald, International Center for Effective Schools Joseph Murphy, Vanderbilt University Steve Nelson, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory John Pisapia, Florida Atlantic University Robert E. Sudlow, Association for Effective Schools, Inc. John Steffens, University of Oklahoma M. Donald Thomas, School Management Study Group Larry Vandel, Vandel and Associates

Volume 5, Number 1

Journal for Effective Schools

s e l c i t r e A u s r s o I f ll 006 a C ll 2 SUBMISSION DEADLINE for the Fall 2006 Issue: a August 15, 2006.

F Detailed information concerning the submission of manuscripts can be found on the Internet at http://icee.isu.edu Articles for potential publication in the Journal for Effective Schools may be submitted on an on-going basis to: Susan Jenkins, Associate Editor Journal for Effective Schools Intermountain Center for Effective Schools Idaho State University Campus Box 8019 Pocatello, Idaho 83209-8019

s e l ic ue t r A Iss r fo 007 l l Ca ng 2 SUBMISSION DEADLINE for the Spring 2007 Issue: November 1, 2006. i r Sp Detailed information concerning the submission of manuscripts can be found on the Internet at http://icee.isu.edu Articles for potential publication in the Journal for Effective Schools may be submitted on an on-going basis to: Susan Jenkins, Associate Editor Journal for Effective Schools Intermountain Center for Effective Schools Idaho State University Campus Box 8019 Pocatello, Idaho 83209-8019

Volume 5, Number 1

Spring 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS Aim and Scope - Correlates of Effective Schools ...................................................................................... 2 From the Editor ................................................................................................................................................ 3 E. E. (Gene) Davis

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

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

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

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

Book Reviews Linking Teacher Evaluation and Student Learning Authors - Pamela D. Tucker and James H. Stronge .................................................................... 61 Megh Thapa

1

Journal for Effective Schools

AIM and SCOPE The Journal for Effective Schools publishes original contributions in the following areas: ●

Research Practice __ Empirical studies focusing on the results of applied educational research specifically related to the Effective Schools Process.

●

Educational Practices __ Descriptions of the use of the Effective Schools Process in classrooms, schools, and school districts to include instructional effectiveness, evaluation, leadership, and policy and governance.

●

Preparation of Educational Personnel __ Research and practice related to the initial and advanced preparation of teachers, administrators, and other school personnel including staff development practices based on the Effective Schools Process.

●

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

CORRELATES OF EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ●

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

●

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

●

Uncompromising commitment to high expectations for all __ Those who are leaders empower others to become leaders who believe and demonstrate that all students can attain mastery of essential skills. This commitment is shared by professionals who hold high expectations of themselves.

●

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

●

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

●

Frequent monitoring of progress __ Effective schools evaluate the skills and achievements of all students and teachers. No intimidation is implied. Rather, monitoring often is individualized, with improvement in learning as the goal.

●

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

* Adapted from Phi Delta Kappa International 2

Volume 5, Number 1

Spring 2006

From the Editor E. E. (Gene) Davis Executive Editor Overview of This Issue This issue begins with an article by Lezotte and McKee describing the dilemma of a scoutmaster as he attempts to lead his troop on a hike, taking into account the physical differences and limitations of the scouts. The authors compare the scoutmaster's dilemma to the challenges that leaders in education are facing today, noting that the educational landscape is being transformed into something very different from what teachers and administrators have ever known. Lezotte and McKee follow with six principles that should be addressed in order to improve the effectiveness of schools today.

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

Maddahian, Fidler, and Hayes provide an article that describes a case study methodology that was employed to highlight significant differences between two sets of elementary schools, one that has narrowed the achievement gap for African Americans, and one in which the achievement gap has widened. Instructional and pedagogical elements such as school leadership; high quality instruction; a positive school and classroom climate; appropriate use of assessment; a shared understanding and commitment to school improvement; and the implementation of culturally relevant and responsive education (CRRE) were compared in a large urban school district in the southwest United States. The case study findings provide considerable food for thought for educators who are addressing concerns regarding student achievement.

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

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

3 E. E. (Gene) Davis

Journal for Effective Schools

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

The Editorial Board continues to research whether the Journal should be published in a hard copy version or published online. The current fiscal crisis in public education argues that a more readily accessible journal, at a reduced price, should be available online. An analysis of the cost/benefit of the two options continues. Our main concern is that subscribers are able to access the Journal without any problems or interruption in service. We will continue to keep you updated on this process.

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

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

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

4 From the Editor

Volume 5, Number 1

Spring 2006

The Scoutmaster's Dilemma Lawrence W. Lezotte Effective Schools Products, Ltd. Kathleen M. McKee Effective Schools Products, Ltd. The scoutmaster of Woodchucks Troop 234 is about to take a group of 25 young scouts on an eight-mile hike to a lake for an overnight camping experience next Saturday. He's led this particular hike many times before, but this year the Woodchuck Council has made the event a competition. They have also changed the route to make it more difficult, one that involves hiking through a fairly dense woods and some rocky trail. Troop 234 is scheduled to leave at 10:00 a.m. and arrive at the lake no later than 3:00 p.m. If they don't make it by 3:00 p.m., their group will be disqualified from the competition.

The scoutmaster is concerned about getting all the boys to the designated spot on time. Here are some of the facts that cause him concern: 1. Some of the boys in the group naturally walk fast, and others naturally slow.

2. Some of the boys are very excited by the idea of the hike and the overnight camping; others are only going because their parents are making them.

3. The scoutmaster is virtually certain that each boy is capable of completing the hike, but he is not sure that the young man who's leg is in a cast and is on crutches can get there by 3:00 p.m.

4. Some of the boys are more physically fit and will be able to cover greater distances without resting, while others will need to rest more frequently.

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

should be). This means that the group will probably not have the full five hours to cover the eight miles.

6. If the scoutmaster places himself at the front of the line in order to set the proper pace, he may leave some of the slower walkers behind. If he sets a pace slow enough to keep all the scouts together, the faster walkers will become disgruntled, discouraged, turn on the slow walkers, and when they get home, probably complain to their parents that hiking is boring.

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

8. The scoutmaster is responsible for every scout; it really doesn't matter whether a scout is lost because he was left behind or because he wandered off in boredom and frustration. If any scout fails to reach the lake on time, the entire troop fails. If that happens, some parents may get angry and move their children to another troop. In addition, the Woodchuck Council could replace the scoutmaster or even disband the troop entirely.

Faced with this dilemma, the scoutmaster begins to wonder if he's cut out to lead this troop. He's willing to work hard at the task, but is in a quandary about how to assure that all 25 scouts arrive at the lake by 3:00 p.m.

The scoutmaster's dilemma is not unlike the challenges educational leaders are facing today.

Suddenly, the educational landscape has 5 Lawrence W. Lezotte & Kathleen M. McKee

Journal for Effective Schools

transformed into something very different from what teachers and administrators have ever known. The element of competition has been injected into public schooling through school of choice. The K-12 route has been made more difficult with higher standards. Educators must now be accountable for seeing that all children master these higher standards, regardless of the differences and disadvantages they bring to the schoolhouse door. And if one subgroup of students fails to meet Adequate Yearly Progress, the entire school is labeled as needing improvement−−a euphemism for failing. Further failure results in ever-more-serious sanctions, with parents being able to move their students to other schools and the possible removal of the principal. Yes, the world has changed dramatically in terms of its needs and expectations for educating today’s youth. Unfortunately, public education has not.

Why? The reason is simple: Principle 1: The Current System of Public Education Is Ideally Suited to Produce the Results It Is Now Producing.

Make no mistake, the current system is as productive−−maybe even more so−−than it has ever been throughout its proud history. Since it is functioning so well, one might ask, then just what is everyone complaining about? The unfortunate fact is this: Principle 2: The Current Results the Public Education System Is Producing Are Not the Ones This Country Needs or Wants.

What is causing this obvious disconnect? This large and growing gap between current results and societal needs is driven by two macro changes in society, both beyond the control of the schools. The first change is the increasing diversification of the children of this country; today there are more minorities, more English language learners, and more poor and disadvantaged students than ever before. The second The Scoutmaster’s Dilemma

change is the global technological revolution, which is redefining the very nature of work available to adults in the United States. This redefined work requires both different and higher skill levels.

Clearly, one does not have to be the proverbial rocket scientist to realize that the diversification of the public school customers is not going to stop or even slow down. If anything, it is going to increase for the foreseeable future. Likewise, it does not require a rocket scientist to conclude that the genie known as the global technological revolution is not going to crawl back into the bottle. Again, if anything, the global technological revolution is going to increase both in its speed and inconclusiveness.

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

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

To ignore these forces and embrace the status quo is to accept the fate, not of an endangered species, but of an extinct species. One must assume that most public educators are not ready to go the way of the dinosaur. And yet, given the powerful inertia of the system-in-place, it is not unreasonable to wonder if schools can change in response to the powerful forces acting upon them. Is successful and sustainable school reform even possible? The answer to the question is yes, if the conditions are right.

In considering how one might go about changing the school, two possible approaches come to mind. First, there is the bottom-up approach to change. In this case, the top of the system-inplace simply waits for those at lower levels in

6

Volume 5, Number 1

the system to demand that the schools change in response to the outside forces. The other approach is referred to as the top-down approach.

In this case, one would look to the leadership of the system-in-place to demand that the school change. Which course of action would seem to have the greater promise of success?

It is recognized that the system-in-place, known as the public school system, was never designed to successfully teach a high-standards curriculum to the ever more diverse students. Therefore, one knows that changing the school response to successfully confront the new educational realities of the 21st century will require systems change.

History indicates that systemic reforms of the type needed by education today rarely bubble-up from the bottom of the system. And yet, the research on the top-down strategy of change has shown that mandated change, without participant buy-in, won't last. What, then, is the alternative?

Principle 4: Simply Put, Sustainable School Reform and the Very Survival of Public Education Requires Effective Leaders Who Can Create and Manage a Process for Change That Inspires Commitment and Action From Others.

Leadership, however, is not enough to create sustainable change. As Ron Edmonds said many years ago, "We have found schools that had effective leadership that were not yet effective schools, but we have never found an effective school that did not have an effective leader."

In other words, when it comes to school effectiveness, Ron knew that leadership is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Leaders must have a theory of action or framework that provides a comprehensive approach to change.

The history of school reform clearly indicates that successful and sustainable school reform cannot be done piecemeal. For example, the

Spring 2006

purchase of a new program alone is not likely going to make much change in student success.

Likewise, staff development that takes the form of an event is not likely to make much difference either. Don't misunderstand, new programs, new strategies, and staff development may well contribute to sustainable school reform . . . but only if each is part of a comprehensive approach to change. More and more schools and districts are coming to this realization as they fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress year after year, or succeed in reaching their goals one year, but not the next.

Schools and districts must adopt a big picture approach to reform that is collaborative and inclusive, data-driven, research-based, and focused on both quality (high standards) and equity (for all students). One proven theory of action is the Effective Schools Continuous School Improvement Process. This framework provides an excellent vehicle through which the leader can create the kind of continuous and sustainable improvement called for in today's educational environment. This model for change is inclusive and collaborative, and will help the leader inspire the stakeholders to commit to a vision of a preferred future. It is a multifaceted framework that integrates systems thinking, total quality management concepts, and over three decades of Effective Schools Research that has focused on what works in schools.

Principle 5: Effective Leadership Combined With a Proven Theory of Action or Framework Can Accomplish the Seemingly Impossible.

Within this context, effective leadership is central and essential. Unfortunately, leaders who can manage such sweeping change are in short supply in public education. And given the daunting challenges ahead and the imminent retirement of many seasoned educational leaders, 7 Lawrence W. Lezotte & Kathleen M. McKee

Journal for Effective Schools

this shortage will only get worse. Therefore, schools and districts must identify, train, nurture, and mentor qualified individuals to fill the current and growing void of leadership. Current and aspiring educational leaders seeking to become more effective change agents in their schools need the following: ●

●

●

●

A clear, compelling vision of a preferred future, supported by clearly understood beliefs and values An understanding of what leadership is and is not, of various approaches to leadership, and how leadership must change as the organization grows−−against this backdrop, leaders must also have opportunities to assess their leadership abilities and skills, and identify areas for needed additional training and mentoring Opportunities to expand and enhance their leadership skills through increased knowledge, insight, and practical application Familiarity with a model for continuous and sustainable change that can provide the context and structure within which leader knowledge and skills can be applied and tested

Few educators−−or non-educators, for that matter−−would challenge the notion that the stakes are very high for this country when it comes to school reform. The majority of those who have thought about the monumental task of

improving public education so all children can be successful would agree that leadership is a critical component. Given what's at stake for children and the nation, one must challenge every educator with this question: Can we find enough individuals who understand and are committed to meeting the challenge of changing public education, who are willing to "step up" to the role of leader?

Those who understand the need for systemic change, and have a burning desire to make it happen, have the first crucial requirements for becoming effective leaders. The question to every educator is: Are you willing to "step up" to the role of leader? If you answered yes, you have taken the first step in becoming an effective leader who can initiate, manage, and monitor positive, successful, and sustainable change leading to improved student learning and achievement.

Principle 6: Our Children and Our Schools Deserve Nothing Less.

Authors Note: This article is adapted from Stepping Up: Leading the Charge to Improve Our Schools, by Dr. Larry Lezotte and Kathleen McKee, available from Effective Schools Products, Ltd. 1-800-827-8041 www.effectiveschools.com

8 The Scoutmaster’s Dilemma

Volume 5, Number 1

Spring 2006

Developing District Vision and Mission as Entry-Level Superintendents William Berube University of Wyoming Robin Dexter University of Wyoming Robert McCarthy University of Wyoming Abstract A new superintendent's first charge is to ensure that the district has a vision and mission in place that is understood and practiced by faculty, administration, and parents. It is crucial that these stakeholders, as a group, share an understanding of, and a commitment to, the instructional goals, priorities, assessments, procedures, and personal and group accountability of the district. The Educational Leadership Program at the University of Wyoming worked with students preparing to be superintendents in order to research and practice how to facilitate the development and implementation of the district vision and mission as a new superintendent. This process relates to the Effective Schools Research that emphasizes the need for schools to have a clearly stated and focused mission on learning for all. The focus is always unequivocally on the student. This article discusses vision and mission by definition, community power, the change process, relationships, systems, and the processes considered when a district receives a new superintendent.

Starting out in a new superintendency offers many questions and challenges. The following are the biggest questions: ● ● ● ●

Where will I start?

Where will we go as a community?

How do we get there?

How will I get people on board?

Identifying a direction the district seeks to follow, and writing a mission statement to guide the journey, is a vital task. Determining a mission that encompasses a school district, while incorporating the culture and personality of the community, sets the foundation for the evolution of the school district.

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

a district, and the district's own philosophy and vision. The newly appointed superintendent has already filled a need, or needs, that the search team prioritized in their selection, to include characteristics and the personal philosophy of a leader that matched or were required by perceived needs of the community. What must occur next is development of a process that involves the community so that all stakeholders are focused in the same direction−−a shared vision for the education of their children, focused on quality instruction and student learning. Vision and mission, as well as core values, are essential to developing personal and systemic direction (Elmore, 2002; Fullan, 2001).

The need to focus on the vision and mission development process may be dependent on the status or legitimacy of the existing vision and mission in the district. The depth of the process 9 William Berube, Robin Dexter, & Robert McCarthy

Journal for Effective Schools

may vary for each superintendent and district.

Also, this work is but one component of the new superintendent's entry plan, or plan for beginning the job (Neely, Berube, & Wilson, 2002).

Vision and Mission: What Are They?

The terms vision and mission are often used interchangeably with many different interpretations. Which one comes first? The question has been debated over and over and is important for the new superintendent.

The mission of the district is its shared purpose.

It is a product of the vision that is shared by the district and the community. The mission for the school district is a constant, guiding decisions and change models. When created and established, the mission statement becomes foundational for the school district, and guides and directs all present and future endeavors. It is a statement that serves as the primary compass bearing, and is resilient enough to persist even in difficult and uncertain times. A functioning mission provides real time, dynamic, individual, and organizational purpose with direction.

intended to organize or categorize experiences.

Both visions and concepts function to give meaning to present experience and permit those who hold them to more effectively control future experiences (Schlechty, 2001). According to Tollett (2002), the vision is a mental picture of success. Tollet also emphasized that vision is the fuel that allows common people to attain uncommon results. The vision is changing, moving, and evolving as the specific needs of the district change (Elmore, 2002; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). Vision can allow one to identify to the community where the district stands and where the district needs to go.

Strange attractors involve experiences or forces that create a focus for the energies and commitment of employees. Think of a strange attractor as a series of experiences that will galvanize or attract the deep energies and commitment of members in an organization to make desirable things happen. A vision, for example, can act as an attractor, but only when the vision is shared at all levels of the organization, and only when the vision emerges through experience, thereby generating commitment (Fullan, 2001).

When determining a mission for the education community, core values and moral purpose became very relevant. The moral purpose guides the stakeholders and asks them to reflect on their own moral purpose. It asks questions about what the group, as a district, believes and their focus and mission as a district. Values need to be identified along with a shared vision. The stakeholders need to become active participants, and diversity needs to be honored throughout the process of creating a community mission. The process of developing vision and mission is an opportunity to observe and learn, to listen and communicate, and to build relationships.

The comprehensive project of school improvement requires clarity of vision, breadth of view, and a determination to overcome inevitable obstacles that permit others to participate with confidence (Danielson, 1996). This vision reflects the hopes and dreams, the needs and interests, and the values and beliefs of everyone that has a stake in the school. It may be safe to say that the district vision is the desired state or image, and that the mission is the purpose or path to achieving the vision. Whatever the relationship between the two, vision and mission are both important to the new superintendent and the district.

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

Sergiovanni (1990) identified the characteristics of a mission that influence the direction of the 10

Developing District Vision and Mission as Entry-Level Superintendents

Volume 5, Number 1

district, as well as the decisions made by parents, teachers, students, administrators, and school boards. These characteristics included the following: ●

●

●

● ●

●

● ●

●

● ●

Stated clearly enough so that stakeholders can understand the mission Accessible enough so that the mission can be achieved Important enough to reflect the shared core values and beliefs of the stakeholders Powerful enough to inspire and touch people Focused enough so that it clearly defines what is important and what is not Characterized by consonance and not contradictory Encourages cooperation and not competition Includes a cooperative purpose that supports people working together and sharing group achievement Difficult enough to evoke challenge and cause people to persist Resilient enough to stand the test of time Not easily changed

School and Community Power Authority, Power, and Influence

Spring 2006

needs to become conscious. First, the new superintendent needs to get to know those people who are the power brokers of the community and who will be influencing or otherwise affecting them as superintendent. This is done by asking questions, observing, listening, and becoming aware of the needs of the school district and community.

Getting to know these people and developing positive relationships with them will enable the superintendent to be an effective educational leader and member of the community. Nurturing relationships that encompass mutual respect and trust is the first step in the process of building a community that is supportive of its educational system. The second aspect is that the superintendent uses their authority, power, and influence in a manner that will complement their personality and will be perceived as beneficial to others. The last aspect is that a superintendent shares the power−−allows others to be empowered and be influential in making decisions with the responsibility of dealing with the outcomes of those decisions.

Bases: Understanding the Change Process

Determining direction, as a new superintendent, is one of the most important tasks a superintendent must take on at the onset of a new job. Attaining the support and dedication of the community to share the vision is where the work begins. Understanding the moral and cultural values of the district will enable the superintendent to move the educational process forward in a focused and positive manner.

Understanding the sources of authority, power, and influence in the community will enable the superintendent to learn how to function in the community and to utilize leaders in directing the community towards the goals and vision of the district (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997).

The new superintendent needs to be aware of change theory and have the capability of creating the conditions, which will cause and sustain change. According to Fullan (2001), change is not linear, and it happens in rapidity. It has the potential to bring about creative breakthroughs.

It cannot be managed and controlled, but it can be understood and led. "It is a process, not an event" (Fullan, p. 40). Making the decisions to initiate major change in a district cannot be based solely on data analysis. Change agents must consider the human, political, and symbolic elements (Bolman & Deal, 2003).

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

Developing relationships is essential to the effectiveness of the new superintendent. These

Relationships, Relationships, Relationships

11 William Berube, Robin Dexter, & Robert McCarthy

Journal for Effective Schools

need to be built upon shared values and beliefs, where caring and respect are mutual, and characterized by people working together with the same purpose (Fullan, 2001). Kouzes and Posner (1987) identified seven essentials to developing relationships: setting clear standards; expecting the best; paying attention; personalizing recognizing; telling the story; celebrating together; and setting the example.

Developing relationships built upon values, integrity, and trust are crucial in focusing on a purpose of the school district. It helps to unify people into a team heading in the same direction, and it nurtures their collaboration in the process of focusing the community on the vision and mission.

The superintendent has often been expected to be an expert on everything. This is an impossible responsibility. Knowledge and power can be shared. The superintendent now has the responsibility to build public relations and support with the community, staff, teachers, and students to model shared accountability. Today, a superintendent search focuses upon identifying someone who is committed to building relationships, as well as committed to sharing knowledge in the formation of a collaborative and collegial community.

Essential in this process is the stakeholder buy-in. If the administrator disregards a staff member, it will have a negative consequence, just as it would if a teacher disregards a student in the classroom. The superintendent needs to give every staff and community member a sense of legitimacy. Building relationships breaks down barriers and allows the community to work together, focused on the same purpose.

The Systemsworld and Lifeworld of Schools Sergiovanni (2000) borrowed the terms "lifeworld" and "systemsworld" from the German philosopher and sociologist J端rgen Habermas,

who used these terms to describe two mutually exclusive, yet interdependent, domains of all society's enterprises from the family to the complex, formal organization. Both worlds are important and have value in reference to schools.

The systemsworld is a world of instrumentalities of efficient means designed to achieve ends. It provides a foundation for the development of management and of organization and financial capital that, in turn, contributes to the development of material capital, which further enriches the systemsworld. The systemsworld is a world of efficiency, outcomes, and productivity.

Systemworld of Schools Knowledge of systemsworld is essential for the entry-level superintendent, as it is integrated in the management systems of schools. Systems help schools "effectively and efficiently achieve their goals and objectives" (Sergiovanni, 2000, p.

4). At the district level, the systemsworld includes reporting requirements, data collection, facilities, curriculum, budgeting, communication, human resources, school board, laws, policies, technology, staff development, accreditation, school improvement, district strategic plan, consolidated grant applications, and funding resources. These systems at the district level have a significant impact on vision and mission development. Systems at the state and federal level, such as federal laws, teacher certification, funding models, accreditation, technology, and consolidated funding, effect district planning and decision making. Maintaining internal coherence is difficult when trying to meet state and federal system requirements.

Lifeworld of Schools Lifeworld of the school is incorporated in its culture, meaning, and significance (Sergiovanni, 2000). The lifeworld of the school includes the culture and operating principles of the learning organization. Sergiovanni (2000) stated that culture is the essence of values and beliefs; the 12

Developing District Vision and Mission as Entry-Level Superintendents

Volume 5, Number 1

expression of needs, purposes, and desires of people; and about the sources of deep satisfaction in the form of meaning and significance.

The lifeworld provides the foundation for the development of social, intellectual, and other forms of human capital that contribute, in turn, to the development of cultural capital, which then further enriches the lifeworld itself. The district's culture is determined by the values and beliefs of the district, which are expressed through vision and mission. The heart of instruction, and doing what is best for students, is associated with the lifeworld and learning organization business.

Through the interplay of the state and federal systems, school districts lose a large portion of their local control. Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Smith, and Ross (1994) cited that 85% of the problem when trying to make sustainable change is due to systems conflict or influx. The new superintendent's challenge is to facilitate the development of a vision and mission that thrives and is operational within the imposed systemsworld. It is essential that the vision and mission bridge the lifeworld with the systemsworld.

When there is a balance of the lifeworld and systemsworld of a school, these two worlds engage in a symbiotic relationship, which brings two dissimilar elements together in a way that benefits both. Both have equally valuable standing. This occurs when the lifeworld drives the systemsworld. However, if the systemsworld drives the lifeworld, the organizational character of the school erodes, which may result in many dysfunctions, including high student disengagement and low student performance.

Systemsworld conflicts squeeze lifeworld systems and threaten their effectiveness. The challenge of the superintendent is to negotiate within the systemsworld while maintaining the integrity of the lifeworld.

Spring 2006

The Process of Developing a Vision and Mission The process of developing a vision and mission promotes the establishment of relationships among stakeholders, forging a unity and validation of all voices. The very nature of the process brings factions together by creating shared inspiration, thus forming a mental picture of success. This relationship building will be critical in the successful implementation of the vision and mission. The vision and mission provides a common language that can be used to clarify the purpose and direction of the district.

Ideally, representatives from all segments of the community are involved in the development of the mission statement. The community includes the students, parents, staff members, and administration, both at the building level and from the central office. Each stakeholder is treated as an equal. All brainstormed ideas are accepted as a possible solution. If a unanimous decision can not be reached, then those who do not agree are asked what it would take to get them to agree. If again a unanimous agreement is not reached, then the group who had resisted would be able to say that they had their voices heard and will publicly support the decision made by consensus.

Thus, the process is more important than the product. This interest-based agreement process can be utilized in the process of developing a mission statement that is representative of the community.

Small groups work to discuss and identify the values, expectations, and aspirations that they envision for the school, school district, and school community. These recommendations are submitted to a district steering committee. In the formal planning process, the members of the steering committee work together to develop a draft of the mission and vision statement of the 13 William Berube, Robin Dexter, & Robert McCarthy

Journal for Effective Schools

district. This draft is then disseminated throughout the community for input. Feedback is received and modifications and/or changes are made in the steering committee. The mission and vision statement are submitted to the board for approval.

Team Building and Group Processing: Developing a Code of Cooperation Establishing a common mission is essential in order for the stakeholders to become unified in working toward a common goal. Team building involves time to develop productive, professional relationships, and networks of support and assistance throughout the school. A new superintendent, who models and promotes communication among the stakeholders, promoting collegiality and collaboration, encourages and facilitates team building.

Because every team is made up of individuals who have differing beliefs and values, there is a need for establishing a process by which these differences can be accepted and the productivity of the group remains intact. Group processing enables a team to determine and utilize operating principles that will enable it to work towards a consensus.

The Basom Norms (Basom, 2002) were developed for using and gathering data. However, it would seem that these norms might be applied to the process of collaboratively developing a vision and mission. By regarding these norms as a code of operation and cooperation, a superintendent can create a basis for collaboration, working as a team, while being focused on specific needs or goals. The Basom Norms are defined as follows: ● ●

●

There is a sense of mutual respect between us.

We take the time to really talk together and reflect about what each thinks is important.

We listen to each other, even if there are differences.

●

●

● ●

● ●

All are accepted and not judged by others in the conversation.

The conversation helps strengthen our relationship.

We will explore questions that matter.

We develop shared meaning that was not there when we began.

I will learn something new or important.

It will strengthen our mutual commitment.

(Basom, 2002)

Group processing does not necessarily involve all members all the time. However, those who choose not to participate in the decision-making process must agree to abide by the decisions made in their absence. Sufficient consensus means that at least 80% of the group is willing to commit and act. It also means that the other group members agree not to sabotage decisions made and actions taken. Sufficient consensus relies on both dialogue and discussion for effectiveness (Garmston & Wellman, 1999).

Summary The vision of a school district is the dream of what the district can become. The mission is how to accomplish the dream. The overall purpose of a school district is reflected in its mission. It is the gateway for guiding decisions and change models, reflecting the core values and moral purpose of the community. Understanding the moral and cultural values of a district enables a leader to move the educational community in a focused and positive manner.

Vision and mission statements are unique products created from the coming together of diverse ideas and attitudes. However, there are common characteristics to which vision and statements can achieve. The vision and mission of the district should reflect high ideals and standards. Thus, the vision and mission substantiate the moral purpose and worth of the organization.

14

Developing District Vision and Mission as Entry-Level Superintendents

Volume 5, Number 1

Fullan (2001) described moral purpose as actively pursuing a greater good. Only when vision is joined with action can change reshape the culture of the learning community.

The written vision and mission should be well articulated and easily understood by all constituents. The language should convey a clear understanding to every audience. The district may choose to produce a written statement that is short, precise, and easy to recall. The key variable as described by Edmonds (1979) is the proportion of adults in the school community who know, understand, and can communicate the organizations major purpose.

Beyond the written message seen hanging on the walls, printed on district letterhead, or published in school handbooks, the incidental benefits resulting from the experience of developing a mission and vision provide the foundation for lasting cultural change within a learning community. The power is in the process of the development and implementation of the mission and vision. Incidental benefits include relationship building, validation of individual ideas, and the development of a common language.

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

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003).

Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

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

Spring 2006

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

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

Garmston, R. J., & Wellman, B. M. (1999).

The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing collaborative groups. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

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

Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William Berube is a Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at the University of Wyoming. His areas of specialization are school law, district and 15 William Berube, Robin Dexter, & Robert McCarthy

Journal for Effective Schools

school culture, personnel, human relations, and decision making. Robin Dexter is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at the University of Wyoming. Her areas of specialization are leadership for rural schools, instructional leadership, and school improvement. Robert McCarthy is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at the University of Wyoming.

His areas of specialization are middle school

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

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. William Berube, Professor, University of Wyoming, Department of Educational Leadership, Dept. 3374, 1000 E. University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071 Email: berube@uwyo.edu

16 Developing District Vision and Mission as Entry-Level Superintendents

Volume 5, Number 1

Spring 2006

Spending and Student Achievement: Policy and Spending Implications for School Boards Leslie S. Kaplan Newport News Public Schools William A. Owings Old Dominion University Abstract In a climate of high public accountability for student learning, superintendents and school boards need to understand that money should be spent in schools to get the "biggest bang for the instructional buck." Reviewing Effective Schools Research and studies on educational spending and student achievement can help educational leaders focus their resources appropriately.

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

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

Today's superintendents and school boards find themselves in a dilemma. The federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires annual student achievement testing and demonstrated Adequate Yearly Progress in reading and math for all student subgroups. Local newspapers publish each school's achievement results; and the community knows how well (or not) its schools are performing by these empirical measures. Meanwhile, the state educational agency sets educational standards, and individual schools deliver instruction. As a result, local school boards find their authority and flexibility restricted when setting learning goals, hiring teachers, or operating the district. Given these new realities, superintendents are helping local boards define their new role in improving student learning and assuring that the community receives educational value from its schools by

emphasizing Effective Schools Correlates and research on spending and student achievement.

With what Carver called the "ironic combination of micromanagement and rubber stamping as well as . . . tradition-blessed practices that trivialize the board's important public policy role" (2000, p. 1), school boards usually leave student learning to the educational professionals. Boards do not exist to run schools but to govern those who do. In this corporate model, with operational responsibility only for their own activities−−such as setting agenda and conducting meetings−− boards govern by developing policies that define desired ends and acceptable means of reaching them. Superintendents work within these limits; and boards evaluate superintendents' performance accordingly.

In today's high accountability climate, however, the public expects superintendents and school boards to take concrete and dynamic leadership roles in improving student learning through their policies and decisions. The National School Boards Foundation (1999) announcement that school boards' primary goal must be to improve student academic achievement and the National School Boards Association's adoption of student 17 Leslie S. Kaplan & William A. Owings

Journal for Effective Schools

achievement improvement as its major objective (Speer, 1998) have focused board attention on teaching and learning results as a test of their own effectiveness. School board effectiveness begins, therefore, with what Lezotte and Jacoby (1992) called a clear and focused mission for a culture of learning for all students.

relations that actively nurture student learning; school boards and superintendents foster a successful school community. Although the research is limited (Goodman, Fulbright, & Zimmerman, 1997; National School Boards Foundation, 1999), school board policies can measurably influence student achievement.

Helping school boards use this clear and focused mission to positively impact student learning requires that district leaders understand how and where school board actions on spending can make meaningful differences in student achievement. As Rice comments, ". . . while school board members are not professional educators, they have important responsibilities related to teaching and learning . . . and the learning environment. Their job is to work with the superintendent to create the conditions for a professional learning community to thrive so that all schools can generate results for children" (2000, p. 2).

The National School Boards Association emphasizes using policy alignment as a means to affect student learning. McKay and Newcomb (2002) noted that boards, who are ultimately accountable for student achievement, should take a systems approach that ensures consistency among goals, plans, resources, capacity, incentives, and assessments. School board support for improving student learning can come through establishing a clear and focused mission for excellence, advocating for that vision by mobilizing public support, providing adequate resources, directing resources where they can do the most good, and holding programs and people accountable for the instructional leadership necessary for success.

This article describes the current thinking and research on financing student achievement within the context of Effective Schools Correlates.

Moreover, it shows where school boards and their spending policies and practices make the greatest measurable positive impact on student achievement.

School Board Policies Can Impact Student Achievement Today's school boards risk being judged unsuccessful if they do not develop policies and support, oversee, and evaluate programs specifically aimed at improving or producing high student academic achievement. Through policy focus on hiring and developing instructional leadership; creating a school and district-wide climate of high expectations for success; frequent monitoring and communication of student progress; and building strong home-school

Likewise, according to Elmore (1993), defining an appropriate role for local school districts involves providing checks and balances to state and federal actions, adapting state reforms to local conditions, mobilizing local support, and serving as a creative and innovate source.

Although Elmore's research found uneven performance and weakness in influencing teaching, he found that active district involvement could stimulate reform activity at the school level.

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

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

18

Volume 5, Number 1

achievement and policy−−they did not, however, describe how they measured the quality variables or how the quality variables were empirically linked to student achievement.

In another study, the Iowa Association of School Boards (2001) found that certain board attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors are correlated with student achievement and are key parts of a culture of improvement. Boards in high achieving districts fully invest themselves in the climate of high expectations for success. They believe that all children have the capacity to achieve, do not accept student limitations as unchangeable, and understand how key school reform elements such as shared leadership and data-driven decision making are operating in their districts. This belief difference appears, as well, through the districts' administrators and teachers. Although based on a very small sample (six schools), the study suggested that board actions are key parts of a culture of improvement. Land (2002) noted, as with the Goodman et al (1997) study, that the Iowa study did not analyze whether or how strongly each individual board difference was related to students' academic achievement.

Likewise, McCarthy and Celio (2001) found that educators in Washington schools who fail to make progress on state standards cited little district level performance pressure, and the boards seemed disengaged.

Unfortunately, to mobilize and direct needed resources, educational leaders must first challenge the popular but mistaken idea that increased funding does not affect student achievement. Knowing a brief history behind the current school spending and student achievement debate provides a context for informed decisionmaking about spending school funds.

Spring 2006

Popular Misconceptions in Understanding the Relationship Between School Funding and Achievement In 1966, the Coleman Report changed the public's attitude about education spending. Federally funded as a part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Coleman study focused on racial segregation and educational inequality by examining schools' physical facilities, curriculum, teacher characteristics, and student achievement as measured by standardized test scores. The study also factored in student self-attitudes and academic goals, socioeconomic status, and parent education levels.

Politicians and social scientists originally misinterpreted the findings of Coleman’s (1966) study as saying that schools had little impact on student achievement outside of the students' family background. The study appeared to say that educational inputs (student-teacher ratio, funding resources, teaching practices, quality of school facilities) did not contribute much to student achievement (outputs). Instead, parental education and affluence had more impact on students' learning in school than anything the schools or teachers did in the classroom. In brief, the students of affluent, well-educated parents became smarter in school, while the economically disadvantaged students of poorly-educated parents did not. Arguably, Coleman's report may well have been the impetus for researchers to study what is now known as the characteristics of Effective Schools.

Less well know studies, such as Welch (1966) and Johnson and Stafford (1972), concurrent with Coleman (1966), indicated positive connections between school spending and student outcomes.

19 Leslie S. Kaplan & William A. Owings

Journal for Effective Schools

Instead of using student achievement on a standardized test as the output variable, these economists examined the individuals' later earnings in the labor force and found a significant association between adult earnings and school spending. Likewise, Verstegan and King (1998) stated that these positive findings have been strong and consistent over time. Unfortunately, the widespread media play of Coleman's study seriously overshadowed the others with different findings.

In this vein, researcher Hanushek (1981, 1996) published meta-analyses of existing studies and found that the relationship between spending and student achievement was neither strong nor consistent given the way the government currently funded education. With titles such as Throwing Money at Schools and The Case for Equalized Mediocrity: School Finance Reform Without Consideration of School Performance, Hanushek incited public and policy opinion against increased education funding.

Similarly, William Bennett (1993), U.S. Secretary of Education from 1985 to 1988, openly challenged public education funding, citing his own per pupil spending study and SAT scores to justify that education spending was unrelated to student achievement. He concluded that the states with the highest SAT scores−− Iowa, North and South Dakota, Utah, and Minnesota−−spent low amounts per pupil.

Students could show high academic achievement, Bennett concluded, without high school funding levels. Public education did not need more money, he logically asserted, in order to assure student learning gains.

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

above the mean. In this region, moreover, most college bound students take a different admissions test, the ACT. As such, Midwestern SAT students did not accurately represent the normal national population distribution, and drawing such conclusions about education spending and achievement on that basis was invalid.

On the other hand, appropriately designed and conducted research can inform us about spending and student achievement. First, an overview describes the fallacy of using industrial production function studies to draw implications about education spending. Next, the article reviews research on spending and student achievement and discusses how several characteristics of Effective Schools−−teacher quality, professional development, as well as reduced class and school size, teacher salaries, and school facilities−−impact student achievement. Together, it illustrates how knowledgeable advocates can invest limited budget monies with maximum payoff into those areas with demonstrated connections to student achievement gains.

Why the Coleman Study Approach Does Not Work for Education According to Thompson and Wood (2001), conclusions about the seeming lack of relationship between spending and student achievement are both incomplete and unsatisfying. Intuitively, it makes sense to believe that either increased spending on education will produce better student achievement or at least not decrease it−− or that spending less money will certainly not increase student achievement. Alternately, it seems logical that if spending more money does not guarantee better student achievement, spending less can certainly harm it. Continuing Secretary Bennett's faulty logic, however, the best education would cost nothing−−a conclusion no reasonable person could reach. Sadly, exact answers surrounding the relationship between spending and student achievement remain incomplete and confusing.

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

20

Volume 5, Number 1

For example, Edley (1991) and Alexander and Salmon (1995) proposed that production function studies such as the Coleman study methodology are inappropriate models for education. Such economic models for study in industry applications are quite precise. For instance, an industrial treatment might legitimately examine the following question: Given a productivity rate per line worker of 15 widgets1 per hour (where P is the productivity rate), what would happen to daily output (where O is the daily output), if working conditions changed by lowering summer air conditioning temperatures on the factory floor from 80 degrees to 75 degrees (where t is the temperature)?

The equation might look like this: P = (t)O In this case, the workplace temperature would be adjusted, and the increased utilities cost would be measured against the anticipated increase in widget production. If the increased cost resulted in increased profit, the change would occur.

In this example and most industrial situations, the factory's supply of widget parts undergoes a systematic, rigid, quality control check. The production line does not accept defective widgets.

Through many studies, all widget processes are known to take the same average assembly time.

All widget workers work at approximately the same rate. Workers who produce significantly more widgets per hour may receive higher pay rates. Widget workers who produce significantly fewer widgets per hour are fired.

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

Spring 2006

students enroll with varying levels of readiness to get along well with others in an extended social (classroom or playground) situation, with different degrees of reading and math preparedness and ability, varying beliefs about schools' value in their lives, and wide-ranging family backgrounds. Some children come to school loved and nurtured. Others come to school abused and neglected. Some arrive daily, prepared to learn while others arrive late or are absent frequently, unable to benefit from classroom instructional activities.

Moreover, in education, not only does the product quality vary, the production process in schools varies. Unlike industry, education's production process is not standardized. Not all students move through the same production process. School cultures differ about philosophical beliefs concerning teaching and learning and the expectations held for different students.

Teacher quality varies from classroom to classroom, school to school, and district to district.

Professional development varies in quality and frequency. School physical conditions vary, the safe and orderly environment essential to effective teaching and learning may or may not be present, class size fluctuates, teacher experience and education levels differ, and educator financial compensation depends on geographic location, job title, responsibilities, years of service, and advanced degrees completed and does not relate to their student achievement gains. Most importantly, per pupil spending varies significantly from state to state and from district to district; how those funds are applied does also.

This is not to say that examining the inputs and outputs of education (production function studies) cannot be useful in our profession.

What must be said, however, is that the methods, variables, and outputs examined are complicated, not lending themselves to sound bite answers.

21 Leslie S. Kaplan & William A. Owings

Journal for Effective Schools

What valid and reliable information is available about spending public monies and the associated student achievement gains? How can public funds be best spent in order to promote student achievement? What characteristics of Effective Schools indicate where increased funding might result in increased student achievement? Recent education finance studies and decades of Effective Schools literature prove valuable in answering these questions.

What the Research Shows About Money and Student Achievement Overall Spending and Increased Achievement As mentioned, studies contemporary with Coleman's 1966 Report showed positive associations between school spending and workforce earnings. In fact, Baker's (1991) and Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald's (1994) reanalysis of Hanushek's work concluded that money does matter to student achievement. Hedges et al.

(1994) acknowledged that upon reviewing the data most often used to deny that resources are related to achievement, money does matter after all. In a study by Cooper et al (1994), also conducted at the same time as Coleman's, it was determined that per pupil expenditures, controlling for other factors, was significantly related to student outcomes. In addition, Verstegan and King wrote, "This body of work provides further evidence that school resource inputs make a difference in improving the educational outcomes of students" (1998, pp. 1-2).

Likewise, many other studies show positive relationships between increased spending on education and student achievement. Fortune and O'Neil (1994), using an improved model for examining production function studies, found significant increases in student achievement with increases in instructional expenditures. In addition, Verstegan (1994) observed that overall school revenue accounted for about one third of the variance in school achievement scores.

The data show that increased spending focused on delivery of quality instruction directly to students produces the greatest achievement return for the dollars spent. The following sections provide evidence that increased spending on teacher quality, professional development for staff, reduced class size and school size, increased teacher salaries, and improved school facilities also produce a significant return on investment for fostering student achievement gains.

Teacher Quality and Student Achievement Baker affirmed, "We know what constitutes good teaching, and we know that good teaching can matter more than student family backgrounds and economic status" (1991, p. 1). Parents have long known that teacher quality matters.

Concerned, involved, and informed parents request certain teachers for their children where this practice is permitted. Research now supports what many have known intuitively−−that the quality of the teacher and teaching effectiveness are the most powerful predictors of student success. In fact, Minner stated "Teacher quality is not just an important issue facing the nation's schools: It is the [sic] issue" (2001, p. 33).

Darling-Hammond (2000) found that teacher quality variables, such as full certification and completing a major in the teaching field, are more important to student outcomes in reading and math than are student demographic variables such as poverty, minority status, and language background. Formal teacher preparation, according to Darling-Hammond, accounts for 40% to 60% of the total variance in student achievement controlling for the students' demographic background.

Darling-Hammond (2000) confirmed the Effective Schools Correlates regarding teacher quality and teacher effectiveness, and further identifies the following teacher quality factors related to increased student achievement:

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

22

Volume 5, Number 1 ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ●

●

Verbal ability Content knowledge Education methods coursework related to their discipline Licensing exam scores that measure basic skills and teaching knowledge Skillful teaching behaviors Ongoing professional development Enthusiasm for learning Flexibility, creativity, and adaptability Teaching experience (those with fewer than three years experience tend to be less effective, but there appears to be little evidence that more than three years produces greater student achievement) Asking higher order questions (application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation as opposed to recognition and recall questions) and probing student responses

Spring 2006

estimated math scores at the 83rd percentile while the group with three consecutive years with the ineffective teachers scored at the 29th percentile.

With NCLB requirements that all subgroups show Adequate Yearly Progress, teacher quality and teacher effectiveness become more crucial.

Haycock, Jerald, and Huang (2001) wrote that data taken from the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicated that effective teachers make a difference in minority achievement. For example, on the NAEP Writing test in grade 8, Texas African American students scored 146 points while Arkansas African American students scored 121 points, a 25-point difference worth two and one-half years of learning. Likewise, Latino students in Virginia scored 146 points on the NAEP Writing test while Latino students in Mississippi scored 106 points, a 40-point difference worth four years of learning.

Moreover, value added studies in Texas and Tennessee indicated explicitly how much of an achievement difference teacher quality makes in student achievement as measured by standardized test results.2 In the Texas study, Jordan, Mendro, and Weerasinge (1997) estimated that when students are assigned to effective teachers for three consecutive years, reading scores rise from the 59th percentile to the 76th percentile from grades 4 through 6. On the other hand, scores for students assigned to ineffective teachers for three consecutive years dropped from the 60th percentile in grade 4 to the 42nd percentile by grade 6, a 35-percentile point decline for students who started at approximately the same achievement level three years earlier.

At testing time, both Texas and Virginia had been high-stakes testing states for several years before testing, using focused and public goals with sanctions for schools and students who did not achieve at predetermined levels. Arkansas and Mississippi were not. One can assume that Texas and Virginia teachers felt explicit, clear, and focused pressures for all students to achieve at high levels so that even traditionally lower achieving students mastered the standard curriculum and used those effective practices in their classrooms to bring more children across the bar.

The Tennessee value added study provided similar results. Again, Sanders and Rivers' (1996) study showed dramatic differences appear after students studying three consecutive years with effective versus ineffective teachers. While no significant differences existed among math groups at the start of the fourth grade, by the end of sixth grade, the group assigned to three consecutive years with effective teachers had

Similarly, Weglinsky's (2000) analyses of 1996 NAEP eighth grade math and science scores determined that student, whose teachers either majored or minored in the subjects they taught, outperformed their peers by approximately 40% of one grade level. Eighth graders scored 39% higher in math than their peers when taught by teachers who stressed critical thinking skills, such as writing about math. Haycock (1998) 23 Leslie S. Kaplan & William A. Owings

Journal for Effective Schools

suggested that teacher content knowledge in English and social sciences may be just as important to student achievement.

Such studies concluded that actual teaching performance−−not just courses taken−−makes a significant difference in student achievement; and teacher education accrediting bodies are now recognizing this. Since 2001, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) (2000) uses a performance-based accreditation system that looks more closely at the teacher candidate's work, subject knowledge, and demonstrated teaching skills, rather than only inputs and processes not directly related to classroom practice. By refocusing attention to include actual teaching practices, this national standards organization affirms the Effective Schools Correlates that teachers' pedagogy with students inside the classroom increases their learning and underpins teacher effectiveness and student achievement.

Knowing how much high quality teachers and teaching contribute to student achievement, education dollars appear best spent in hiring and keeping the highest quality teachers.

Interviewing, hiring, and inducting practices that include looking for the characteristics mentioned earlier; providing a positive school culture and professional work environment with a climate of high expectations for all students' success; and implementing salary structures designed to maximize hiring, developing, and retaining teachers who produce the most student learning may be the best uses of limited education dollars. These are clearly characteristics of effective schools.

Professional Achievement

Development

and

Student

Once employed, professional development plays an important role in strengthening and retaining the highest quality teachers. New teachers can get better, marginal teachers can improve, and successful teachers can continue to increase their

expertise through well-designed professional development programs. As instructional leaders, principals know that quality professional development programs positively impact student achievement. Every extra factor that provides teachers with techniques for individualizing instruction increases student attainment.

Weglinsky's (2000) 1996 NAEP data studies also indicated that professional development in cultural diversity, teaching techniques for addressing needs of students with limited English proficiency, and teaching students identified with special education needs are linked to higher student achievement in math.

These customized instructional approaches create more opportunity to learn for students who need varied instructional practices to gain knowledge and skills.

Not all professional development programs, however, are equally effective. Effective professional development programs are practical, on-going, and integral to the school. They foster a staff culture of mutual learning, monitoring, professional confidence, and commitment to collaboration. Moreover, this adult learning is highly connected to what teachers actually do in their classrooms. Professional development that describes specific teaching behaviors and constructs provides a faculty with a common language to address teaching and learning collaboratively. Monroe (1999) noted that once teachers receive a systematic study of learning processes that allow them to reflect and address their own teaching and learning beliefs and practices, they can analyze and improve what they do in the classroom. Given this opportunity, faculty can then address students' learning needs from a variety of strategies with a common language to help all students learn and achieve more effectively.

In other research, Hirsh, Koppich, and Knapp (1998) found that when professional development is sustained over time and based on curriculum standards, teachers are more likely to adopt 24

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

Volume 5, Number 1

new and reform-based teaching practices.

Subsequently, their students achieve at higher levels on standardized tests. Having motivational speakers address the faculty at the start of the school may be good for short-term morale, but such practices should not be confused with a professional development program for building positive school culture that has a lasting impact on student learning.

In addition, Scribner (1999) observed that teachers who have high expectations for success and believe that their instructional practices have a direct impact on student achievement are more likely to seek out and implement new teaching and learning techniques. Armed with new information and invested in their on-going professional growth, teachers gain confidence about their teaching skills, reflect on their practices, and seek professional colleagues' advice to maximize student achievement. In short, professional development, often cited in Effective Schools literature, can help create a systemic reculturing of teaching for learning within the school.

Reduced Class Size and Student Achievement Teachers and parents have long known that all else being equal, smaller class size allows

Spring 2006

teachers to spend more time meeting individual student needs. Smaller class sizes increase student opportunity to learn, may increase classroom safety and orderliness, and often facilitates home-school communication. California's legislature appropriated $1 billion starting in the 1996-97 school year to lower class size in grades K through 3 from almost 30 to 20. New York followed suit and in 1999 President Clinton's FY99 budget included $12 billion to states to reduce K through 3 class size.

Salaries consume the lion's share of education budgets. Hiring more qualified teachers to reduce overall class size, building additional classrooms for the extra teachers, and providing the resources associated with each additional teacher and classroom pose difficult policy questions for district-level leaders. Does the increased cost of decreasing class size produce enough achievement gain to warrant spending limited resources towards that end or do other and more cost productive ways exist to increase student achievement?

For many years, researchers have studied the impact of class size on student achievement. In early studies, Walberg (1984) seemed to cast doubt about the efficacy of spending money to

Figure 1 The Normal Distribution

25 Leslie S. Kaplan & William A. Owings

Journal for Effective Schools

reduce class size. One early research review examined 27 alterable variables associated with student achievement and found class size to be an ineffective means of improving student achievement−−ranking 25th of the 27 variables with an estimated effect size of only 0.09 (Effect size is a measurement of change in standard deviation units. Therefore, an effect size of 1.0 would mean a difference in scores of one standard deviation). Robinson and Wittebols (1986) also reviewed the class size literature and stated that from a policy standpoint, reducing class size may be a prohibitively expensive method to increase student achievement.

More positively, Stecher, Bohrnstedt, Kirst, McRobbie, and Williams (2001) described how the Tennessee study's successfully controlled experiments of class size reduction in primary grades showed positive results. The Teacher/ Student Achievement Ratio, or STAR, program involved over 12,000 students for four years using fully-qualified, experienced teachers and a relatively homogeneous student population. This highly controlled longitudinal study indicated

that attending a small class for three consecutive years in grades K through 3 is associated with sustained academic benefits in all school subjects through grade 8. Robinson (1990) concluded that consecutive years in small classes had the most effect on minority and inner-city students.

In an American Educational Research Association (AERA) report, Zurawsky (2003) indicated that even when students return to normal-sized classrooms in 4th grade, achievement gains are maintained. Moreover, Nye, Hodges, and Konstantopoulos's (2000) analysis and Robinson's (1990) review and synthesis of more than 100 class-size studies suggested that the most positive effect of small classes appears in kindergarten to third grade for mathematics and reading test scores, with results consistent across schools. In another study, Addonizio and Phelps (2000) reviewed the benefits and costs of class size reduction of several well-researched studies. Figure 2 shows the cost effectiveness of class size on the effect size of student performance from that study.

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

12.50

13.64

15.00

16.67

18.75

21.43

25.00

0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00

30.00

Outcome

Figure 2 Cumulative Effect Size at Various Resource Levels

26

Volume 5, Number 1

Unfortunately, Robinson's (1990) findings in several studies indicated that the advantages of small classes, defined as 13 to 19 pupils, may not continue in later school years. Likewise, Stecher et al. (2001) noted that cost effectiveness studies of various strategies for improving student learning indicated that reducing class size has a small positive effect on achievement compared to many less costly strategies. Decreased class size is, at times, associated with an increase in the cost of additional teachers, and frequently, additional classrooms.

Moreover, lowering licensure/teacher quality regulations to attract additional candidates of lesser quality could negate the impact of class size. Stecher et al. (2001) concluded that California's class size reduction experience increased the teacher workforce by 38% but the drop in teacher quality disproportionately affected urban districts already challenged by poverty, overcrowding, and language barriers. In this case, more (lower quality) teachers with fewer students did not increase student achievement.

Although class size has decreased rather consistently since 1960, research does not support the expectations that just reducing class size results in greater academic gains. Class size effects vary by grade level, pupil characteristics, subject areas, teaching methods, and other variables.

Nevertheless, research affirms that class size appears to matter most for reading and math at the early elementary years for all students and especially for at-risk students. Reducing class size without simultaneously improving teacher and teaching quality appears to be both expensive and often ineffective.

Reduced School Size and Student Achievement Recent substantial grant awards from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to large urban school districts to create smaller schools would lead one to believe that reduced school size is associated

Spring 2006

with increased student achievement. Ideally, smaller schools would have safer and more orderly climates and positive school cultures; increased interactions and enhanced relationships between teachers, students, and parents; and additional opportunities to enact Effective Schools characteristics. Recent research fuels these grant awards.

In fact, a 2002 study by Ohio researchers Johnson, Howley, and Howley (2002) for the Rural School and Community Trust in a eightstate study (Alaska, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Montana, Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia) found that smaller schools reduce the harmful effects of poverty on student achievement and help students from less affluent communities narrow the academic achievement gap between them and students from wealthier communities. The implication is that the less affluent a community, the smaller the school and school district serving that community should be in order to maximize student achievement.

Two Education Commission of the States (2004, 2005) reports detailed the benefits of reduced school size. Although the reports found no consensus on the actual size of a small school, the selected enrollment ranges from 200 to 900 students. The reports drew four conclusions.

First, as schools got smaller, they produced better student performance results in terms of student attendance, test scores, graduation rates, and participation in extracurricular activities.

Second, parents also appeared to like the communication and participation levels in smaller schools, thereby increasing parent satisfaction ratings. Third, teachers appeared to like smaller schools, reporting they felt an ability to make a real difference in student learning. And last, the report indicated that smaller schools tend to produce a safer learning environment for students.

All reflect Effective Schools characteristics.

Certainly, smaller schools appear to be more expensive to operate on a per-pupil basis, there27 Leslie S. Kaplan & William A. Owings

Journal for Effective Schools

by reducing efficiency. The above-mentioned report suggests that smaller schools may be more cost effective, however, when considered on a cost per graduate basis in that there are fewer dropouts in smaller schools. Furthermore, a 2002-2003 Ohio Study (KnowledgeWorks Foundation, 2005) showed that it is possible to construct smaller schools on a cost effective basis with real economic and social advantages for the community.

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

Likewise, Stiefel, Berne, Iatarola, and Fruchter's (2000) study examined more than 140 schools and 50,000 students in the New York City Public Schools. They found ". . . that a combined output and cost measure, budget per graduate, shows that small academic high schools have budgets per graduate similar to those of large high schools (greater than 2,000). For small academic high schools, this result is due to their vastly lower dropout rates. Smaller mediumsized vocational schools (600-1200 students) and small alternative transfer high schools have the highest budgets per graduate" (pp. 36-37).

Certainly, means exist for decreasing large schools' functional size by implementing a school-within-a-school concept. Smaller schools organized within a larger school may be a costefficient way to achieve the benefits of smaller schools. This school-within-a-school approach establishes a smaller educational unit with a separate educational program within the larger school; it has its own staff and students, and its own budget. Several cities, including New York City, Philadelphia, and Chicago, have experi-

mented with this model to downsize larger schools to reap smaller and effective school benefits.

The school-within-a-school must negotiate the use of common space such as the gym, auditorium, and playground with a host school, and defer to the building principal on safety and building operation. The school-within-a-school often reports to a district official instead of being responsible to the building principal. Ideally, the teachers and students choose to affiliate with the school-within-a-school.

Raywid (1985) concluded, "The major challenge to schools-within-schools has been obtaining sufficient separateness and autonomy to permit staff members to generate a distinctive environment and to carry out their own vision of schooling" (p. 455). This involves professional development and time to develop and enact their educational vision. In addition, too small does exist when the school size does not provide the necessary services and courses to support student learning and high achievement.

Teacher Salaries and Student Achievement To be sure, controversy surrounds the issue of teacher salaries and student achievement. Manzo (2004) wrote that teachers' salaries have slipped 15 percent since 1993 and 12 percent since 1983 after adjusting for inflation. Teacher salaries are now well below those of comparable professions, complicating efforts to attract and keep highly qualified educators. Although teachers tend to receive benefits, their health insurance and pensions are not valuable enough to offset the wage differential. Nor do teachers receive paid leave, bonuses, or overtime available in other professions.

Virtually no one doubts that higher salaries will attract brighter, more talented individuals into a profession. The Teaching Commission (2004), a non-profit group formed in 2003 to improve 28

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

Volume 5, Number 1

teaching, recommended raising teacher base salaries as a means to make the profession's pay more competitive and attract higher quality teachers. It is logical to surmise that increased salaries will, however, expand the potential teacher applicant pool. While even Hanushek (2000) agreed that increasing teacher salaries will expand the potential teacher pool from which a district can choose, he added, "But the influence on students depends directly on the ability of districts to choose the best teachers from the expanded pool. Research shows that the typical school district does poorly in these choices. The combination of these factors implies there is virtually no relationship between teacher salaries and student achievement" (p.1).

Linking empirical evidence of increased teacher quality with higher teacher salaries is difficult because most school districts have salary schedules based on years of experience, earned degrees, and extracurricular supplements.

Salaries are not based on student learning or achievement.

While some school districts do not do a good job in selecting the highest quality teachers, it is false to imply that no relationship exists between salary and student achievement. The evidence is overwhelming that teacher quality is related to student achievement. The varied confounding factors involved, however, make this relationship difficult to clearly measure.

The best advice to superintendents is to do all possible to increase the district's faculty of quality teachers. Salary is a proven method of attracting a larger applicant pool. Selecting the highest quality teachers from that group is critical to the Effective Schools goal of increasing student achievement. Following up with strong, focused, and on-going professional development that is integral to the school climate can keep teachers improving their professional practice,

Spring 2006

increasing their classroom success, and improving teacher retention.

School Facilities and Student Achievement A school building's design features and environmental conditions also affect student achievement and teacher effectiveness. School facilities include the Effective Schools Correlates of school climate, a safe and orderly environment, opportunities to learn, and a climate of high expectations for success−−all essential to effective teaching and learning.

Earthman (2002) described studies that show a 5to 17-percentile point difference in standardized test scores for students in good facilities (wellmaintained buildings with comfortable room and hall temperatures, satisfactory lighting, appropriate noise levels, good roofs, sufficient space) compared with poor facilities (poorly maintained, too cold or hot rooms, inadequate lighting, high noise levels, leaky roofs, overcrowding) controlling for the student socioeconomic status (SES).

In addition, Earthman (2002) reviewed many studies that use appropriate methodology and experimental controls related to student achievement and school facilities. He logically concluded that the following are all prerequisites for effective learning: ●

●

●

A school's acoustic quality that permits students to hear clearly and understand what is being spoken Rooms maintained within the temperature and humidity tolerances of 67 degrees to 73 degrees and 50 percent relative humidity (to reduce incidence of illness) Above-standard school buildings that provide the suitable learning environment conditions

Older facilities lack many of the building factors necessary for proper learning environments, 29 Leslie S. Kaplan & William A. Owings

Journal for Effective Schools

and accordingly, student achievement in older buildings is lower than that of students in newer ones. Older facilities, in short, greatly reduce students' opportunities to learn while jeopardizing their safety.

In a study of District of Columbia elementary schools, Berner (1993) found that if a school district was to improve conditions of its schools from poor to excellent, student achievement scores would increase an average of 10.9 percentile points. The percent of students on free or reduced lunch, mean income in the census tract, and the percentage of white students in the census tract were used to control for SES.

Frustrating efforts to improve school facilities, noted Sack (2004), is the rapidly rising cost of steel, concrete, and other construction materials −−often between 15 and 30 percent−−that are forcing some districts that are building new schools to seek additional funds, delay projects, or redesign projects. Prices for nearly every construction material have been rising at double-digit percentages, making serious difficulties for the $29 billion annual school construction industry.

These realities present severe fiscal, educational, and moral dilemmas for superintendents, school boards, and communities desiring to provide effective schools for all its students and faculties.

Conclusions

Furthermore, perception often influences (and perhaps creates) reality. Lowe (1990) found that teachers in buildings in poor condition stated that the facility's design and appearance reduced teachers' high expectations for student success and negatively impacted the learning climate and school culture, while teachers in buildings in good condition reported the building positively influenced the learning climate and school culture. Working in substandard buildings or in newer buildings that are poorly maintained or repaired harms teacher morale and increases their work frustration; these attitudes likely transfer negatively into their classroom expectations and practices, reducing student achievement.

Likewise, students in overcrowded schools and classrooms do not score as high on achievement tests as students in non-overcrowded schools and rooms. Corcoran, Walker, and White (1988) reported that overcrowding resulted in high absentee rates for students and teachers.

Additionally, overcrowded schools are often noisier and create more paperwork. Stressful and unpleasant learning and working conditions and related negative attitudes diminish school culture, lower attendance, reduce learning opportunities, and decrease measured achievement.

Important questions about the impact of school funding on student achievement lie at the heart of school board policy and superintendents' leadership for learning. With Effective Schools Research linked to spending and student achievement studies clearly affirming that monies carefully targeted on enhancing teaching quality, designing appropriate school organization, and providing healthy and comfortable facilities make a measurable difference in student achievement, school and community leaders face serious challenges to finding additional resources to support these essential aspects of public education.

As Carver (2000) observed, "The board's job is not to run the schools . . . but to determine as the public purchasing agent what the public is buying for the next generation" (pp. 4-5). The board's job is to determine what results should be obtained, for which learners, at what cost, as well as setting ethical and prudent boundaries within which the system runs. The policy implications of spending for student achievement belong in this context.

Superintendent leadership and empirical knowledge about a clear and focused mission on instructional leadership, positive school culture,

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

30

Volume 5, Number 1

and teacher and teaching effectiveness related to school spending can help school boards set policies that positively impact student achievement.

Combining Effective Schools Research with research on spending and student achievement clearly has policy implications and is a win-win scenario for all stakeholders in public education.

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

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

Baker, K. (1991). Yes, throw money at schools.

Phi Delta Kappan, 72(8), 628-30.

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

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

Carver, J. (2000, March). Toward coherent governance. The School Administrator [Web Edition, 1-9]. Available online at www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2000_03/ carver.htm Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

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

Journal of Education Finance, 20, 66-87.

Corcoran, T. B., Walker, L. J., & White, J. L. (1988). Working in urban schools.

Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.

Spring 2006

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000, January). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1. Available online at www.epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1 De Cesare, D. (2002, January-February). When it comes to high schools, does size matter?

The Progress of Education Reform: School Size, 3(3). Available online at www.ecs.org/ clearinghouse/34/31/3431.pdf Earthman, G. (2002). School facility conditions and student academic achievement (Williams Watch Series: Investigating the Claims of Williams v. State of California). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA, Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access.

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

Education Commission of the States. (2005).

School size: Quick facts. Denver, CO: Author.

Available online at: www.ecs.org/ ecsmain.asp?page=/html/publications.asp Education Commission of the States. (2004).

The progress of education reform: School size. Denver, CO: Author. Available online at http://www.ecs.org/html/issue.asp?print= true&issueID=105&subIssueID=0 Elmore, R. (1993). The role of local school districts in instructional improvement. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy (pp. 96-124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fortune, J., & O'Neil, J. (1994). Production function analyses and the study of educational funding equity: A methodological critique.

Journal of Education Finance, 20, 21-46.

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

31 Leslie S. Kaplan & William A. Owings

Journal for Effective Schools

Hanushek, E. (2000, April 3). The truth about teacher salaries and student achievement. The Weekly Standard (Hoover Institution Weekly Essays). Available online at: www.hoover.Stanford.edu/pubaffairs/we/ current/Hanushek_0400.html Hanushek, E. (1996). The quest for equalized mediocrity: School finance reform without consideration of school performance. In L Picus & J. Wattenbarger (Eds.), Where does the money go? pp. 20-43 (16th Annual Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

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

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

Haycock, K., Jerald, C., & Huang, S. (2001, Spring). Closing the gap: Done in a decade.

Thinking K-16, 5, 3-22.

Hedges, L., Laine, R., & Greenwald, R. (1994).

Does money matter? A meta-analysis of studies of the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 23, 5-14.

Hirsh, E., Koppich, J. E., & Knapp, M. S. (1998, December). What states are doing to improve the quality of teaching. A brief review of current patterns and trends.

Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Iowa Association of School Boards. (2001, April). The lighthouse inquiry: School board/superintendent team behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in student achievement. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA. Available online at http://www.ia-sb.org Johnson, G., & Stafford, F. (1972, Spring).

Social returns to quantity and quality of schooling. Journal of Human Resources, 8.

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

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

Jordan, H., Mendro, R., & Weerasinge, D. (1997, July). Teacher effects on longitudinal student achievement. Paper presented at the CREATE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, IN. KnowledgeWorks Foundation. (2005). Small schools . . . big results. Cincinnati, OH: Author. Available online at: www.kwfd.org/ high_school/big_results/htdocs/ background.html Land, D. (2002, January). Local school boards under review. Their role and effectiveness in relation to students' academic achievement (Report No. 56). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR).

Lashway, L. (2002, December). Using school board policy to improve student achievement.

Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Clearinghouse on Educational Policy Management, College of Education. (ERIC Digest 163) Lezotte, L.W., & Jacoby, B. C. (1992).

Sustainable school reform: The district context for school improvement. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products, Ltd. Lowe, J. (1990). The interface between educational facilities and learning climate in three elementary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.

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

McCarthy, M., & Celio, M. B. (2001, October).

Washington elementary schools on the slow track under standards-based reform. Making standards work. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education. Available online at http://www.crpe.org/Publications/ pubpage.html 32

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

Volume 5, Number 1

McKay, A. B., & Newcomb, J. P. (2002).

Aligning resources for student achievement.

Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.

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

Monroe, J. (1999, June). Learning more about learning improves teacher effectiveness.

School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 151-71.

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

National School Boards Foundation. (1999).

Leadership matters: Transforming urban school boards. Alexandria, VA: Author.

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

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

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

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

Robinson, G. E. (1990, April). Synthesis of research on the effects of class size.

Educational Leadership, 47, 80-90.

Robinson, G. E., & Wittebols, J. H. (1986).

Class size research: A related cluster analysis for decision making. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

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

Spring 2006

Sanders, R., & Rivers, J. (1996, November).

Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement.

Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, Tennessee Value Added Assessment System (TVAAS).

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

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

Stecher, B., Bohrnstedt, G., Kirst, M., McRobbie, J., & Williams, T. (2001, June).

Class-size reduction in California: A story of hope, promise, and unintended consequences.

Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 670-74.

Stiefel, L., Berne, R., Iatarola, P., & Fruchter, N. (2000, Spring). High school size: Effects on budgets and performance in New York City.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 22(1), 27-39.

The Teaching Commission. (2004). Teaching at risk: A call to action. New York, NY: Reinventing America's Schools. Available online at: http://theteachingcommission.org/ press/FINAL_Report.pdf Thompson, D., & Wood, C. (2001). Money and schools. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc. Verstegan, D. (1994). Efficiency and equity in the provision and reform of American schooling. Journal of Education Finance, 20, 107-131.

Verstegan, D., & King, R. (1998, Fall). The relationship between school spending and student achievement: A review and analysis of 35 years of production function research.

Journal of Education Finance, 24(2), 243-62.

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

33 Leslie S. Kaplan & William A. Owings

Journal for Effective Schools

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

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

Zurawsky, C. (2003). Class size: Counting students does count. Research Points, 1(2).

Available online at: http://www.aera.net/gov/ archive/r0699-01.htm END NOTES 1. Widget is a commonly used manufacturing term to signify a key part of the production process of some item, alternately called a thingamajig, doohickey, or doodad.

2. Value added studies look at students' own academic progress over several consecutive years with teachers identified as either highly effective or highly ineffective, with future scores predicted by a numerical formula.

3. For an additional resource on teacher quality see Kaplan, L. and Owings, W. (2002). Teacher

Quality, Teaching Quality, and School Improvement. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Education Foundation.

Leslie S. Kaplan is an Assistant Principal for Instruction at Dozier Middle School in the Newport News Public Schools, Newport News, Virginia. Dr. Kaplan has written extensively on teacher and teaching quality, principal quality and student achievement, and school finance.

William A. Owings is a Professor and Graduate Program Director for Educational Leadership at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia.

Dr. Owings has also written extensively on teacher and teaching quality, principal quality and student achievement, and school finance.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. William A. Owings, Professor, Graduate Program Director for Educational Leadership, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia 23529 Email: wowings@odu.edu This article is adapted from William A. Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan’s text, American Public School Finance, Wadsworth, 2006.

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

Volume 5, Number 1

Spring 2006

Effective School-Teacher Practices: Case Studies of the Achievement Gap Between African American and White Students Ebrahim Maddahian Los Angeles Unified School District Penny Fidler Los Angeles Unified School District Kathy Hayes Los Angeles Unified School District Abstract This study represents an in-depth investigation of salient effective instructional activities and pedagogical practices supported by Effective Schools literature in eight purposively selected elementary schools from a large urban district in the Southwest. Schools were examined, that have narrowed the achievement gap for African Americans, to see how they are different from those schools in which the achievement gap has widened by comparing instructional and pedagogical elements in both types of schools. Case study methodology was employed to highlight significant differences between the two sets of elementary schools. Using the school effectiveness literature to establish a heuristic for the study, the following factors proved significant in differentiating schools: school leadership; high quality instruction; a positive school and classroom climate; appropriate use of assessment; a shared understanding and commitment to school improvement; and the implementation of Culturally Relevant and Responsive Education (CRRE).

African American students historically score lower than European Americans on vocabulary, reading, and mathematics tests. The concept of achievement gap as defined by Black/White test score differences has been studied in a variety of settings with a range of goals and objectives (Allen & Boykin, 1991; Boykin & Allen, 2004; Jencks & Philips, 1998; Porter, 2003).

school, most Black students fall drastically behind White students in reading, math, and science. Johnson and Viadero (2000a) have argued that if the current trend in the achievement gap between White and Black students continues, the chance of Black students going to college will be half that of their White counterparts.

Significant progress was made in narrowing the achievement gap between the two groups in the 1970s and 1980s, due to the introduction and funding of programs designed to reduce poverty and improve educational opportunity for all students. However, since 1988, the achievement gap has remained stable and significant, and has widened as the age cohort moves through school years (Denbo & Beaulieu, 2002; Porter, 2003).

According to Haycock (2001), by the end of high

Educational and social researchers have identified a host of social and educational factors that contribute to the achievement gap. These can be subsumed under four broad categories, including variability in individual abilities, home and community factors, societal conditions, and school practices. The genetics argument put forth by Herrnstein and Murray (1994) has been widely refuted by scholars from a range of disciplines who agree that, simply put, individual attributes

Related Literature

35 Ebrahim Maddahian, Penny Fidler, & Kathy Hayes

Journal for Effective Schools

such as intelligence and aptitude are not determined solely by race or ethnicity (Jencks & Philips, 1998), and race-based differences in IQ can be rendered mute by changes in social and economic conditions as evidenced by results from programs such as Head Start (Grasso, 2002). The degree of fluency in English or Standard English may also affect student achievement because it limits students' ability to demonstrate their potential (Labov, 1972; Piestrup, 1973; Rickford & Rickford, 2000).

Barton (2004) identified a host of povertyrelated factors such as low birth weight, lead poisoning, hunger and nutrition, parent availability, student mobility, class size, and school safety as possible causes of the achievement gap.

While Phillips, Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, and Crane (1998) argued that parental education and socioeconomic factors are not, in and of themselves, good predictors of student academic achievement; others posit that ineffective parenting, language differences, and high levels of mobility account for lower levels of academic achievement among students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (Frymier & Gansneder, 1989; Laosa, 1978).

The effects of poverty have resulted in low parental expectations, poor parent-child communications, and disorganized home environments, all of which impede the optimum development and progress of children (Cross & Lewis, 1998; Goodnow, 1988; Holden & Edwards, 1989; Johnson & Martin, 1983).

It is widely believed that low-income urban parents are reluctant to be directly involved in their children's education. A large number of researchers and educators alike complain about the lack of participation by African American parents in the education of their children. However, Cook and Ludwig (1998) surveyed more than 14,000 students and

found that African-American parents were as involved in their children's education as were White parents with similar socioeconomic characteristics. In a survey of African American and Latino students, about two-thirds of secondary students believed that their parents were very involved in their education (Maddahian & Lai, 2004).

Sol贸rzano and Sol贸rzano (2004) argued that "educational inequality exists because of the unequal conditions" (p. 198) found in predominantly minority schools, and these inequalities are rooted in factors such as low teacher expectations, tracking, ability grouping, and the lack of academic resources.

Researchers whose work supports this model, view schools as places where only a select few can succeed, where the culture of the White middle class is validated and reproduced.

They consider schools as environments that breed social inequality (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Foley, 1991; Valdes, 1996; Valenzuela, 1999). In addition, minority students are more likely to have non-certificated and inexperienced teachers, and are less likely to have the opportunity to enroll in advanced courses (Johnson & Viadero, 2000b). According to Sanders & Rivers (1998), African American students are nearly twice as likely to be assigned to the most ineffective teachers.

Low teacher expectations for the academic performance of their minority students also may have contributed to significant achievement gaps between minority and non-minority students (Ferguson, 1998a, 1998b; Goode, 1985; Goodlad, 1984; Ladson-Billings, 1994).

Tracking students by their academic ability has been severely criticized for restricting student opportunity to learn because of low teacher expectations, low course content, poor resources, and weak motivational environments (Alexander, 2002; Carbonaro & Gamoran, 2002; 36

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

Volume 5, Number 1

Oakes, 1985). Students of color are overrepresented in these types of classrooms.

The congruence between home and school culture often predicts student academic achievement. Several researchers have used this model, not to blame minority students or their culture for disparities in academic success, but to highlight the discord between their culture and the culture of the White middle class validated by American educational institutions (Delgado-Gaitan, 1987a, 1987b, 1993; Phillips, 1972; Trueba, 1991; Trueba & Bartolome, 1997; Valdes, 1996; Patton, 2004). Teachers who are not responsive to the diverse cultures of their students may also limit their students' potential (Cazden & Mehan, 1989; Irvine & York, 1995; Maddahian & Bird, 2003; Villegas, 1991). Additionally, many poor minority children realize early on that they may not have the same educational and career choices as non-minority students. This may result in their seeking non-academic means of demonstrating competency and achievement (Osborne, 2001).

The cultural-ecology theory (also known as the conflict model) asserts that, as many African Americans were brought to the U.S. through slavery and have endured many years of oppression, they developed an oppositional orientation to the larger U.S. society in which educational institutions and personnel are seen as threatening (Ogbu, 2003; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998; Schmid, 2001).

In light of the current difficulties experienced

by African American students throughout the country, particularly in large urban school districts, and recognizing that the achievement gap can be attributed to many causes, it is important to look more closely at schools in which the academic performance of these students provided evidence of success, compare those schools to a demographically matched set of schools, and identify organizational variables or teacher practices that result in student success. AfricanAmerican children will continue to attend inner-city schools; however, it is believed that there is hope for these schools and the children

Spring 2006

they serve. The hope lies within the schools themselves. A number of recent studies have identified low-income minority schools in which academic achievement is on the rise (Council of the Great City Schools, 2004; Farnsworth, 2004). While educators may attribute the achievement gap to out-of-school factors, the arena which has the most ability to effect change is within schools. The study began by selecting schools with strong evidence of a narrowing, or widening, of the achievement gap.

The schools were then matched along demographic and socioeconomic lines, thus enabling the researchers to attribute student academic performance to in-school phenomena. The Effective Schools literature provided the heuristic for the research.

Theoretical Model The Effective Schools Research emerged as a result of Coleman's (1966) equal educational opportunity survey which stated that the homes from which children came made a greater difference in their academic achievement than did the schools they attended. A large body of Effective Schools Research (e.g., Edmonds, 1979; Pukey & Smith, 1983; Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston, & Smith, 1979; Weber, 1971) refuted claims made by the Coleman report, asserting that, indeed, schools do make a difference. In his meta-analysis of more than 80 studies, Wyatt (1996) found that the massive effort of educators has not necessarily led to significant and sustainable achievement.

Additionally, he found that, on the average, only nine percent of the total variance in student achievement was attributable to school effects.

On the other hand, Wyatt recognized that "School effectiveness is not as shaky as certain critics would have it, but at the same time not established as firmly as some enthusiastic school improvers would treat them" (p. 2). Wyatt concluded that (a) while background variables are important and account for a significant portion of student outcome variance, schools can have a significant impact on students’ 37 Ebrahim Maddahian, Penny Fidler, & Kathy Hayes

Journal for Effective Schools

achievement, and (b) conclusions made by previous researchers were suspicious due to the limitations of statistical techniques available to them at the time.

The Effective Schools literature does establish that there are significant differences in student achievement among schools with similar resources and similar student bodies. It also identifies a number of specific factors advantageous to minority students, especially African American students, such as school leadership style (Sol贸rzano & Sol贸rzano, 2004); highquality instruction (Druian & Butler, 1984; Levin & Tsang, 1987); a positive school and classroom climate (Gottfredson, 1990; McKinley, 2003); the appropriate use of assessment (McKinley, 2003; Schmoker & Marzano, 1999); a shared understanding and commitment to school improvement (Anson, Cook, & Habib, 1991; Denbo & Beaulieu, 2002; Lezotte, 1991); and attention to culturally relevant and responsive pedagogies, especially fair and equitable treatment of all students (Brookover, Erickson, & McEvoy, 1996; Denbo & Beaulieu, 2002; Irvine & Armento, 2001; Maddahian & Bird, 2003; Pasch, Sparks-Langer, Gardner, Starko, & Moody, 1991).

Methodology It must be taken into consideration that current research designs on school effectiveness studies usually address the achievement gap either within-school or between-schools (Wenglinsky, 2004). This study focused on between-school differences in achievement to examine the impact of overall, school organizational structure and instructional practices. One of the limitations of this study is that in most elementary schools with sufficient numbers of African-American students for the analysis, there were insufficient numbers of White students. In schools with few White students, the weighted average academic performance of African American students by

grade was compared to the weighted average performance of district White students by grade.

The main goal of this study was to determine how narrowing the gap (NG) schools differ from widening the gap (WG) schools on important aspects related to students' achievement. The achievement gap was measured using normreferenced scores from the 9th version of the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT/9) reading, mathematics, and language arts subtests in 1999 and 2002. School-wide average difference scores were calculated between White and Black students in 1999 and 2002. If the average gap score between these two groups decreased by at least six NCE points from 1999 to 2002, while both groups were growing, the school was considered an NG school. If the achievement gap was increased by at least six NCE points, then the school was considered a WG school. A difference of six NCEs is equivalent to a 0.30 effect size, which is considered a substantively meaningful difference in students' achievement.

Design and Procedure Two sets of schools were matched on demographic variables including ethnicity, percent of students in the free lunch program and in Title I, the percent of English learners at the school, and the general neighborhood socioeconomic status.

Altogether, 32 classrooms, four at each school (two second and two fourth grade classrooms), were selected for two consecutive days of observation during fall 2003. Following the classroom observations, all 32 teachers were interviewed.

In addition to teachers, interviews were also conducted with the school principal, the reading and math coaches, and any other administrator deemed to have a key position in the school.

Three meetings (e.g., grade-level, parent/teacher, and faculty meetings) were also observed at each school. In addition, archival data and other background information were collected extending up to spring 2004.

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

38

Volume 5, Number 1

Effective Schools Correlates The overarching purpose of this inquiry was to find the extent of research-based instructional activities and school practices as identified by the Effective Schools Research in the two specific

Spring 2006

groups of selected schools (NG and WG).

Specifically, the researchers intended to examine these two groups of schools in the following six general areas. Each area has been defined by a number of observable criteria listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Selected Effective School Correlates Correlate

Observable Criteria

Instructional Leadership

Shared decision making Monitored instructional process and provided instructional feedback Alignment of instructional approach, state/district standards and assessment Use of test as a diagnostic vehicle to guide instruction School management and student discipline Assessment of teacher needs Providing instructional support Positive school environment Motivating teachers to learn Acknowledgement of student progress

Quality of Teaching and Instructional Activities

Clarity of instructional goals and teaching standards Correspondence between stated standards and instructional activities Monitoring student learning Re-teaching difficult concepts Supervision of student learning process Use of students’ home experiences and knowledge Effective classroom management Inclusion of all students in the instructional process Effective use of instructional time Instructional conversation and use of alternative instructional strategies Motivating students to learn Providing positive feedback Indicating high expectation of all students

39 Ebrahim Maddahian, Penny Fidler, & Kathy Hayes

Journal for Effective Schools

Correlate

Observable Criteria

School Climate and Culture

School orderliness, organizational style, safety, and cleanliness Teacher lesson planning Curriculum development Well-defined learning expectations High standard for academic performance Subject matter proficiency Recognition of student achievement Reinforcement of good behavior Meaningful parent and community involvement Active staff participation and involvement

Use of Assessment to Guide Instruction

Data-driven instruction and decision making Teachers use data to access student progress Adjustment of teacher instruction to address gaps in student learning Use of alternative assessment approaches

Commitment to School

Observation of classroom practices by school administrators Review and monitoring of school progress Existence of clear goals for student progress Ongoing monitoring of student progress and providing feedback to students, teachers, and parents Recognition of teacher and student accomplishments Existence of research-based programs and policies aimed at student progress Flexibility in implementation of policies and adjustment of policies to teacher and student needs

Culturally Relevant and Responsive Education

A genuine respect for students’ culture and their language Existence of role-models for minority students Programs dealing with minority issues and their needs Programs that support low SES and poor students Incorporating students knowledge and experience in teaching and learning process Equity and access to educational opportunities for all students

Data Analyses Data was collected from 420 hours of detailed classroom observations and 57 individual interviews. Interviews were conducted with 32

teachers, 8 school principals, and 17 school instructional administrators. The data were coded using Atlas-TI software for qualitative analyses.

Quantitative analyses were conducted using SPSS Statistical Software (SPSS, 2004). In 40

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

Volume 5, Number 1

addition, school archival data, the personal experience of the observers from their reflective field notes, and separate observational notes were used to support the findings. For the observation data, the prevalence score was calculated. The prevalence score was equal to the percent of observations that contained clear evidence of observing a particular component.

For example, using the interview data, the prevalence score was equal to the percent of interviews emphasizing each component of an Effective Schools Correlate. The following sections present a summary of the findings using a mixed methodology that included both qualitative and quantitative observations, interviews, and archival data. The findings are based on a triangulation of all qualitative and quantitative data.

Results Utilizing a case study methodology (Yin, 2003), the following section presents the study results, highlighting the important differences between NG schools and WG schools. Findings for each component will be offered in a tabular format followed by a review of salient points from various triangulated sources: classroom observations, administrator interviews, teacher interviews, student achievement, and demographic data.

A significant difference (p < 0.05) was identified between the teachers' overall years of experience.

The average years of teaching experience for teachers in NG schools was 16.4 years, compared to 8.8 years for teachers in WG schools. There was also a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the two groups of schools with regard to the number of years teachers had been associated with their school. In addition, NG teachers had more years of service than teachers in WG schools (10.4 years vs. 5.8 years). No important differences were found in the proportion of teachers who were credentialed at these two sets of schools. Also, no significant difference was

Spring 2006

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

Instructional Leadership Research on the relationship between school leadership and student performance suggested that a significant, positive correlation exists between effective school leadership and student achievement (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). The link between principal beliefs about their own impact on student achievement, principal behavior and student learning, and performance has been documented by previous research. According to Cotton (2003), principals who positively influenced student achievement are visible and accessible to students and staff throughout the school, particularly in instructional settings, such as classrooms, labs, and performance sites.

In this research study's case studies, there was more evidence of instructional monitoring by the principals and literacy coaches at NG schools than at WG schools. Principals in NG schools were observed frequently visiting the classrooms and interacting with students. In only one WG classroom was the principal observed visiting the classroom.

These findings support that positive and supportive relationships between school administrators and teachers have impacted student achievement. More administrators at NG schools indicated that their staff members supported them than did WG administrators (32% vs. 6%).

NG school administrators also more often said they offered instructional support to teachers than did WG administrators (69% vs. 58%).

Also, teachers at NG schools cited receiving moral support from administrators and other types of assistance, such as conducting classroom demonstrations, mentoring, and receiving supplemental instructional materials. There was ample evidence of an atmosphere of acceptance 41 Ebrahim Maddahian, Penny Fidler, & Kathy Hayes

Journal for Effective Schools

and respect in most of the NG schools where a large number of teachers were enthusiastic about their school principal. Phrases such as "wonderful," "like a mother figure," and "extremely supportive" described the relationship between NG principals and their teachers.

An effective instructional leader is aware of new and innovative instructional approaches (Sol贸rzano & Sol贸rzano, 2004). When administrators were asked to name instructional factors impacting student achievement, NG school administrators cited "using concrete lessons," "utilizing differentiation," "following a constructivist approach," "employing theme-based learning," and "teaching critical thinking skills" as major contributing factors. Only one WG administrator discussed teacher effectiveness in terms of a specific instructional

strategy, "differentiation." More administrators at NG schools were involved in alignment of instructional programs with standards than administrators at WG schools (25% vs. 14%).

Shared decision making, teacher's own instructional issues, and school curriculum were important elements of an effective instructional environment (Cotton, 2003). In NG schools, teachers made instructional program decisions frequently and collaboratively, whereas in WG schools, most of the instructional decisions were made based on the district's mandated guidelines.

Instructional decisions were communicated to NG teachers in group meetings devoted solely to school instructional curriculum, whereas in WG schools, instructional decisions were communicated to teachers mostly in general school meetings.

Table 2 Instructional Leadership Component

NG Schools

WG Schools

Monitoring Instruction

Regularly and systematically

Sporadically and infrequently

Providing Support

Expressed by 70% of instructional administrators

Expressed by 60% of school administrators

Direct and Frequent Communication

Expressed by more than 90% of instructional administrators

Expressed by 75% of instructional administrators

Staff Support

32% of instructional administrators indicated receiving high levels of staff support

6% of instructional administrators indicated receiving high levels of staff support

Shared Decision Making

Instructional decisions made by teachers frequently and collaboratively

Instructional decisions were made by administrators based on district guidelines

School Management

Teachers and administrators dealt with disciplinary issues and school management collectively

Teachers and administrators dealt with disciplinary issues and school management individually

Trust and Acceptance

Teachers accepted, respected, and trusted their principals

Lower teachers' enthusiasm about their principals

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

42

Volume 5, Number 1

Quality of Teaching and Instructional Services The investment in teacher quality, more than any other use of school resources, led to greater improvement in student achievement (Ferguson, 1991; Haycock, 1998). Good teachers skillfully manage student behavior and provide a quantity of engaging, academically rich, and connected activities for their students. They have high expectations and faith in their students' abilities and they reinforce students' achievements (Pressley, 1998). Teachers at NG schools were more often observed using a variety of techniques to clarify lessons than at WG schools (77% vs. 56%). NG teachers commonly used a variety of media to present lessons (visual maps, overhead transparencies, drawings on the board, posters, and even PowerPoint presentations) to help interpret or reinforce their teaching. Verbal clarifications through questions, repetition, and additional instructions were also observed in most NG classrooms.

Teachers also checked student understanding of lessons and assignments at NG schools more often than at WG schools (90% vs. 53%). They frequently checked student understanding by asking pupils about the task at hand to make sure they understood expectations. For example, NG teachers asked questions such as, "What did I just ask you to do?" "What kind of writing are we doing?" "What will I be looking for in your work?" "Can someone tell me how we are going to fold the papers?" The use of differentiated teaching strategies was much more prevalent at NG schools than WG schools (80% vs. 50%).

NG teachers differentiated instruction by using a variety of strategies with different students in order to ensure that every student understood the lessons being taught. If the current teaching strategy was not helpful for particular students, the teachers realigned their teaching strategies to help students internalize what was being taught.

Spring 2006

Teachers revised their lesson plans more frequently to fit their students' ability levels in NG schools than in WG schools (93% vs. 69%). NG teachers were more frequently found to ask their students questions and include their life experiences in their daily lessons before they presented new material. For example, one NG teacher announced that before she handed out an activity, she wanted them to know and understand why in a circular track, starting points must be adjusted.

Ms. Stevens sketches a circular track and draws a line from the inside out and across all lanes and explains that in a race, everyone must begin from a different point. She asks if anyone knows why. Kevin says, 'Because the person inside has a better chance of winning.'

Students begin to chat among themselves: 'That's why I always want the middle lane during PE.' Ms. Stevens asks Kevin, 'Why?' Kevin: 'Because the person outside has a better chance of losing.' The teacher probes, 'But why?' Kevin explains that the outside is longer. She approves Kevin's answer and says that when they all race their cars, all cars will need to start from a different point around the track. Ms. Stevens draws different starting points all around the track she drew on the board earlier.

Furthermore, there was a significant difference (p < 0.01) between the two groups of teachers in their opinions regarding the level of appropriateness of the instructional programs mandated for use in the eight schools. NG teachers were generally more positive than WG teachers (2.0 vs. 0.7) on a 3-point scale about the appropriateness of the instructional program. Fewer teachers in NG schools complained about the pace of the instructional plan such as Open Court, and the District Math Program than did teachers in WG schools. Although teachers in WG schools were more engaged with noninstructional school activities than in NG 43 Ebrahim Maddahian, Penny Fidler, & Kathy Hayes

Journal for Effective Schools

schools, such as the school beautification committee and the emergency committee, the total number of activities between the two groups of teachers was not significantly different.

Both quantitative and qualitative findings indicated that teachers at WG schools believed they needed more resources compared to NG schools.

The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p < 0.01). According to teachers, the most frequently needed resources in WG schools were paraprofessionals and training in areas other than reading and mathematics.

At NG schools, there was strong evidence of mutual teacher support in the form of team teaching. Teachers helped other teachers at grade level meetings and received more support from literacy and math coaches. There were many instances where special education resource

teachers were observed coming into the classroom to support teachers and provide services.

Teachers and administrators collaboratively attended to students who misbehaved.

Paraprofessionals played an important role in the classroom, and teachers and staff were seen helping orient new teachers to the school.

As illustrated in this section, many teachers, in schools in which the achievement gap had narrowed, exhibited higher quality instructional strategies than did their counterparts at schools in which the gap had widened over the past three years. These strategies included: differentiating their instructional style to meet the needs of the students, drawing from student experiences to enrich the lessons, frequently checking for comprehension, and exhibiting a deeper understanding how to implement the instructional programs adopted by the district.

Table 3 Quality of Teaching and Instructional Services Component

NG Schools

WG Schools

Monitoring Instruction

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

In 53% of observations, teachers checked for student understanding

Using Alternative Teaching Approaches

In 77% of observations, teachers used various approaches to clarify the same lesson

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

Use of Differentiated Instructional Strategies

In 80% of observations, teachers used differentiated teaching strategies

In 50% of observations, teachers used differentiated teaching strategies

Collaborative Teaching

On-going grade level meetings, special education resources, as well as collaboration between literacy and math coaches with teachers, was found in these schools

Less collaboration with instructional coaches, special education resources, and fewer grade level meetings were observed in these schools

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

Volume 5, Number 1

School Climate Expectations

and

Culture

and

High

According to Epstein and Dauber (1993), children were more successful students at all grade levels if their parents participate at school and encourage education and learning at home. Clark (1993) demonstrated that parent involvement, especially parental attitudes toward homework, contributed positively to students' mathematics and literacy skills. Cotton (2003) called for creating and maintaining a positive and supportive school climate that had a high achievement expectation for every child as its central tenet. In a positive school environment teachers and students feel valued and safe; they are better able to focus on learning and are more motivated to succeed. Research suggested a connection between school climate and the extent to which parents and families are involved in their children's education (Comer & Haynes, 1991; Epstein & Dauber, 1993). When schools create a positive school climate by reaching out to families and providing structures for them to become involved, the result is effective schoolfamily partnerships. Parents who believe they can make a difference in their children's education are more likely to visit and participate in school activities than those who feel ineffective.

Schools serving low-income, ethnically diverse neighborhoods must make greater efforts to welcome families, because those are the parents who often feel excluded because of differences in their ethnicity, income, and culture.

Ames (1995) found children's motivation, attitudes toward parent involvement, and perceptions of their parents' level of involvement to be more positive when their parents had received frequent communications from the teachers.

They concluded that two-way communication between parents and teachers is a key contributor to children's academic performance. The parent supports the learning of the child in the home and

Spring 2006

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

Three out of four NG schools had parents who were very active at their school sites. Some of these parents volunteered in the classroom and helped teachers on studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; homework. Other parents organized classroom parties, helped on field trips, brought donated goods, were present during Student of the Month assemblies, and picked up homework for their absent children.

All four NG schools sent a school newsletter home to inform parents of school activities. One school communicated with parents twice a week via newsletter and one school had a weekly planner for the lessons their children would be learning during the week. Two of the four NG schools also boasted strong community involvement and received donations from local businesses. In all four schools, students' work was displayed in the classroom and in the office.

Most of the teachers shared lessons and instructional resources, and all teachers worked closely to create curriculum. In WG schools, there was some evidence of communication with parents at two of these schools, such as parent involvement with students' homework and communicating with teachers after school; however, only two WG schools sent parents weekly newsletters focusing on homework and other school-related issues. Parents attended a school assembly in only one WG school. The types of support that were generally provided by NG versus WG school parents included attending meetings/ conferences (18% vs. 5%), fund raising (14% vs.

10%), and volunteering (29% vs. 18%), respectively. There was no evidence of community involvement in any of the WG schools.

Another aspect of a positive school climate was evident where school administrators and their 45 Ebrahim Maddahian, Penny Fidler, & Kathy Hayes

Journal for Effective Schools

staffs learn, plan, and work together to improve their schools. More administrators at NG schools offered moral support to teachers than administrators in WG schools (31% vs. 8%). Teacher collaboration was strong in more of the NG schools than WG schools (3 schools vs. 1 school). In fact, three administrators from two different WG schools noted that there were no formal collaborative efforts among their teachers and that teacher collaboration was not strong.

Although no significant differences were found between the opinions of the two groups of teachers regarding teachers' professional relationships and cohesiveness, there seemed to be a more positive relationship among teachers in NG schools. More NG teachers than WG teachers said there was a strong relationship among staff at their school. When asked what teacher collaboration was like, teachers at NG schools gave the following answers: "I consider them my family," "Everybody gets along," "Excellent cooperation," and "We have a good time working together." Furthermore, a majority of NG teachers strongly believed that their curriculum materials helped students while only a third of WG teachers shared that belief. When the administrators were asked how they felt about the changes that had been made in their schools, the views stated by the NG school administrators were more positive than WG school administrators.

Teachers who set and communicate high expectations for all their students obtain greater academic performance from those students than teachers who set low expectations. Students tend to learn as much (or as little) as their teachers expect. Teachers with high expectations for all students can structure and guide behavior and can challenge students beyond what students themselves believe they can do. They highlight their strengths. They are student-centered. They use the students' own strengths, interests, goals,

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

When interviewed, NG teachers indicated a higher level of expectation for their students than did WG teachers. This fact was also supported by the observational findings which showed more NG teachers held higher academic expectations for their students (expect students to acquire grade-level standards and above; expect students to think deeply, to question, and to be curious, etc.) than WG teachers. Teachers in WG schools believed, however, that they communicated expectations more often to parents and students than teachers in NG schools. Educators in both groups identified a large number of elements they believe crucial to academic success. While NG teachers and administrators identified school-based factors, WG teachers and administrators listed home elements and parent involvement as critical for student success.

Teachers in WG schools were more likely to make negative comments about their students (needy in discipline and structure, below grade level, problems with motivation, etc.).

Administrators need also to convey high expectations for teachers. NG administrators found teachers very effective and cited no weaknesses.

On the other hand, two administrators at WG schools complained about less effective teachers.

Three administrators at WG schools believed teachers were more effective when they established an affective relationship with students (caring, respecting students, being close with students, establishing a relationship with students, etc.), but administrators at NG schools did not mention any of these factors, rather they focused more often on academic matters.

In summary, the school climate in NG schools was more positive than in WG schools. NG parents who were involved were more frequently 46

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

Volume 5, Number 1

focused on academics. NG schools seemed to communicate more frequently and more effectively with parents. NG schools were more collaborative and teachers and administrators

Spring 2006

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

Table 4 School Climate and Culture Component

NG Schools

Display of Student Work and Progress

Student work was displayed in the classrooms and offices in all schools

Student work was displayed in classrooms and offices in some schools

Evidence of Parent and Community Involvement

Frequent evidence of parent and community involvement in most schools

Less frequent evidence of parent involvement in fewer schools and no evidence of community involvement

School and Parent Communication

All schools had monthly parent newsletters

Half of the schools had monthly parent newsletters

Teacher Support

All administrators had a positive attitude toward their teachers and offered moral support

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

Extent of Extracurricular Activities

A few administrators were engaged in, at most, 18 extracurricular activities

A large number of administrators were engaged in more than 20 extracurricular activities

Frequent Monitoring Assessments

with

Appropriate

At the very least, educators should use student data to identify challenges to be addressed by increasing qualified teachers, a rigorous curriculum, rigorous courses, effective instruction, adequate time, and sufficient resources. With regard to the student assessment, NG students were more often assessed at an individual level,

WG Schools

based on their homework and teacher-made tests. More administrators at NG schools said they also used a mix of standardized and alternative assessment data to guide instruction than did administrators at WG schools. When asked how instructional programs were evaluated at their school, administrators at NG schools cited a variety of subjective evaluation approaches including teacher self-evaluation, peer evaluation, teacher feedback, student feedback, 47 Ebrahim Maddahian, Penny Fidler, & Kathy Hayes

Journal for Effective Schools

program evaluation, and survey results; whereas, administrators at WG schools mentioned their observations and survey data. When asked how often they reviewed assessment data, two WG administrators said they received test data too late to make immediate decisions in instruction.

While there was no significant difference between the NG and WG teachers with regard to assessment approaches, teachers at NG schools more often reported using a mix of formal and informal assessment approaches to assess student progress. The most frequent approaches used by NG teachers included formal assessment data, teacher-made assessments, and daily communication with students about instructional materials. Similarly, the qualitative analyses of teacher interviews indicated that more NG teachers said they generally used formal assessment strategies such as textbook quizzes, quarterly math assessments, and teacher-made exams than teachers in WG schools. Fewer NG teachers said they used non-verbal assessment strategies to assess understanding (thumbs up if you understand or wave your hands across your face if you don't) than WG teachers.

Both groups made equal use of informal assessment strategies (performance assessments, quick verbal assessment, and observation) to determine whether students had learned what they had been taught. However, slightly more teachers in NG schools than in WG schools said they used performance assessments to determine students understanding and learning.

When asked what approaches they used to assess students' mastery of content, more NG teachers gave examples of how they differentiated instructional mastery than WG teachers (units must be re-done on an individual basis if students do not pass and gifted and talented education students are challenged with extra work).

All tests and lessons were aligned to district standards in all four NG schools. However, realignment of teaching to standards was present at two schools in which teachers created more advanced lessons when needed, or realigned their lessons until students understood the concepts being taught. In only two of the WG schools, students were assessed on homework and lessons were aligned to the standards.

Realignment of teaching was observed at only two schools where teachers changed lessons until students understood the concept being taught.

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

Volume 5, Number 1

Spring 2006

Table 5 Appropriate Use of Assessments Component

NG Schools

WG Schools

Guiding Instruction

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

Half of the schools used assessment data to realign instruction to the district content standards

Monitoring Individual Student Progress

Most of the schools used assessment data to determine individual student progress to design timely intervention programs

Some schools used assessment data to monitor individual student progress

Alternative Assessment Approaches Administrators

Administrators mentioned the use of formal summative assessments (85%), informal assessments (23%), observation (31%), and other approaches (61%)

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

Alternative Assessment Approaches - Teachers

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

Teachers mentioned use of formal summative assessments (87%), informal formative assessments (60%), and other approaches (47%)

Commitment to School Improvement and Professional Development School improvement efforts over the last few decades call for teachers to understand learner outcomes according to local, state, and national educational standards and to provide meaningful instruction (cognitively, socially, and culturally) for a very diverse student population especially in urban districts. Teachers are expected to understand emerging standards (i.e. math and science) and current learning theories and to change their roles and practices accordingly.

To achieve these ends, teachers need to be continually supported with professional development.

A high level of commitment to school improvement was evidenced in two of the four NG schools where principals conducted learning walks, and resource specialists were found in the classrooms providing assistance and guidance to teachers. Open Court coaches were noted in classrooms in two of the four NG schools, and in one school, teachers were observed by other teachers. Parents were involved in three NG schools helping teachers in grading, organizing, or taking care of the sandbox and green house. A learning walk was observed in only one WG school. A learning walk-through (Resnick & Hall, 2001) occurs when a principal makes a series of five- to seven-minute visits to classrooms with a specific question in mind, such 49 Ebrahim Maddahian, Penny Fidler, & Kathy Hayes

Journal for Effective Schools

as "What is the nature of teacher-student, student-teacher interaction?" "Is there evidence of differentiation?" After completing the walkthrough the principal analyzes the information and decides how to best help the staff.

More administrators at NG schools said they conducted classroom observation to determine overall student progress than in WG schools (23% vs. 17%). When asked what changes in the past five years had affected students at their school, NG school administrators tended to list fewer changes than WG school administrators (an average of 4.2 vs. 7.8 changes). In response to the question of major improvement goals for higher levels of student learning, NG school administrators listed more purely academic goals (i.e. improving fluency among 2nd and 3rd graders, improving math scores among 4th grade students) than did WG school administrators (69% vs. 50%). Two WG school administrators said there were no set goals.

Administrators at both WG and NG schools believed teacher support was the most important factor in student success. However, administrators at NG schools identified more cognitive strategies than did WG school administrators (22% vs. 13%). Additionally, NG school administrators gave significantly more research-based reasons to account for student success than WG school administrators. Examples given by NG administrators included accountable talk, applied learning, cooperative learning, differentiation, encouragement, engaging lessons, school environment, and teacher support. Items listed by WG school administrators included attention to culture, economic status, home environment, innate motivation, and self-confidence.

Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform must address the additional challenges of implementing educational standards, working with diverse populations, and changing forms of student assessment. Clearly,

teachers "need more time to work with colleagues, to critically examine the new standards being proposed, and to revise curriculum.

They need opportunities to develop, master, and reflect on new approaches to working with children" (Corcoran, 1995, p. 2). Fine (1994) believes that school change is the result of both individual and organizational development.

McDiarmid (1995) emphasized the connection between new expectations for teachers and the element of time: The changes teachers must make to meet the goals of reform entail much more time than learning new techniques. They go to the core of what it means to teach. Because these changes are so momentous, most teachers will require considerable time to achieve them. (p. 2) Professional development can no longer be viewed as an event that occurs on a particular day of the school year; rather, it must become part of the daily work life of educators. Teachers, administrators, and other school system employees need time to work in study groups, conduct action research, participate in seminars, coach one another, plan lessons together, and meet for other purposes.

More NG school administrators said their teachers have been effective by educating themselves in addition to the training provided in school-site professional development than did administrators at WG schools (15% vs. 0%). About half (46%) of WG teachers indicated that they did not need any additional resources. Some of the NG school administrators said they needed extra professional development resources (20%).

Administrators in NG schools indicated that availability of professional development improved their school progress, whereas WG school administrators did not mention the availability of professional development for school improvement (18% vs. 0%).

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

50

Volume 5, Number 1

Spring 2006

Table 6 Commitment to School Improvement Component

NG Schools

WG Schools

Setting Instructional Goals and Objectives

Most administrators stated setting clear academic goals for their schools

Half of the administrators stated setting clear academic goals for their schools

Presence of an Instructional Monitoring System

All schools monitored their instructional progress through ongoing observation and frequent use of assessments

Most of the schools monitor their instructional progress through observation and half of the schools by using assessment data

Parent Involvement in their Children's Schooling

Frequent evidence of parent involvement in classroom activities

Limited evidence of parent involvement in classroom activities

Awareness of Current and Up-to-Date Educational Theories and Practices

Administrators were highly aware of current educational theories and practices

Fewer administrators were aware of current educational ideas and practices

Support of District Professional Development Efforts

Administrators strongly believed in district-provided professional development and training

Administrators were skeptical about the impact of the district efforts to improve teacher quality

The Prevalence of a Culturally Relevant and Responsive Education

●

●

According to Sternberg and Grigorenko (2004), when cultural context is taken into account (a) individuals are better recognized and are better able to make use of their talents, (b) schools teach and access children better, and (c) society utilizes rather than wastes the talents of its members. Maddahian and Bird (2003) defined the Culturally Relevant and Responsive Education (CRRE) as educating all students by incorporating their cultural experiences (emotional, social, and cognitive) into the teaching and learning process.

They summarize the major underlying elements of the CRRE framework from diverse sources in the following list which they believe is not exhaustive but is a good point to start.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Inclusion of student knowledge and life experience in teaching and learning Accepting and respecting students and their culture and history Adjustment of diagnosis and assessment approaches for diverse groups of students Enhancement of educational opportunities that safeguard equity and equality issues Identifying and using culturally relevant instructional strategies Providing professional development on cultural and historical issues and self awareness Facilitating involvement of parents and community members from diverse cultures Emphasizing student and parent educational responsibilities Accountability and monitoring all students' progress 51 Ebrahim Maddahian, Penny Fidler, & Kathy Hayes

Journal for Effective Schools

In WG schools, it was observed that all students seemed to have an equal opportunity to participate in class discussion. There were no barriers to student participation except when a child was removed as a result of his or her behavior, which for the African American boys was not infrequent. Student experiences and/or prior knowledge were incorporated into lessons in half of the classroom observations in WG schools. The few instances of culture and language issues that were discussed in daily lessons were mostly from Open Court stories that dealt with different cultures. Slightly more NG administrators considered studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; prior knowledge an essential part of learning than WG administrators (38% vs. 33%). In addition, more NG administrators said that their schools addressed diversity by integrating it into the curriculum than did WG administrators (23% vs. 0%). In fact, one administrator from a WG school indicated that teachers had not received any training in dealing with diversity issues.

About one-third of the administrators at NG schools stated that they encouraged their teachers to incorporate their students' prior life and academic experience equally into their daily instruction, but administrators at WG schools encouraged teachers to incorporate their students' prior academic knowledge in the classroom three times as frequently as their life experiences (58% vs. 17%).

WG administrators incorporated purely multicultural events more frequently than NG administrators such as celebrating holidays

and other cultural ceremonies than NG administrators (30% vs. 14%). However, NG administrators mentioned more incidents of showing acceptance and respect for student culture and language than WG administrators (15% vs. 8%).

When WG administrators were asked to name the resources they would need to address issues of diversity, the most frequently occurring answer was that they did not need any training on this issue (43%). However, a few WG administrators mentioned they needed more external cultural resources (14%). Some NG administrators, however, indicated that they needed both extra training (20%) as well as cultural resources (13%).

Although teachers in WG schools celebrated cultural events more frequently to show their appreciation of student diversity and culture, teachers in NG schools expressed more concern about issues of equality and fairness in their classrooms. NG teachers and administrators were less likely to deal with diversity by recognizing and celebrating cultural events and holidays, and more likely to emphasize similarities, equality, and equity among students.

Teachers in NG schools considered students and their family members experts on cultural issues and were more likely to invite them to share their traditions in class than did WG teachers.

They also expressed a deeper understanding of cultural and historical issues from the perspectives of various racial and ethnic groups than did WG teachers.

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

Volume 5, Number 1

Spring 2006

Table 7 Attention to Diversity and Culturally Relevant and Responsive Education Component

NG Schools

WG Schools

Attention to Student Culture and Home Language

Frequent evidence of student culture and home language was observed during classroom observations

Little evidence of student culture and home language was observed during classroom observations

Incorporation of Student Life Experience in the Classroom

About half of the teachers provided the opportunity for students to share their experiences during instruction and about 40% of the administrators considered this issue as an essential part of student learning

Half of the teachers allowed their students to share their experiences with others during instruction and 33% of administrators considered this issue an essential part of a student learning

Attention to Student Diversity Issues

About one-fourth of the administrators addressed diversity by integrating it into their school curriculum

None of the administrators addressed diversity by integrating it into their school curriculum

Respect for Student Culture and Heritage

15% of administrators emphasized the importance of acceptance and respect for student culture and heritage

Only 8% of administrators stressed the importance of acceptance and respect for student culture and heritage

Discussion and Conclusions

Teaching Experience and Stability

There are a number of important conclusions that can be drawn by comparing and contrasting schools that have made marked advances in narrowing the achievement gap (NG), and schools in which the gap is widening (WG). These analyses provide support for teacher experience and stability, ongoing and systematic monitoring of instructional activities, the existence of a school learning community, the provision of continuous support for teachers, instructional collaboration and shared decision making, a focus on instructional rather than extra-curricular issues, the use of data to drive instruction, and some culturally relevant and responsive education issues.

Teachers in NG schools are highly experienced and stable compared to teachers in WG schools.

The question is whether good and effective schools retain more experienced teachers for a longer period of time or whether experienced and stable teachers contribute to produce effective schools. The truth may be somewhere in between: there is a mutual and bidirectional relationship between these elements. Whatever the reality, a clear policy option is to assign more experienced teachers to schools where pronounced differences exist between the performances of diverse group of students.

However, teacher satisfaction and motivation as 53 Ebrahim Maddahian, Penny Fidler, & Kathy Hayes

Journal for Effective Schools

well as other political and logistic issues may make this decision difficult. Providing financial or other social and moral incentives may attract highly qualified teachers to serve students who need and deserve more qualified and experienced teachers.

reducing the achievement gap provided more support for teachers in the form of leadership, collegiality, and hands-on professional development, as well as a cadre of parents who were involved in the instructional aspects of their children.

Frequent, Ongoing, and Systematic Monitoring of Instructional Activities

Instructional Collaboration and Shared Decision Making

In all schools that reduced the achievement gap, there was evidence of continuous monitoring of instructional process and program fidelity. Many school principals are too busy or too reluctant to monitor instructional practices; however, instructional leadership and monitoring should be the most important part of their job. Principals and other school administrators either need to be motivated to spend a sizeable amount of their time on instructional activities or assign other strong school administrators to support, monitor, and guide teacher classroom activities and student progress.

In effective schools, teachers share ideas, develop lesson plans, and collectively encounter school issues and problems, and as a group take part in collective decision making about school curriculum and the instructional process. This not only motivates teachers to work harder, but also gives them a deep understanding of school objectives and issues. It provides teachers with a collective vision of how their tasks are related and moves the whole school toward a higher level of learning and achievement.

School as a Learning Community for All

Schools, which experienced achievement gap widening, spent considerable time on noninstructional activities. Teachers in NG schools were less involved in non-instructional activities than WG teachers.

Schools effective at reducing the achievement gap have created a learning community for all.

There are ample scientific, research-supported, and proven effective strategies to help teachers educate their diverse groups of students. Schools need motivated and technically oriented teachers with up-to-date knowledge about educational theory and practice. Administrators in NG schools attributed teacher effectiveness to the relatively large number of instructional and pedagogical approaches used by their teachers.

Providing Continuous Support for Teachers Teaching is a time consuming and difficult task, especially in contemporary urban schools serving a very diverse and mostly disadvantaged group of children. Schools that were effective in

Clear Focus on Instructional Tasks

Use of Assessment Data and Data-Driven Decision Making With the advancement of technology, we can analyze assessment data more economically in a short period of time. School administrators should continuously use formal and informal data to guide their teachers and to align their instructional activities. There should be ongoing daily use of classroom data to inform instruction.

Additionally, an in-depth analysis of student assessment data will provide insight not only about student progress but also about how schools can align their instructional activities and 54

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

Volume 5, Number 1

school curriculum with the district standards and school vision.

Culturally Relevant and Responsive Education These case studies have demonstrated that there is much more to Culturally Relevant and Responsive Education (CRRE) than occasional cultural celebrations or trappings on the classroom wall. Although there was more evidence of ceremonial/cultural events in WG schools, there was more emphasis on acceptance, respect, and fair treatment in NG schools. Other aspects of CRRE more prevalent in NG than WG schools included: positive attitudes by teachers toward students and their families; the development of learning communities in which students, parents, administrators and teachers all played a role and the funds of knowledge from the community contributed to the school curriculum; greater opportunities for ethnically, economically, and academically diverse groups of students to work and thrive together; and the inclusion of the life experiences of students into the daily process of teaching and learning.

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

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

Ames, C. (1995). Teachers' school-to-home communications and parent involvement: The role of parent perceptions and beliefs (Report No. 28). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, College of Education, Center on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children's Learning.

Spring 2006

Anson, A., Cook, T. D., & Habib, F. (1991).

The Comer school development program: A theoretical analysis. Urban Education, 26(1), 56-82.

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

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

Boykin, A. W., & Allen, B. (2004). Cultural integrity and schooling outcomes of African American schoolchildren from low-income backgrounds. In P. Pufall & R. Unsworth (Eds.), Rethinking Childhood, (pp. 104-120).

New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

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

Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications.

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

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

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

Clark, R. (1993). Homework-focused parenting practices that positively affect student achievement. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 367 449). Albany, NY: SUNY University Press.

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

55 Ebrahim Maddahian, Penny Fidler, & Kathy Hayes

Journal for Effective Schools

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

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

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

Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Council of the Great City Schools. (2004).

Beating the odds: A city-by-city analysis of student performance and achievement gaps on state assessments. Washington, DC: Author.

Cross, T. G., & Lewis, G. F. (1998). Early manifestations of the impact of poverty on education: The expectant parent's hopes and fears. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference, University of Adelaide. Retrieved September 1, 2004, from http:/www.aare.edu. au/98pap/cro98255.htm Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1993). Parenting in two generations of Mexican American families.

International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16(3), 409-427.

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

9-32). Norwood, NY: Ablex.

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

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Denbo, S. J., & Beaulieu, L. M. (2002).

Improving schools for African American students: A reader for educational leaders.

Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Druian, G., & Butler, J. A. (1984). Effective schooling practices and at-risk youth: What the research shows. School Improvement Research Series. Portland, OR: NWREL. Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-24.

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

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share.

Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 705-707.

Farnsworth, M. (2004). Getting results: Highperforming, low-income schools in Maryland.

Germantown, MD: The Maryland Public Policy Institute.

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

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

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

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

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

Foley, D. E. (1991). Reconsidering anthropological explanations of ethnic school 56

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

Volume 5, Number 1

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

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

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

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

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

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

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

Grasso, F. (2002). I.Q. genetics or environment.

AllPYSCH Journal. Retrieved September 15, 2004, from http://allpsych.com/journal/iq.html Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 6-11.

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

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

Holden, G. W., & Edwards, L. E. (1989).

Parental attitudes toward child rearing: Instruments, issues, and implications.

Psychological Bulletin, 106, 29-58.

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

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

Spring 2006

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

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

Johnson, J. E., & Martin, C. (1983). Family environment and kindergarten children's academic knowledge. Paper presented at the meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Fallsview, NY. Johnson, R. C., & Viadero, D. (2000a). Unmet promise: Raising minority achievement.

Education Week, 19(27), 1, 18-19.

Johnson, R. C., & Viadero, D. (2000b). Lifting minority achievement: Complex answers.

Retrieved March 23, 2004, from http://edweek.org Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular.

Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.

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

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

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

Lezotte, L. W. (1991). Correlates of effective schools: The first and second generation.

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

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

57 Ebrahim Maddahian, Penny Fidler, & Kathy Hayes

Journal for Effective Schools

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

Maddahian, E., & Lai, J. (2004, October).

Stakeholders views on culturally relevant and responsive education (Publication No. 224).

Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Unified School District; Program Evaluation and Research Branch; Planning, Assessment, and Research Division.

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

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

Ogbu, J. U., & Simmons, H. D. (1998).

Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 29(2) 155-188.

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

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

Pasch, M., Sparks-Langer, G., Gardner, T. G., Starko A. J., & Moody, C. D. (1991).

Teaching as decision making: Instructional practices for the successful teacher. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing.

Phillips, S. U. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom. In C. B. Cazden, V. Johns, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp.

370-394). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

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

Piestrup, A. M. (1973). Black dialect interference and accommodation of reading instruction in first grade (No. 4. UCB).

Berkeley, CA: Monographs of the Language Behavior Research Laboratory.

Porter, A. C. (2003, October). Prospects for school reform and closing the achievement gap. Paper presented at Educational Testing Service's Invitational Conference, New York City, NY. Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching, New York, NY: Guilford Press.

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

Resnick, L. B., & Hall, M. W. (2001). The principles of learning: Study tools for educators (CD-ROM, version 2.0).

Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center, Institute for Learning.

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

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

58

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

Volume 5, Number 1

Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1998).

Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement.

Thinking K-16: Good Teacher Matters: How Well-Qualified Teachers Can Close the Gap, 3(2). Retrieved on March 15, 2004, from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/ schoolimprovement/closingthegap/strategies/ movement.

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

Schmoker, M., & Marzano, R. J. (1999).

Realizing the promise of standards-based education. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 17-21.

Sol贸rzano, D., & Sol贸rzano, R. (2004).

Principles of successful schools for multilingual children. In O. Santa Ana (Ed.), Tongue-tied; the lives of multicultural children in public education (pp. 197-221).

Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. SPSS. (2004). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Chicago, IL: Author.

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2004).

Why we need to explore development in its cultural context. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 369-386.

Trueba, H. T. (1991). The role of culture in bilingual instruction: Linking linguistic and cognitive development to cultural knowledge.

In O. Garc铆a (Ed.), Focus on bilingual education: Essays in honor of Joshua Fishman (pp. 17-51). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Trueba, H. T. & Bartolome, L. I. (1997). The education of Latino students: Is school reform enough? New York, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED410367) Valdes, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families

Spring 2006

and schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring.

New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

Villegas, A. (1991). Culturally responsive pedagogy for the 1990s and beyond.

Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

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

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

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

Wyatt, T. (1996). School effectiveness research: Dead end, damp squid or smoldering fuse?

Issues in Educational Research, 6(1) 79-112.

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

Ebrahim Maddahian is a Program Evaluation and Research Coordinator in the Program Evaluation and Research Branch at the Los Angeles Unified School District. Dr. Maddahian's area of interest is educational psychology. Penny Fidler is a Senior Educational Research Analyst in the Program Evaluation and Research Branch at the Los Angeles Unified School District. Dr. Fidler's area of interest is quantitative psychology. Kathy Hayes is a Chief Educational Research Scientist in the Program Evaluation and Research Branch at Los Angeles Unified School District. Dr. Hayes' area of interest is educational anthropology.

59 Ebrahim Maddahian, Penny Fidler, & Kathy Hayes

Journal for Effective Schools

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Ebrahim Maddahian, Los Angeles Unified School District, Program Evaluation and Research Branch, 333 Beaudry Ave, 23rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 Email: Ebrahim.maddahian@lausd.net

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

Volume 5, Number 1

Spring 2006

Book Review Linking Teacher Evaluation and Student Learning Pamela D. Tucker and James H. Stronge Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development 2005, 175 pages Megh Thapa Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Research confirms that teachers are the most important factor influencing students' achievement growth, and that they vary widely in quality and classroom effectiveness. Most commonly used evaluations of teacher quality or effectiveness are inadequate or unsatisfactory, and there is not one evaluation system that is generally accepted as fair, just, practical, and productive.

Considering this, and the fact that roughly 50 percent of financial expenditures in a typical school district go to teacher salaries, the importance of teacher quality, accountability, and improvement cannot be exaggerated. It is thus important to carefully examine promising systems, learn from their use, and develop an evidence base on this complex subject. It is toward this end that the authors have made an important contribution by compiling relevant research findings, as well as providing a description of four distinct and promising evaluation systems, and lessons learned from their use.

The authors describe the purpose of the book to be "to present methodologies that have attempted to balance the competing demands of fairness, diagnostic value for professional growth, and accountability for student learning" (p. 12). In addition to portions of an earlier version, commissioned and published by National Education Association in 2002, the book includes a new case study of the Alexandria, Virginia, School District's evaluation system authored by McBride and Miller. Included are case studies of the Colorado, Oregon, Tennessee, and Virginia assessment systems, each of which uses student

learning as a measure of teacher effectiveness.

The book includes appendices with additional information about the cases studied, as well as extensive references.

In the introductory chapter, the authors discuss the qualities of effective teachers and the relationship between effective teachers and student achievement. They distinguish "highly qualified" teachers and "highly effective" teachers, and assert that licensure and certification alone are not sufficient for teacher effectiveness. Pointing out that the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 defines highly qualified teachers as "those who hold at least a bachelor's degree, are fully licensed or certified by the state in the subject they teach, and can demonstrate competence in the subjects they teach," the authors describe a highly qualified teacher as a "good starting point," rightly observing that "most of us would want our child to have a highly effective teacher whose teaching effort yields high rates of student learning" (p. 6). After outlining the limitations of the traditional teacher evaluation system that is largely based on the "act" of teaching and classroom observation, the authors emphasize that a balanced approach to teacher evaluation needs to include the "result" of teaching. The chapter is concluded by noting the increased importance of balanced teacher evaluation in this era of heightened demand for accountability.

In chapter two, the authors first address the issue of teacher responsibility for student learning, and options for assessing student learning. Stating the 61 Megh Thapa

Journal for Effective Schools

authors' belief that "teachers are responsible not only for teaching but also, to some extent, for learning outcomes" (p. 16), a brief overview is presented for each of the well-known assessment strategies, namely, norm-referenced tests, criterion referenced tests, and other types of tests such as locally developed tests and portfolio assessment.

nine recommendations in the form of "practices to reduce possible bias and increase the fairness of using student data in teacher assessment" (p.

96). These recommendations, supported by research findings, address the major issues, concerns, and challenges relevant to the use of student achievement in teacher evaluation.

The authors then profile four teacher assessment models that link student learning to teacher evaluation of teachers: (a) The Oregon Teacher Work Sample Methodology; (b) The Thompson, Colorado, School District Standards-Based Assessment System; (c) The Alexandria, Virginia, School District Goal-Setting System; and (d) The Tennessee Value-Added System.

These four distinct systems include student performance as a fundamental part of the overall assessment of teacher effectiveness and quality.

Chapters 3 through 6 include the systems' respective description, premises, objectives, design, strengths, and weaknesses.

For any teacher evaluation system to be effective, useful or successful, it must win teachers' trust and participation. This refers to the importance of understanding how the teachers who are affected by a system perceive that system, or what their objections or problems are with it.

The book would have been much more helpful to its audience had the authors been able to provide empirical information of this type about the four systems they reviewed in the book. To conclude, however, the book is a valuable resource for educators and others seeking to gain basic understanding of the link between teacher quality and student outcome.

In the final chapter, Final Thoughts on Assessing Teacher Quality: Guidelines for Policy and Practice, the authors first summarize the lessons learned from the application of the four systems.

Implications are drawn for the use of student learning measures in teacher-quality assessment, based on the experience of the four systems, in terms of student learning, instructional assistance for students, personal actions, and professional development. Following this, the authors offer

A final note: Since the footnotes to the various chapters are placed at the end of the book, and identified by chapter number−−and not title or page number−−they are rather cumbersome to find. The book would have been much more reader-friendly if either each of its pages indicated the chapter number in addition to the title, or alternatively, the notes section indicated the title for each chapter. Admittedly, this probably has to do with the publishers.

62 Linking Teacher Evaluation and Student Learning

Journal for Effective Schools

Spring 2006

Volume 5, Number 1

JES SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS General Articles and Research Manuscripts: Authors must send three printed copies (unstapled) along with a self-addressed, stamped 10” x 13” envelope with sufficient postage for two manuscripts to Susan Jenkins, Associate Editor, Journal for Effective Schools, Campus Box 8019, Pocatello, Idaho 832098019. Electronic submissions will not be accepted. Additional detailed information concerning the submission of manuscripts can be found on the Internet at http://icee.isu.edu. Manuscripts not following specifications listed on the Website will be returned to the author(s). The editors conduct a double-blind, peer-review process; therefore, authors must exclude their names, institutions, and clues to authors’ identities from within the text of the manuscript.

Length, Typing, Style: Manuscripts must be typed or word-processed. The title should appear at the top of the first page. A manuscript, including all references, tables, and figures, should be 20-30 pages in length. Authors should keep tables and figures to a minimum and include them at the end of the text.

All text, including titles, headings, references, quotations, figure captions, and tables, must be typed double-spaced with one-inch margins all around. All pages must be numbered. Any abbreviations and acronyms not well known to the average reader should be explained. For writing, editorial style, and references, authors must follow the guidelines in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (Fifth Edition).

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

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

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

ISSN 1542-104X COPYRIGHT AND PERMISSIONS Copyright © 2006 Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness.

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

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

Spring 2006

Volume 5, Number 1

Published by the Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness College of Education Idaho State University Campus Box 8019 Pocatello, Idaho 83209-8019

College of Education

p 208.282.3202

f 208.282.2244