effective schools addressing the achievement gap case studies and cross case analysis of three ...

313 Pages·2010·1.77 MB·English

by  Laura Wentworth

EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ADDRESSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP

CASE STUDIES AND CROSS CASE ANALYSIS OF
THREE SCHOOLS IN SAN FRANCISCO

A DISSERTATON
SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF
EDUCATION AND THE COMMITTEE ON
GRADUATE STUDIES
OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILIOSOPHY

Laura Wentworth
May 2010
© 2010 by Laura Peel Wentworth. All Rights Reserved.

Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-

Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/

This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/ch689zj1589

ii
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate
in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Linda Darling-Hammond, Primary Adviser
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate
in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Kenji Hakuta
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate
in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Denise Pope
Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies.
Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost Graduate Education
This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in
electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file in
University Archives.
iii
EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ADDRESSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP iv
Abstract
In 2008, San Francisco Unified School District had the highest average scores on
state standardized achievement tests of all the large urban districts in California, but had
the widest achievement gap when comparing its district average with scores of its lowest
performing students. Using case study methodology, this study examines the
characteristics of three elementary schools in San Francisco with larger increases in
“academic productivity” (a measure of how much value a school adds beyond students
initial achievement) than other schools. These schools also show signs of accelerating the
outcomes for traditionally underserved students in San Francisco like African Americans,
Latinos, and English Learners. The study compares the characteristics of these three
effective schools in San Francisco in a cross case analysis that summarizes the prominent
characteristics among these schools. In the end, this study presents suggestions for
further research and hypotheses about the practices, structures, and policies that help
schools in San Francisco close the achievement gap.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ADDRESSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP v
Table of Contents
Introduction.........................................................................................................................1

Conceptual Framework.......................................................................................................3

Literature Review...............................................................................................................9

Historical Context for San Francisco Schools..............................................................21

Methodology.....................................................................................................................28

Case 1: John Smith Elementary School............................................................................39

Local School Community Context...............................................................................41

Leadership Acting as a Catalyst for Change.................................................................44

Parent-Community Ties................................................................................................59

Professional Capacity...................................................................................................66

Student Centered Learning Climate..............................................................................76

Ambitious Instruction...................................................................................................83

Relational Trust across a School Community...............................................................96

Case 2: Xavier Academy................................................................................................104

Local School Community Context.............................................................................105

Leadership Acting as a Catalyst for Change...............................................................108

Parent-Community Ties..............................................................................................118

Professional Capacity.................................................................................................125

Student Centered Learning Climate............................................................................132

Ambitious Instruction.................................................................................................140

Relational Trust across a School Community.............................................................150

Case 3: The NEW School...............................................................................................157

Local School Community Context.............................................................................159

Leadership Acting as a Catalyst for Change...............................................................162

Parent-Community Ties..............................................................................................173

Professional Capacity.................................................................................................179

Student Centered Learning Climate............................................................................191

Ambitious Instruction.................................................................................................202

Relational Trust across a School Community.............................................................212

Cross Case Analysis.......................................................................................................220

Leadership as a Foundation........................................................................................220

Relational Trust Across a School Community...........................................................225

Dynamic Instruction and Curriculum.........................................................................235

Alignment of Practices, Personnel, and Resources Around a Shared Vision.............244

Implications for Future Research....................................................................................255

Tables..............................................................................................................................259

Table 1: Characteristics of Effective Schools Studies with Sebring Framework.......259

Table 2: Timeline, Data, and Methods of Studies related to Effective Schools.........260

Table 3: Timeline in San Francisco of Superintendent’s Tenure and Policies...........261

Table 4: Alignment between SFUSD Policies and Sebring Framework....................262

Table 5: Profile of Three Effective Schools Closing the Achievement Gap..............263

Table 6: Three Effective Schools in San Francisco API School-wide and by Subgroup
....................................................................................................................................263

Table 7: Alignment of Data, Research Questions, and Conceptual Framework........264

Table 8: SFUSD’s Goals and Objectives with Sebring framework............................264
EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ADDRESSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP vi
Table 9: Top 10 Most Frequent Codes during Data Analysis for Each Effective School
....................................................................................................................................265

Table 10: Components of Smith’s After School Programs supported by Organizations
....................................................................................................................................266

Table 11: NEW Committees.......................................................................................267

Table 12: NEW Virtues..............................................................................................268

Table 13: NEW Powerful Ways of Thinking.............................................................269

Table 14: NEW Discretionary Funding Sources and Grants, 2008-2009...................269

Table 15: “Leadership as a Foundation” at Three SF Schools across Sebring
Framework..................................................................................................................270

Table 16: Relational Trust at Three SF Schools across the Sebring Framework.......270

Table 17: Dynamic Instruction, Curriculum at Three SF Schools across Sebring
Framework..................................................................................................................271

Table 18: Alignment around Shared Vision at Three SF Schools across Sebring
Framework..................................................................................................................271

Figures............................................................................................................................272

Figure 1: Sebring’s Framework for Effective Schools...............................................272

Figure 2: The Equation Used to Measure Academic Productivity.............................272

Figure 3: Smith Student Ethnicities, 2001-2008.........................................................273

Figure 4: Smith Student Demographics, 2001-2008..................................................273

Figure 5: API score growth for Smith from 2003-2008.............................................274

Figure 6: Smith’s Governance Structure in 2008-2009..............................................274

Figure 7: Smith’s Structures Enabling Parent and Community Ties..........................275

Figure 8: Smith’s Structures Enabling Professional Capacity....................................275

Figure 9: The Steps in Smith’s Cycle of Inquiry........................................................276

Figure 10: Map of Smith Library, Organized for a day of Professional Development
....................................................................................................................................276

Figure 11: Smith’s Structures Building a Student-Centered Learning Climate.........277

Figure 12: Map of a Smith Classroom........................................................................277

Figure 13: Smith Structures Facilitating Ambitious Instruction.................................278

Figure 14: Xavier Student Ethnicities, 2001-2008.....................................................278

Figure 15: Xavier Student Demographics, 2001-2008...............................................279

Figure 16: Xavier API Growth Score 2002-2008.......................................................279

Figure 17: Xavier’s Governance Structure in 2008-2009...........................................280

Figure 18: Xavier’s Structures Enabling Parent-Community Ties.............................281

Figure 19: Xavier’s Structures Enabling Professional Capacity................................281

Figure 20: Xavier’s Structures Building a Student-Centered Learning Climate........282

Figure 21: Xavier’s Structures Facilitating Ambitious Instruction............................282

Figure 22: Map of Xavier Third Grade Classroom.....................................................283

Figure 23: NEW Student Ethnicities, 2001-2008.......................................................283

Figure 24: NEW Student Demographics, 2001-2008.................................................284

Figure 25: API score growth for NEW from 2002-2008............................................284

Figure 26: NEW’s Governance Structure in 2008-2009............................................285

Figure 27: NEW’s Structures Enabling Parent-Community Ties...............................285

Figure 28: One of Two pages from the NEW School Persuasive Writing Rubric.....286

Figure 29: NEW Structures Building Professional Capacity......................................287
EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ADDRESSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP vii
Figure 30: NEW Structures Building a Student Centered Learning Climate.............288

Figure 31: Map of an NEW Fourth and Fifth Grade Classroom................................288

Figure 32: NEW Structures Facilitating Ambitious Instruction.................................289

Figure 33: Four Shared Themes in the Three Cases with Leadership as the Foundation
....................................................................................................................................289

Appendix.........................................................................................................................290

Appendix A: General Interview Protocol...................................................................290

Appendix B: Codes uses during analysis of effective school data and code definition
....................................................................................................................................292

Appendix C: Smith’s Grade Level Meeting Log........................................................294

Appendix D: Smith’s Reporting Form for Data Used during the Classroom SST.....295

Appendix E: Curriculum Used at Most Elementary Schools in San Francisco..........296

Appendix F: Curriculum, Instructional Strategies at Three Effective SF Schools.....297

References.......................................................................................................................300
EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ADDRESSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 1
Introduction
In May 2008, the school board of San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD)
adopted a new strategic plan to address a number of inconsistencies in their student
outcomes. At the time, San Francisco had the highest average test scores of all the large
urban districts in California on state standardized achievement tests, but had the widest
gap in achievement between students with average achievement and its lowest
performing students. Many of San Francisco’s lowest performing students come from
sub-populations of students traditionally underserved by the way our school systems are
structured. These include African American students, Hispanic students, English
Learners, and students from poor backgrounds. The district wanted to maintain their high
level of achievement, but reduce the achievement gap associated with what the district
referred to as the “predictive power of demographics” (San Francisco Unified School
District, June 2008, p. 5). While the district crafted a strong vision in their new strategic
plan, they did not outline the specific practices, structures, and policies that help schools
close the achievement gap. Many SFUSD schools wondered what improvements they
could make to overcome this gap.
This study helps San Francisco’s district leadership look closely at a set of
effective schools in their city in hopes of learning from their efforts. While numerous
research studies describe the characteristics of effective schools, none of those studies
examine schools in San Francisco. This study broadens the body of research by studying
San Francisco schools seen as effective at closing the achievement gap.
Sometimes research on effective schools is questioned whether it is valid and
reliable, and whether researchers are able to generalize the findings. This study attempts
EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ADDRESSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 2
to address these issues by using a mixed methods approach that includes quantitative
research, which informs the selection of schools and qualitative research, which describes
the schools. For example, to increase validity, I selected schools for this study using a
value-added model of student achievement that assesses students’ levels of “academic
productivity,” a measure of how much value schools add beyond students’ initial
achievement. To build reliability, one researches collected data with the lens on that
framework, and uses case study methods to unearth a broad picture of the essential
characteristics, while paying close attention to the influences of the local context. The
policy content of San Francisco limits generalization of these findings. However, this
study develops hypotheses that further the body of effective schools research.
By studying the characteristics of these schools, this research will attempt to
answer two questions:
− What are the practices, structures, and policies of schools in San Francisco effective at
increasing “academic productivity” and closing the achievement gap?
− What characteristics do these effective schools have in common, which could inform
other San Francisco schools as well as district policies?

This study addresses what makes these schools in San Francisco effective at closing the
achievement gap, and unearths school characteristics that accelerate the achievement of
traditionally underserved students.
EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ADDRESSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 3
Conceptual Framework
Many researchers have addressed the question “What makes an effective school?”
In the past, some researchers judged the effectiveness of schools by looking at inputs, or
whether schools had enough books, desks, and other resources (Lezotte and Bancroft,
1985). Over the past fifty years, researchers shifted their approach to judging the
effectiveness of schools by their outputs. For example, in 1966, James Coleman and
associates’ federally-commissioned study titled “Equality of Educational Opportunity,”
judged the effectiveness of schools just this way, in this case by students’ achievement on
a test (Coleman, et al, 1966). Follow-up studies on effective schools such as Edmonds
(1979) study of schools in Detroit also used test score data from the Stanford
Achievement Test and Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). This emphasis on outputs as a
measure of school effectiveness, namely student achievement on tests, influenced this
study of effective schools in San Francisco.
Once researchers establish school effectiveness based on its achievement on tests,
they then describe the characteristics of the school. Usually, researchers study more than
one school deemed effective, and look at the common characteristics across multiple
schools. They also study differences between more effective and less effective schools.
Studies of these schools tend to be inductive in nature and develop theories that may be
tested rather than producing conclusive findings. Many times, context highly influences
schools’ outputs, making it challenging to generalize the findings of these studies. (Please
see the literature review for a more detailed look at these studies.)
This study of effective schools in San Francisco uses a similar framework to the
previous research on effective schools. This study addresses the question, “What makes