Metro HS Case Narrative

METRO CITY HS: A CASE NARRATIVE 1

Metro City High School: A Case Narrative

Samuel P. Jackson

University of North Texas (Denton)


Abstract

This case narrative scrutinizes the validity of the organizational models currently utilized in

Metro High School; Metro High School is located in the Dallas- Fort Worth Metroplex.

Analysis of student demographics focuses on the English Language Learner population within

the district and community. Results from STAAR End of Course (English I and II) over the last

two years (ELL population), juxtaposed to the conspicuous mélange of TAP (The System for

Teacher and Student Advancement), Professional Learning Communities, the 5E Model and

SWAS (School Within A School- Metro HS uses a similar model titled Programs of Choice),

provide measureable girth and substance to a seemingly ambiguous amalgam of programs

chosen at random. Anthony S. Bryk’s D-EE-D (Design, Educational Engineering, and

Development) model, originally promoted to revamp the infrastructure of public school reform,

functions as the basis for the analysis of Metro High School’s various organizational models and

their effect on teacher collegiality. A Social Constructivist lens, applied alongside Bryk’s D-EE-

D model and fortified by research regarding the precarious nature of reform and change

specifically in high schools exposes the frailty and ineptness of Metro High School’s amalgam;

furthermore, it advocates the necessity of commitment to a truer version of Professional Learning

Communities as opposed to a buffet line featuring a variety of disconnectedness.

Keywords: TAP, PLC, SWAS, Programs of Choice, D-EE-D, Social Constructivist


Metro High School: A Case Narrative

The word reform has become cliché at best in regards to society and education; from

committee meetings to central office board rooms to lounges, it has either trans-mutated into a

form used in jest, or ears and minds have become numb to its former, poignant revelry. High

schools remain “resilient” in part because they function as “an instrument of social control in

order to reproduce the existing (and unequal) social class structures;” and also as a bondservant

to the whims and desires of the American public who define “a good high school” as one which

offers “plenty of choices for students of different abilities and talents” and certifies “that its

graduates can enter the job market or attend college” (Cuban, 2000, pg.115). Education critics

posit “that insufficiently educated workers have slowed U.S. productivity and threatened

America’s position in global markets;” even though this frequently spewed claim lacks empirical

evidence, high schools bend and bow to the demands of high-stakes testing and standards which

assert direct linkage to post-secondary and career readiness (Cuban, 2004, pg. 238). High

schools remain “genetically confined to the DNA of a mass institution committed to be

comprehensive in purpose and operation and responsive to parents and students;” unable to

maintain any sense of altruism, they are battered by a “web of social beliefs” which contain

“conflicting purposes” (Cuban, 2000, pg. 116). ‘The proof of the pudding is in the eating;’ if

specific ingredients operate within the context of explicit goals, then the recipe succeeds and the

consumer achieves satisfaction. If the ingredients are unrelated and disconnected, the recipe fails

and the consumer remains dissatisfied. The ballast must be an approach focused on both teacher

and student developing socio-cultural inclusivity as opposed to a buffet line of unrelated choices

and approaches.


Background

School Information and Data

In 2011, Metro ISD became “subject to the LEA-level Title I School Improvement

Requirements” because it failed to meet “AYP for two or more consecutive years in the same

indicator (reading, mathematics, attendance rate, or graduation rate)” (Hull, 2011). The

implementation of the required SIP prompted the inception of “The Five Plays of GPISD.” All

schools in the district are required to adhere/implement (1) Vertically and Horizontally Aligned

Curriculum, (2) The 5E Model (Engage, Explore, Explain, Extend/Elaborate, Evaluate), (3) Data

Driven Decisions, (4) Relationship Capacity (Capturing Kid’s Hearts) and (5) Intentional

Leadership (Flippen Leadership). Metro ISD continues to strive to escape the requirements from

2011; thus the conflagration of organizational and instructional models spreads giving rise to a

phantasmagoria where lack of commitment breeds inconsistency in both teacher and student.

Metro High School is one of 7 high schools in Metro ISD; located between Dallas and

Fort Worth, Texas, it opened in 1911 and currently serves 2,502 students (TEA, 2014). In 2013,

Metro High School “Met Standard” and received three “Distinction Designations: Academic

Achievement in Reading/ ELA, Academic Achievement in Mathematics and Academic

Achievement in Top 25 Percent Student Progress” (TEA, 2013). In 2014, however, Metro HS

“Met Standard,” but didn’t receive any “Distinction Designations” (TEA, 2014). Of its 2,502

students, seventy-six percent are Economically Disadvantaged. This category includes the

following subpopulations; African American (15.2%), Hispanic (73%), White (9.4%), American

Indian (.4%), Asian (1%) and Two or More Races (1.1%). 55% of the population is At-Risk, and

the ELL (English Language Learner) students account for 24.5% of the student body.


Metro HS employs 170 teachers and 10 administrators; the majority of the teachers have

anywhere from five to twenty years of experience. 537 students are enrolled in ESL education,

but the Performance Report reveals only 1 teacher possesses the proper certification to serve

those students. The campus became a TAP school two years ago; this organizational model

serves as the guiding tool utilized by campus administration and other leaders to gauge student

and teacher improvement. The campus claims to use PLCs, but the implementation of this

model has been strictly governed by TAP; a true PLC does not currently operate on campus.

Community Background

Metro HS serves as the largest high school in Metro ISD; located in an urban community,

industrial properties, apartment communities and rental homes surround the campus. The

population, 175,396, has grown 37.64% since 2000 (higher than state average); while the median

household income, $53,211, has increased much slower than the state average at 13.66% since

2000 (Usa.com, 2015). The median house value, $125, 000, has grown 48.63% since 2000, but

this rate is below both state and national averages (Usa.com, 2015). While the population has

increased at a greater rate than the state average, the household income has increased at a

lethargic rate in contrast to the state average; therefore, the population increases, income and

property values remain more stagnant and the community becomes inept pertaining to supporting

its population. Parents of ELL students remain largely uninformed regarding the overall purpose

of English as a Second Language instruction; parent involvement remains minimal due to

economic strains requiring parents to work multiple jobs or hours which conflict the school’s

hours of operation.


Framework of Description and Analysis

Metro HS has the formidable challenge regarding the academic and linguistic success of

ELLs, specifically the “newcomer” (3 years or less in the country) population. The school

recently adopted the TAP model to promote student and teacher achievement as well as PLCs

and a version of SWAS. The school currently functions within the initial stages of the process;

present results lack clarity concerning the specific direction of the school regarding the before-

mentioned models. Byrk’s D-EE-D model, combined with a Social Constructivist approach and

research apropos of the resilient and resistant nature of high school culture relating to change

functions as a lens in order to scrutinize the existing model and promote the adoption of a

simpler, intrinsic and explicit approach via a commitment to PLCs.

Campus Strengths and Weaknesses

In relation to the ELL population, data provided by TEA and an analysis of the models

currently in place produce more weaknesses than strengths at Metro HS. The strengths and

weaknesses do not question the vitality of the faculty; rather the models currently governing

teachers and administrators.

Strengths

Of the 170 teachers employed at Metro HS, 10.3% are in their first year of teaching,

33.3% have 1-5 years of experience, 23.5% have 6-10 years of experience, 23.2% have 11-20

years of experience and 9.8% have 20+ years of experience (TEA, 2014). This mix of

experience creates an advantageous, eclectic environment where veteran can mentor neophyte

and novel ideas and approaches to teaching can flourish with the sagacity of experience.

Theoretically, the PLC model should propagate exemplary results given the nature of this


variety. The faculty responds favorably to the presence and culture of its ELL population but

remains largely resistant to promoting the academic and linguistic success of ELLs.

With Programs of Choice (a form of SWAS), complimented by the District’s promotion

of Schools of Choice, Metro HS has experienced an enrollment increase from 1,905 in 2012-13

to 2,502 in 2013-14; the ELL subpopulation rose from 403 to 614 (TEA, 2013, 2014). Students

across the district elect which school to attend; based on this rise in attendance, the programs and

faculty together have created viable opportunities for students.

Weaknesses

Paradoxically, of the 170 teachers at Metro HS, .2% are ESL Certified; though teachers

respond favorably to the presence and culture of the ELL population, they are ill-equipped to

adequately facilitate the necessary accommodations associated with language acquisition (TEA,

2014). The district offers pro bono training for the ESL Supplemental Certification and also

financial compensation for the cost of the test (upon achieving a satisfactory score). A well-

known stigma in the Bilingual/ESL Department is as follows; teachers praise native, English

speaking students for attempting to acquire a foreign language but disparage ELLs attempting to

acquire English. The Bilingual/ ESL Department does not possess formal evidence regarding

this stigma except the resistance to ESL Certification and Sheltered Instruction implementation

and practice.

Attendance rates have fallen slightly over the past year from 94.1% to 93.8% for ELLs,

but more alarming is the increase in dropout rate for ELLs. The rate rose from .5% to 2.6%. The

campus is also experiencing a decrease in number of ELLs completing graduation; of the class of

2012, 97.1% of the ELL population graduated. In 2013, 85.7% graduated (TEA, 2014).


Within the traditional, organizational model, Metro HS offers Programs of Choice which

is an attempt at SWAS; Center for Law and Public Safety, Sport’s Health Science, Construction

Technology, Education and Training and Government and Public Affairs represent programs

currently offered. Data to support the validity of these programs pertaining to academic and

linguistic success for ELLs does not exist.

Longitudinal Student Achievement Data Analysis

Data Identification

Due to the changes in testing requirements and accountability concerning the transition

from TAKS to STAAR, this analysis will only include ELL test scores from 2013-13 to 2013-14.

Figure 1 reveals how ELL students progressed in English I, but regressed in English II. Analysis

of English I and English II scores reveals a similar trend in other subpopulations (see Figures

2&3).

Figure 1

Metro HS ELL Scores

2012-13/ 2013-14 STAAR English I and II

2012-13 2013-140%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

English/ Reading 1 English/ Reading 2


Figure 2

Metro HS Subpopulations and Campus

2012-13 STAAR English I and II

ELLs Econ. Dis. Special ED Campus0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

English 1 English 2

Figure 3

Metro HS Subpopulations and Campus

2013-14 STAAR English I and II

ELLs Econ. Dis. Special ED Campus0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

English 1 English 2


Figures 1, 2 and 3 reveal a positive trend regarding English II scores for ELLs, other

subpopulations and the campus as a whole; dissimilarly, the English I scores suffered decline in

all groups. Even with positive gains in English II, ELL scores are still well below 70% which is

considered a mandatory mark for success at the district and state levels. Clearly, as of 2014, the

amalgam of TAP and PLCs lacks virility with the linguistic and academic success of ELLs.

The Current Framework and the Implementation of Bryk’s D-EE-D

Contradicting Variations

Metro High School’s use of PLCs contradicts the theoretical approach of the model’s

intended implementation and maintenance; furthermore, the TAP model promotes congeniality

because of its hierarchal nature. Metro High School operates well within the parameters of the

Learning aspect as defined by Hord (2009); teachers and administrators “study multiple sources

of student data to discover where students are performing well” (pg. 40). Metro HS teachers

utilize data from district created assessments (which mirror state assessments in format),

STAAR, TELPAS and classroom assessments to direct instructional decision-making; they

“develop instructional strategies and create systematic and timely interventions for students” and

invest “time in curriculum development and alignment” (Caskey & Carpenter, 2012, pg. 56).

The use of TAP alongside PLCs presents a paradoxical style of organization relating to the

development of Community; if “learning” is a “process of making sense of information and

experiences,” then it “requires an environment in which learners work collegially” (Hord, 2009,

pg. 41). Educators, as part of the Community, must be willing to “question, to hold

uncomfortable tensions, to be vulnerable with colleagues, to struggle” and adapt without fear of

the interference of excessive bureaucratic hegemony (Caskey & Carpenter, 2012, pg. 56).

Decentralization within the model allows “communities to be informal and” provides “intimate


places to discuss contested and politically sensitive school issues in a civil but still critical

manner” (Curry, 2008, pg. 749). “Teachers in congenial school cultures protect privacy and

acknowledge differing philosophical and pedagogical beliefs yet rarely engage in dialogue that

explores their differences;” when PLCs are utilized strictly for data-centered discussions and

studies, “collegial cultures…characterized by the intentional development of trust” will not

flourish (Caskey & Carpenter, 2012, pg. 57). Metro HS needs to develop communities of trust

but also allow for issues resolved/discussed to avoid suppression by a “confidentiality

agreement” which would prevent “groups from formally publicizing and pursuing issues”

discussed during PLC time (Curry, 2008, pg. 753).

The TAP model as implemented at Metro HS negates any progressive strides toward

collegiality; TAP involves the promotion of master and mentor teachers, suggested incentives for

promotions through the hierarchy and an impersonal rubric for evaluation. Professional

development for the employment of the TAP model (meetings called “clusters”) “are led by

master and mentor teachers who explain the instructional practices measure by the TAP

Teaching Standards;” as a “supplement” to “the cluster group meetings, master and mentor

teachers regularly visit teachers’ classrooms to provide highly intensive and personalized

coaching” (Culbertson, 2012, pg. 16). The evaluations provide data to support teacher and

student growth. This data could be used as part of the Learning component of PLCs, but the

hierarchal structure diminishes the promotion of collegiality. TAP claims the presence of

“multiple trained and certified evaluators helps guard against score inflation and ensures that

scores are consistent” (Culbertson, 2012, pg. 18). Unfortunately, human evaluators regardless of

training and rubric usage inadvertently succumb to bias; to control bias is to control the inner

workings of mankind and society.


The D-EE-D Model at Work

Bryk’s D-EE-D (Design, Educational Engineering, and Development) model supports the

theory which underscores Professional Learning Communities; utilizing this model requires

campus commitment to the model and the disintegration and cessation of the TAP model. A

Social Constructivist lens applied in conjunction with the D-EE-D model will not only revamp

Metro High School’s current PLC model, but also augment instruction regarding the ELL

population. Figure 4 depicts both the structure and process of the D-EE-D model as applied to

Metro HS.

Figure 4


Design

“Meaning making, in Vygotsky’s view of the matter, requires not only language but a

grasp of the cultural context in which language is used;” the “higher order systems” of the mind

“are cultural products” which “do not mature exclusively through endogenous principles…but

depend upon continued social interaction” (Bruner, 1997, pg. 68). In the case of ELLs and

educators involved in educating these language learners, the basis for instructional models and

approaches must involve cultural and social contexts. Vygotsky’s ZPD (Zone of Proximal

Development) “poses specific questions as to how culture gets internalized by the mediation of

others…the very transmission of culture depends on…concordance between a learner’s

capabilities and what the culture has to offer” (Bruner, 1997, pg. 69). Another factor relating to

ZPD is the “person in the culture…who can sense what a learner needs” and adjust instruction

and environment accordingly (Bruner, 1997, pg. 69). Both educators and learners must consider

the context of language and learning (context involves socio-cultural and environmental aspects);

furthermore, educators involved with the linguistic and academic progress must close the gap

between what learners can learn autonomously and what they learn cooperatively (ZPD).

Creating an environment within the classroom and campus which promotes inclusivity and

involves avoiding ethnic ambivalence; when “language speakers go through a stage in which

their desire to integrate into the dominant culture is so strong that they become apathetic or

hostile toward the cultural heritage of their parents,” they exhibit ethnic ambivalence (Crawford

& Krashen, 2007, pgs. 38-39). “Culture is the product of social life and human social activity;”

therefore, placing opportunities for learning within valid context which relates to the learner

“provides not only an optimal learning environment, but the potential of transforming the

learner’s cultural reality” (Hirtle, 1996, pg. 91). When educators strive to honor a learner’s


home culture, the learner feels validated and “dialogue will open up fixed boundaries” (Hirtle,

1996, pg. 92).

For teachers and administrators at Metro HS, Design addresses “the core problems of

practice embedded in the day-to-day work of improving teaching and learning;” if the teachers

will re-address their ELL population through a Social Constructivist lens and appreciate the

vibrant connections with language and academic progress, culture and environment, then they

will experience personal and professional relating to both colleagues and the ELL population.

Educational Engineering

Implementation of the D-EE-D model will not replace the existing models; rather, it will

revamp via innovation the current usage of PLCs. To truly commit to the D-EE-D model, as it

reinvigorates PLCs, Metro HS must discontinue the TAP model because it undermines

collegiality. Metro ISD, has frequently acquiesced to “educational theories” which contain “high

levels of uncertainty” concerning the “wisdom of their adoption;” furthermore, “there is a crucial

difference between evidence that documents the need for change and evidence that documents

the efficacy of a particular strategy of change” (Airasian & Walsh, 1997, pg. 444). Educational

Engineering involves a truer commitment to PLCs in which the faculty will develop its own

“epistemology that focuses on students’ constructing their own knowledge” (Airasian & Walsh,

1997, pg. 445) while creating “an innovative program” contrasting “more traditional forms of

education” (Gallagher, 1998, pg. 344). The challenge also involves “imposed curricula” which

diminishes “the opportunity for real learning” (Gallagher, 1998, pg. 344). Through commitment

to a truer form of PLCs, the faculty and administration of Metro HS will navigate through

imposing state and local hegemony by analyzing how to collaborate more effectively and

“reliably over many diverse contexts” which “means accumulating a rigorous knowledge base on


practice improvement where the real test of adequacy” involves “demonstrable, broad-based”

advancements (Bryk, 2009, pg. 598).

Currently, PLCs involve grade level, departmental groups; as the faculty transitions to

utilize communities likened to theoretical basis, members of each community will address the

theoretical underpinnings of PLCs. During this analysis, they will be given the opportunity to

critique and develop the structure of their individual community as defined by their interpretation

of the theory and the implications of practice. Initially, the type of grouping will not alter;

however, the approach will undergo the innovative process which originates in the study of the

theory behind PLCs. Collegiality develops while members create the structure of the

personalized community; furthermore, preliminary meetings will not involve campus and student

specific goals relating to data and academic achievement. Integration of campus and student

achievement data occurs once collegiality emerges. Administrators must promote a culture of

honesty regarding campus issues without the threat or notion of reprisals. The size of the

campus serves as an advantage regarding engineering “differential learning opportunities” and an

“internally differentiated academic structure” (Lee & Bryk, 1989, pg. 188). These types of

opportunities and variation of structures provide beneficial dialogue for educators within PLCs

which translate to beneficial learning opportunities for students. Communities will also focus on

“the technical core of instruction,” but also “the nature of human environments in which

instruction occurs,” specifically concerning the ELL population (Lee and Bryk, 1989, pg. 190).

Community members, upon analyzing the theoretical underpinnings of PLCs and creating the

fundamental structure of the group, will progress toward creating the format for discussion

within the community related to teacher and student achievement; the D-EE-D model promotes

the ongoing assessment “disciplined by an explicit cause-and-effect logic” as members “must


evaluate the cause-and-effect logic itself by examining evidence that emerges each time the

innovation is used in practice” (Bryk, 2009, pg. 598). The model creates a reciprocal, ongoing

implementation-analysis-implementation discussion forum; and, the cause-and-effect logic

streamlines theoretical practice.

Development

The Social Constructivist lens which drives the Design conceives the foundation for

Educational Engineering (the revitalizing of PLCs from theory to practice and the cessation of

TAP), and ultimately, leads to Development via learning communities of educators who promote

collegiality and socio-cultural awareness. The ELL student population will experience success

due to progress toward a more inclusive environment within the school. Where reformers past

and present “have either located the solutions to serious social problems in re-educating high

school youth or found serious flaws in the designs and operation of high schools, launching

innovation after innovation,” the D-EE-D model will streamline innovation via cause-and-effect

logic (Cuban, 1998, pg. 105). Innovations will avoid attempting to create “less-structured, non-

bureaucratic,” completely “autonomous…secondary institutions” which still meet the needs and

expectations of the community because such a venture resembles “a monumental task akin to

scaling Mt. Everest” (Cuban, 1998, pg. 107). The process of Development involves a “strategy”

containing “systematic inquiry about effects with a deep understanding of the mechanisms

operating to produce these effects” (Bryk, 2009, pg. 598). For example, the correlation of

TELPAS scores and STAAR Reading and Writing scores for the ELL population represents an

area of study which would involve community members focusing on their own learning

regarding the nature of the assessments and their correlative properties; more so, members would

also apply cause-and-effect logic to the data and the ramifications for both teachers and students.


With this assessment of STAAR and TELPAS data, community members will analyze past PLC

implementation to innovate and develop practices which advocate a more learner-centered

environment and further develop a more streamlined approach to the STAAR/ TELPAS

conundrum.

Coalesced with the onslaught of high-stakes testing as mentioned above, community

members will also address their involvement in educating themselves regarding socio-cultural

expectations of civic engagement. Naiveté promotes “the single-minded pursuit of preparing all

students for college and high-paying jobs;” addressing civic engagement for both educator and

ELL remains paramount because the concept has “been neglected in the mistaken rush to turn

schools into engines for the larger economy” (Cuban, 2004, pg. 239). Just as educators must

have the freedom to re-invent personal learning via PLCs, they must have the independence to

“invent instruction anew” involving “a dynamic interplay of understanding around students’

background knowledge, motivations, dispositions, skills, and interests” (Bryk, 2009, pg. 599).

Educators at Metro HS will utilize open-discussion forums within their separate communities to

address issues and improvements concerning the D-EE-D model along with positive and adverse

socio-cultural change. Members will record the outcomes of these discussions and present them

to the whole faculty. Educators will engage in campus decision-making via community and

whole-faculty discussions as opposed to a bureaucratic model which stifles creativity and open-

mindedness. The dissolution of TAP and the implementation of decentralized grouping and

decision-making fosters enduring collegiality and cultural diversity at the educator level; this

fostering with pour over into the student population. In due course, educators and students will

experience academic and linguistic progress within revitalized social and cultural contexts.

Development must involve educators addressing areas of need in their own learning and


instruction regarding ELLs; also, creating instructional techniques fundamentally supported by

continuous professional learning (specific areas of theory and social change) will avoid

regressing to “traditional practices in the face of high-stakes testing” and worse transforming

“powerful ideas into familiar practices” (Cuban, 2004, pg. 143).

The 5E instructional model will remain because Bryk advocates the necessity of a

“specific instructional system” within the PLC; furthermore, educators share “language about

goals for students” and “common evidence base about what constitutes learning” (2009, pg.

600). The 5E model plays an integral role in the PLC and doesn’t threaten collegiality. The

challenge encompasses the variorum of “differences in teachers’ personal traits, their beliefs…

attitudes towards students, teaching competency, knowledge of subject matter, and experiences;”

furthermore, to overcome this challenge educators within PLCs must collectively address

“pedagogy” and how it “is crucial to what students get from a subject” because how an educator

teaches becomes what an educator teaches (Cuban, 1992). Development within the D-EE-D

model exemplifies an incremental process which effects incremental change; change of this

nature will be less noticeable and necessitate support from PLC members and administrators.

Changing “the content that teachers teach and students learn is cheap;” changing “how teachers

teach or their relationships with students in infinitely more expensive, messier and uncertain”

(Cuban, 1992). PLCs guided by cause-effect logic innovate learning opportunities for

community members and create the necessary contexts for socio-cultural and academic progress.

The process is not overnight; nor is this a panacea for all the issues associated with ELLs and

learning; however, the collegiality promoted by a true PLC will innovate teacher-teacher and

teacher-student relationships.


Beyond D-EE-D

Once the truer PLCs achieve sustainability, each community will need to undergo further

organizational innovation; instead of maintaining departmental/ grade level grouping, PLCs

should be subtly restructured into “mixed-ability and multiple groupings with and across”

disciplines (Cuban, 1989, pg. 6). This technique, more common in classroom management and

not prescribed by Bryk’s model or the theoretical underpinnings of PLCs, will promote

“approaches that target culturally different” groups within faculty and challenge biases and

stereotypes. Educators expect students to accept this type of grouping, but overall remain

reluctant regarding personal involvement in socially and culturally challenging arenas. Subtle

variations and innovations to the PLC structure will thwart the wall of resistance brick-by-brick

promulgating innovative discourse and action.

Conclusion

Bryk’s D-EE-D model serves to revamp and innovate the current misguided, anti-

theoretical use of PLCs, negatively compounded by TAP; in order to promote truer collegiality

and an environment of social and cultural inclusivity where educators and students thrive. The

goal of Design involves utilizing a Social Constructivist lens with which to view the educator’s

position within the diverse community of colleagues, supervisors and the ELL population.

Integration of the lens will promote the creation of an inclusive, socio-cultural environment

where educators develop social, cultural and contextual diversity within the group and

ultimately, the faculty as a whole. Educational Engineering assimilates the efforts of Design,

and revamps the current PLC model beginning with the cessation of the TAP model which

negates the theoretical underpinnings of PLCs. Educators, free of the hierarchal hegemony of

TAP, can now create a reciprocal implementation-analysis-implementation discussion forum


guided by cause-and-effect logic. Development encompasses the strides of utilizing the Social

Constructivist lens, the guidance of cause-and-effect logic and adds the commitment to

introspective exercises concerning learning, instruction pertaining to ELLs and the creation of

collegiality within the community and campus. To revitalize teacher and student progress and

success at Metro HS, incremental reform via Bryk’s D-EE-D model must occur at the

epistemological level of the educators first; as socio-cultural collegiality develops, the ELL

population experiences success because the diverse collegiality the educators model fuels a

culture of inclusivity and develops social and academic contexts in which academic and

language progress flourishes.


References

Airasian, P.W. & Walsh, M. E. (1997). Constructivist Cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(6),

444-449.

Bryk, A. S. (2009). Support a Science of Performance Improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(8),

597-600.

Bruner, J. (1997). Celebrating Divergence: Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 40(2),

63- 73.

Caskey, M. M. & Carpenter, J. (2012). Organizational models for teacher learning. Middle

School Journal, 43(5), 52-62.

Crawford, J & Krashen, S. (2007). English Learners in American Classrooms: 101 Questions

101 Answers. New York: Scholastic Inc.

Cuban, L. (2000). Managing the Dilemmas of High School Reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 30(1),

105-118.

Cuban, L. (1992). Better Teaching or ‘Just the Facts, Ma’am’? The Education Digest, 58(1), 40.

Cuban, L. (2004). Assessing the 20-Year Impact of Multiple Intelligences on Schooling.

Teachers College Record, 106(1), 140-146.

Cuban, L. (2004). Making Public Schools Business-like…Again. Political Science and Politics,

31(2), 237-240.

Cuban, L. (1989). What Can Be Done for At-Risk Students. The Education Digest, 54(9), 3-6.

Culbertson, J. (2012). Putting the value in teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(3), 14-18.

Curry, M. (2008). Critical Friends Groups: The Possibilities and Limitations Imbedded in

Teacher Professional Communities Aimed at Instructional Improvement and School

Reform. Teachers College Record, 110(4), 733-774.


Gallagher, J. F. (1999). The School Within Us: The Creation of an Innovative Public School.

Educational Studies, 30(3/4), 341-345.

Hirtle, J. St. P. (1996). Coming to Terms: Social Constructivism. The English Journal, 85(1),

91-92.

Hord, S. M. (2009). Professional learning communities. Journal of Staff Development, 30(1),

40-43.

Hull, Susan. (2011). 2011-12 GPISD School Improvement Plan (SIP) Stage 1 Letter.

Retrieved from http://www.gpisd.org/cms/lib01/TX01001872/Centricity/Domain/

90/2011-2012%20GPISD%20SIP%20letter%20Stage%201%209-9-11.pdf.

Lee, V. E. & Bryk, A. S. (1989). A Multilevel Model of the Social Distribution of High School

Achievement. Sociology of Education, 62(3), 172- 192.

Texas Education Agency. 2013. Accountability Rating System. Retrieved from

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/




http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/tapr/

Usa.com. 2015. Grand Prairie Independent School District. Retrieved from

http://www.usa.com/school-district-4821420.htm

http://www.usa.com/school-district-4821420.htm

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/tapr/



Metro HS Case Narrative

Documents

Transcript of Metro HS Case Narrative