Margaret Curette Patton, PhD Proposal Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee...

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

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/margaret-curette-patton-phd-proposal-defense-dr-william-allan-kritsonis 1/42

Factors Influencing Greatness inEconomically-Challenged Minority Schools

Presented to the Whitlowe R. Green College of Education

Prairie View A & M University

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Presented by

Margaret Curette Patton

Dissertation Committee

William Allan Kritsonis, Chair

Camille Gibson, PhD., Member

David E. Herrington, PhD., Member

Douglas Hermond, PhD., Member

June 2008



Purpose of Study

The purpose of the research is to explore theuniversal distinguishing factors that exist among

high achieving economically challenged minority(ECM) schools compared to similar acceptableperforming schools in the state of Texas.



Problem Statement

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

1 0 0

M a th 2 0 0 6 M a th 2 0 0 7

Academic scores of minority

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

The gap between

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

Texas has not been able to

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

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

1 0 0

M a th 2 0 0 6 M a th 2 0 0 7

11th Grade TAKS Scores5th Grade TAKS Scores

March 2006 March 2007 March 2006 March 2007

• African

American

•Hispanic

•White

•Econ.

Challenged

-Texas Education Agency 2007 State AEIS Report



Significance of the Study

The education system has the distinct opportunityto significantly improve the accessibility and

quality of education for its entire people and toenrich their future. The findings of this study canaccelerate this process.



Research Questions

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

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



Limitations

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

• The selected schools will be asked voluntarily to take partin the study through purposive sampling. Limitationsinclude small sample size and inherent bias among the

participants.

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

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



Limitations continued

• A small number of years of data were used for the study(Post-TAKS years).

• The sample was selected based on the final accountabilityrating rather than specific indicators like attendance, drop-out rate, and subgroup test scores.

• The final sample of schools was selected from the sameeducational Region in Texas. The critical analysis revealedthat there were a sufficient number of high-performingfeeder groups in Region 4 to provide ample data to answer

the research questions. The other two regions that wereincluded in the selection process did not have as manyfeeder groups from which to choose.



Limitations cont.

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

• The subjectivity of the researcher as themeasurement instrument.



Assumptions

• The responses given in interviews will beprovided freely and with the utmost honesty.

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

• Although there are differences between specificminority groups of students, this study willgroup African American and Hispanic students

into one group that will be referred to as aminority group.



Definitions

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

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

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



Definitions

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

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



Definitions

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

2001).



Definitions

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

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

http://nationsreportcard.gov/glossary.asp

http://nationsreportcard.gov/glossary.asp



Conceptual FrameworkGood to Great ™ – Jim Collins

Input Principles

Stage 1: Disciplined People

Level 5 LeadershipFirst Who, Then What

Stage 2: Disciplined Thought

Confront the Brutal FactsThe Hedgehog Concept

Stage 3: Discipline Action

Culture of DisciplineTechnology Accelerators

Output Results

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

Visit www.jimcollins.com

to take the Good to Great™ survey.

http://www.jimcollins.com/

http://www.jimcollins.com/




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

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

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

goal.




Disciplined Thought

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

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

at, and what drives their economicengine.




Disciplined Action

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

great performance.

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

selected assisted in transforming companies.



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

Collins’ (2001) findings - there was no single defining action,innovation, or miracle that elevated companies to greatness

Reeves (2007) also found that school improvement

in high performing ECM schools “was not the result of a short burst of energy by a few people who soonburned out, but rather the result of steady, sustainedefforts” (p. 87).Read the entire article at:http://www.newburghschools.org/newburgh/subpages/cni/articles/November_2007_How_Do_You_Sustain_Excellence.pdf

http://www.newburghschools.org/newburgh/subpages/cni/articles/November_2007_How_Do_You_Sustain_Excellence.pdf

http://www.newburghschools.org/newburgh/subpages/cni/articles/November_2007_How_Do_You_Sustain_Excellence.pdf




In the Beat the Odds Study (2006), there were noeasy answers or magic bullets, instead the answer came with the school selecting the most appropriate

programs and actions for their particular populationand sticking with it. “What performance requires ishard, focused, purposeful work. If diligence,persistence and commitment are lacking, ingenuity

and a good program are wasted. It is focus andhard work that matter most.”For more information visit the Beat the Odds Institute: http://www.beattheoddsinstitute.org/index.php

http://www.beattheoddsinstitute.org/index.php

http://www.beattheoddsinstitute.org/index.php




INPUT FACTORS

Disciplined People

Collaborative leadershipPurpose-driven Staff

Disciplined Thought

Address Student NeedClear visionCurriculum FocusData DrivenHigh Expectations/NoExcusesStreamlined Activities

Discipline Action

Assessment for

improvementDistributed AccountabilityLearning Communities

OUTPUT RESULTS

High levels of proficiency amongstudents

Continued gains in

achievement;

Effective andenduring practicesand policies arewidespread.

Output Results in2007 Texas Accountability Rating Terminology

Recognized Exemplary

TAKS (Met Standard)

Reading/ELA 75% 90%

Math 75% 90%

Writing 75% 90%

Science 75% 90%

Social Studies 75% 90%

SDAA II All Subjects 70% 90%

Completion Rate I 85.0% 95.0%

Annual Dropout Rate 0.7% 0.2%

The literature on high-performing ECM schools reveals…



More of What the Literature SaysGood to Great ™ – Education Sector

Disciplined People

Level 5 Leaders

“The research evidence consistently demonstrates that the

quality of leadership determines the motivation of teachersand the quality of teaching in the classroom.” (Harris, et. al.,2006, p. 121)

See handout for thorough literary synthesis on high performing ECM schools.




Disciplined People

First Who Then What

“If you want to improve a school system, before you change the rules,look first to the ways that people think and interact together.” (Senge,2000, p. 19)

“Effective hiring goes beyond selecting teachers: Savvy principals willemploy secretaries, custodians, food service personnel, para-educators,and teacher aides who embrace the overall mission of the school.”(Harris, 2006, p. 10) Another principal suggested, “Hire wisely. Use an

interview team, and don’t second-guess your gut. Keep looking until youare satisfied.” (Harris, 2006, p.3)





Disciplined Thought

Confronting the brutal facts “Focus on the needs of the individual child as they look at

achievement per classroom, per teacher, per student. Thisapproach unmasks poor performance and forces everyone atthe school to take responsibility for student performance.”(Waits, 2006, p. 6).





Disciplined Thought

Hedgehog Concept

Trimble (2002) found that high performing, high poverty

schools have built-in criteria for making decisions. Theseprocedures are crucial when numerous issues attempt tocause distractions that could take the campus off trackfrom their goals.





Disciplined Action

Culture of discipline

“In the ‘built to suit’ paradigm, high achieving schools wentbeyond the big picture that standards posed to focusing onthe individual performance of each child. In essence, whatwas present was a vital cycle of instruction, assessment, andintervention.” (Waits, 2006, p. 7)





Disciplined Action

Technology accelerators

The Prichard Report (2005) surprisingly noted that the eighthigh-performing schools in their study did not perform well onthe use of technology. The findings further suggested thattechnology may not be a necessary component of attainingsuccess. Effective use of technology may enhance what

successful schools are already doing, but it is not a crucialingredient.




Research Procedure

Schools selected for the study met the following sampling

criteria…

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

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

population;

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

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

Houston, San Antonio, or Dallas/Fort Worth.



Comparison Schools

The comparison schools…

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

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

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



Why these groups?

2006 Accountability State Summary Report – Texas Education Agency

Exemplary, 7.1%

Recognized, 35.5%

Acceptable, 45.1%

Unacceptable, 3.6%

Not Rated, 8.7%



SampleSchool Total Econ Dis. Min. 2004 2005 2006 2007

High Performing District 1 ELEM1 653 81.3 96.2 E E E E

Sixth -1 1112 68.9 88.5 R R R R

MID2 1299 67.9 83.7 R A R R

MID1 938 68.3 93.1 R A R A

Comparison District 2 CELEM1 696 73.7 96.5 A A A A

CMID1/2 1090 61.7 98.8 A A A A

High Performing District 3 ELEM3 891 88.8 98 E E E E

Fifth-Sixth3 949 90.8 95.9 R A A R

MID3 971 86.5 96 R R R R

Comparison District 3 CELEM3 799 92.4 98.2 A A A A

Cfifth-Sixth3 780 87.3 97.6 A A A A

CMID3 971 79.9 96.4 A A A A

High Performing District 4 ELEM4 613 83 88.9 R R R E

MID4 841 92.2 95.1 R R R A

District 4 ELEM5 591 90.5 90.2 R A R A

MID5 878 79.2 85.3 R A R R

Comparison District 4 CELEM4/5 839 81.9 80.7 A A A A

CMID4/5 958 71.1 77.7 A A A A



Participants

Why Houston Area/Region IV?

• Over 50% of the schools located in Houston area

• No high performing elementary school feeding into highperforming middle schools

Region IV of Texas• 12 Campuses

• 3 Districts

• 60 Staff

– Five participants on each campus include:• Administrators

• Teachers/Department Heads



Permission

• Acquire District Permission

• Acquire Campus Permission – Principal Letter

– Principal Permission Form

– Email, Phone Call, Follow-up Visit



Confidentiality and Anonymity

• No staff, school, or district names used infindings

• Example Coding: DIST1ELEM1.1A

• DIST2MID1.2T (District 2, Middle School 1, 2nd Staff Interview –Teacher)

District 1Elementary 1 1st Staff Interview - Administrator



Instrumentation

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

– Interest in deep understanding

• Objectivity – Journal (Gibson, 2002)

– Monitor effects of interview on researcher

• Transcribe data within a few hours of interview



Data Collection

Triangulation

• On-line responses to interviews (Survey Monkey)• Private one-on-one interviews• Review of news clippings, campus publications,

etc.



Sample Interview Questions

1. What do you see as the top five factors that contributed to or

caused the upward shift in performance during the years 2004-2007 (years since TAKS)?

2. Now let’s return to those five factors, and I’d like you to allocate atotal of 100 points to those factors, according to their overallimportance to school improvement (total across all five factorsequals 100 points).

3. Could you please elaborate on the top two or three factors? Canyou give me specific examples that illustrate the factor?

4. Did the school make a conscious decision to initiate a major

change or transition during this time frame?



Sample Coding System

• Coding matrix contains key themes from the Good to Great Model

• Responses will be color coded based on categories.

• Example categories…

– Coding Category 1 (red) – Leadership: Who are the leaders?

What are the characteristics of the leaders? Is leadershipdistributed to others?

– Coding Category 2 (blue) – Recruiting and Retaining HighlyQualified: What are the hiring practices? Is there collaboration

before hiring? What types of qualities are looked for in staff?Is there autonomy in hiring?



Data Analysis

APPENDIX E - CODING MATRIX – HIGH-PERFORMING SCHOOLS

ResponsesFreq. Significant Quotes

Disciplined People Category 1:

Leadership

Category 2:Recruiting andRetaining Staff

Discipline

dPeople



Displaying the Findings - Chart

APPENDIX F –

Checklist Matrix: Predictors of Recognized or Exemplary ECM Schools

Category Exemplary/RecognizedCampus

Acceptable Campus

Level 5Leadership

First WhoThen What

Disciplin

edPeop

le



Displaying the Findings - Narrative

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

•Descriptive

•Explanatory

•Comparative



Vision for Study

It is my hope that the findings of this study may:

• Motivate school leaders to transform mediocreECM schools into self-sustaining great schools;

• Encourage administrators of low-performingECM schools to implement strategies to movetoward greatness; and

• Create an avenue for children of all backgroundsto receive a high quality of education.



References

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

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

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

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

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Reeves, D. (2007). How do you sustain excellence? Educational Leadership, 65 (3), 86-87.

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

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

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

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

Margaret Curette Patton, PhD Proposal Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee...

Documents

Transcript of Margaret Curette Patton, PhD Proposal Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee...