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