Alex Torrez (Cohort 4) Dissertation Proposal, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair, PVAMU/The Texas A&M University System

The Impact of Smaller Learning Communities on Closing the Achievement Gaps among Student Population Groups in Texas High Schools By Alex Elias Torrez, M.Ed. William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D., Dissertation Chair Donald Collins, Ph.D., Committee Member Carl Gardiner, Ed.D., Committee Member Douglas Hermond, Ph.D., Committee Member Solomon Osho, Ph.D., Committee Member Dissertation Proposal in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree Educational Leadership Prairie View A&M University August 2010

AbstractThe Impact of Smaller Learning Communities on Closing the Achievement Gaps Among Student Population Groups in Texas High Schools August 2010 Alex Elias Torrez: B.S., Lubbock Christian University M.Ed., Sul Ross State University Dissertation Chair: William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D. Despite a growing body of positive evidence, researchers have not yet determinedwhether or not the Smaller Learning Community (SLC) design is a viable vehicle fortransforming schools into the 21st century model necessary to ensure the students ofAmerica can compete in a global economy. The most recent education reform legislationresulting from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) which mandates academic achievement forall students regardless of their cultural background, economic status, or race, once againplacing student achievement at the forefront of transformation efforts. Most educatorsagreed that closing the gap between student populations requires a unique approach toguide the conversion of traditional practices to innovative platforms that moves awayfrom teacher-centered delivery of curriculum to student-centered learning. Althoughcurrent practices in education have addressed the achievement and completion gap, thesepractices are not addressing it as effectively and efficiently as required to ensure that nochild is left behind. In addition, the reality that the United States and its youth willrequire 21st century skills to compete in a global economy is motivating educational 2

leaders to seek new and effective transformation initiatives that will advance theircampuses in meeting or exceeding student performance expectations. The research questions guiding this study are as follows: 1. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-themed Smaller Learning Communities (SLCs) and traditional high schools, as reported on the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for ethnic subpopulations? 2. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported on the AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for economically disadvantaged subpopulations? 3. Is there a difference in student attendance between career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported in the AEIS? 4. Is there a difference in student dropout/completion rates between career- themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported in the AEIS? Descriptive statistics will be used to compile demographic information comparingtraditional high schools and non-traditional SLC high schools. For the first two researchquestions, a series of Factorial ANOVAs will be calculated to determine if meaningfuldifferences in the areas of English Language Arts/Reading and Mathematics exist instudent achievement between the two different types of high schools. For researchquestions three and four, a series of Analysis of Covariant (ANCOVA) will be calculatedto determine if there is a meaningful difference in the areas of attendance anddropout/completion rates. An analysis of 2009 AEIS data will be conducted to determine 3

the difference of Smaller Learning Communities and student achievement, economicallydisadvantaged, and attendance, dropout/completion rates. The findings are still to bedetermined. 4

Table of Contents Abstract..................................................................................................................................................................2Abstract......................................................................................................................................2 Chapter I.................................................................................................................................................................8Chapter I.....................................................................................................................................8 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................8 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................8 Background of the Problem.........................................................................................................................11 Background of the Problem.........................................................................................................................11 Statement of the Problem.............................................................................................................................12 Statement of the Problem.............................................................................................................................12 Research Questions.........................................................................................................................................13 Research Questions.........................................................................................................................................13 Null Hypotheses...............................................................................................................................................14 Null Hypotheses...............................................................................................................................................14 Purpose of the Study .....................................................................................................................................14 Purpose of the Study .....................................................................................................................................14 Significance of the Study...............................................................................................................................15 Significance of the Study...............................................................................................................................15 Assumptions......................................................................................................................................................16 Assumptions......................................................................................................................................................16 Delimitations of the Study............................................................................................................................17 Delimitations of the Study............................................................................................................................17 Limitations of the Study................................................................................................................................17 Limitations of the Study................................................................................................................................17 Definitions of Terms.......................................................................................................................................17 Definitions of Terms.......................................................................................................................................17 Organization of the Study.............................................................................................................................22 Organization of the Study.............................................................................................................................22 Chapter II: Review of Literature................................................................................................................24Chapter II: Review of Literature......................................................................................24 To Reform or Transform: A Challenge for American Schools........................................................24 To Reform or Transform: A Challenge for American Schools........................................................24 Transformation of Schools...........................................................................................................................25 Transformation of Schools...........................................................................................................................25 A Historical Perspective and Motivations for Change.......................................................................26 A Historical Perspective and Motivations for Change.......................................................................26 1960s: The Sputnik effect........................................................................................................................26 1960s: The Sputnik effect.............................................................................................................................26 1980s: A Nation at Risk............................................................................................................................27 1980s: A Nation at Risk.................................................................................................................................27 1990s: Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)..................................29 1990s: Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)........................................29 Goals 2000: Educate America Act........................................................................................................30 Goals 2000: Educate America Act.............................................................................................................30 No Child Left Behind. ...............................................................................................................................30 5

No Child Left Behind. .....................................................................................................................................30 A New Administration..............................................................................................................................32 A New Administration...................................................................................................................................32 Impact of reform efforts...........................................................................................................................33 Impact of reform efforts................................................................................................................................33 Smaller Learning Communities..................................................................................................................34 Smaller Learning Communities..................................................................................................................34 Teacher collaboration and smaller learning communities........................................................36 Teacher collaboration and smaller learning communities.............................................................36 Relationships and smaller learning communities. ......................................................................38 Relationships and smaller learning communities. ...........................................................................38 Academic rigor, relevance, and smaller learning communities...............................................41 Academic rigor, relevance, and smaller learning communities....................................................41 The Design of Smaller Learning Communities ....................................................................................44 The Design of Smaller Learning Communities ....................................................................................44 Closing the Achievement Gaps and Smaller Learning Communities...........................................48 Closing the Achievement Gaps and Smaller Learning Communities...........................................48 The Right Steps to Successful Smaller Learning Communities ....................................................52 The Right Steps to Successful Smaller Learning Communities ....................................................52 Concluding Remarks.......................................................................................................................................55 Concluding Remarks.......................................................................................................................................55 Chapter III: Methodology.............................................................................................................................57Chapter III: Methodology...................................................................................................57 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................57 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................57 Research Questions.........................................................................................................................................58 Research Questions.........................................................................................................................................58 Null Hypotheses...............................................................................................................................................59 Null Hypotheses...............................................................................................................................................59 Research Method.............................................................................................................................................59 Research Method.............................................................................................................................................59 Research Design...............................................................................................................................................61 Research Design...............................................................................................................................................61 Population of the Study.................................................................................................................................63 Population of the Study.................................................................................................................................63 Instrumentation...............................................................................................................................................64 Instrumentation...............................................................................................................................................64 Procedures.........................................................................................................................................................65 Procedures.........................................................................................................................................................65 Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................................................66 Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................................................66 References..........................................................................................................................................................69References...............................................................................................................................69 Appendix A: List of 21st century skills...................................................................................................77Appendix A: List of 21st century skills..........................................................................77 Core Subjects and 21st Century Themes................................................................................................77 Core Subjects and 21st Century Themes................................................................................................77 Learning and Innovation Skills .................................................................................................................77 6

Learning and Innovation Skills .................................................................................................................77 Information, Media and Technology Skills ...........................................................................................77 Information, Media and Technology Skills ...........................................................................................77 Life and Career Skills .....................................................................................................................................78 Life and Career Skills .....................................................................................................................................78 Appendix B: Leading Organizations Establishing “Standards of Practice” for Career Academies...........................................................................................................................................................79 Appendix B: Leading Organizations Establishing “Standards of Practice” forCareer Academies.................................................................................................................79 Appendix C: National High School Graduation Rates, Class of 2005 .........................................80Appendix C: National High School Graduation Rates, Class of 2005 ..................80 7

Chapter IIntroduction Researchers continue to state the claim that high school students lack adequateacademic preparation and may even be in a decline in preparedness for 21st centurysuccess. Receiving major attention is the widening gap that researchers have determinedexists between the readiness of sub-populations and the growing number of students thatdo not graduate. It has been estimated that between 53% and 55% of minority studentsnationwide are not completing high school in the four-year format (Bill and MelindaGates Foundation, 2003, p. 2). According to Wick (2007), “The world is changing fasterand in more ways than any of us could have imagined even a few years ago. This is theworld our children inherit, yet our public schools have been among the slowestinstitutions to change” (p. 1). Most educators would agree that Frederick Taylor’s 19thcentury factory model of “one size fits all” is no longer effective in terms of addressingthe student equity gap and the required skills that 21st century graduates need to competewithin a global work force. As Feldman, Lopez, and Simon (2006) point out: The large comprehensive high school was conceived at the beginning of the twentieth century to fit an industrial society. These schools were originally expected to be sorting mechanisms for an economy that had a place for students who did not graduate. They were not intended to educate all students to the level of college readiness and the system has always done a grave disservice to some children and communities (p. 7).With student equity concerns, industry, and the global economy, educators arecontinuously challenged to find new and innovative ways to change the schoolhouseDNA. Most educators would agree that this process must start by understanding the new 8

millennium student and the factors that continue to contribute to a lack of success formany students. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation offer five reasons why large comprehensivehigh schools have failed to meet the needs of students: 1. Incoherence: High schools offer a dizzying array of disconnected courses with little guidance; 2. Isolation: Many teachers see more than 150 students daily. Both teachers and students have little adult contact; 3. Anonymity: High schools have doubled in size in the last generation, resulting in overcrowding and reduced student and teacher interaction; 4. Low expectations: Only one of the four to six tracks in most high schools prepares students for college; and 5. Inertia: High Schools are slow to change due to large and isolated staffs, restrictive state and district policies and employment agreements, over precise higher education entrance requirements, and an array of interest groups dictating much of school policy (Feldman, Lopez, & Simon, 2006, p. 7). According to these factors outlined by the Gates Foundation, as well as similarones from other researchers such as the U.S Department of Education raise the questionof what structure or vehicle will provide the best components needed for change. Oneproposed solution is a Smaller Learning Community (SLC) model. An SLC is designedto provide three major avenues for learning: 1) student groups divided into smaller teamsintended to improve relationships and connect students to both teachers and their school2) development of teacher teams that provide opportunities for teachers to collaborate on 9

student success and individual needs; and 3) instruction that offers a more relevant andintegrated delivery of curriculum. In addition, Oxley (2006) stated: The central feature of a high-functioning SLC (Small Learning Community) is an interdisciplinary team (or teams) of teachers who work closely together with a group of students they share in common for instruction. Traditional schools organize teachers around subject areas or departments. SLCs organize teachers across subject areas to create a more student-centered form of schooling (p. 22).The SLC helps students make horizontal connections among disciplines instead of havingan insulated vertical instructional experience. The teacher’s role as a leader in this transformation process is critical to thesuccess of SLCs. As the primary source for student learning and coordinators of themethodology by which the curriculum is delivered, the teacher serves as an integral partof the transformation. If the efforts of SLCs are to succeed, dedicated teachers must betrained and supported in contemporary interdisciplinary teaching strategies and therequired cross-curricula collaboration. In addition to committed teachers, academic leaders must recognize and embracethe need for educational transformation. Schools are bound by state and federalaccountability mandates to improve student achievement for all. Academic leaders whoare committed to transforming schools into educational institutions that support rigor,relevance, and relationships will find that the smaller learning community model providesmany of the requirements that improve student achievement and close the sub-populationgap, thus satisfying political mandates and enhancing 21st century skills required tosucceed in a global economy. This study is designed to determine if the smaller learningcommunity model indeed holds such promise. 10

Background of the Problem There are several reports and studies released over the past four decades such asthe “Nation at Risk” that has continued to raise concern regarding the public schoolsystem in America. In addition, the growing gap between populations and the increasingnumber of economically disadvantaged students must be part of the equation. Highschools in general have received the majority of negative attention, resulting in manyattempts to address concerns over the past 40 years; as Oxley (2006) explained, in the1960s, high school reformers first began organizing schools-within-schools, focusing oncareer/vocational pathways (p. 1). In the 1970s, reform efforts progressed towarddeveloping magnet programs, career academies, and mini-schools before introducingcharter schools in the 1980s. All of these attempts to reorganize schools have led to theevolution of the present-day SLC model (Oxley, 2006). To maintain the country’s competitive status in a global economy, Americaneducators must strive to meet the challenge of graduating versatile, adaptable, and highlyskilled students. This challenge encompasses finding the right design to transformeducation beyond the traditional classroom that most Americans have experienced. Thechallenge also comes with many educators venturing into uncharted territory and havingconversations about the canyons that exist between traditional instruction and meaningfultransformation. Writing about the complexity of transformation, Schlechty (2009)states: Make no mistake, transformation is not as simple as installing a new program, a new process or new procedure. Unlike efforts to improve the operation of existing systems, transformation requires more than changes in what people do; it requires changes in what they think and what they feel about what they do. It requires changes in the images people have of the organizations in which they 11

work and live, as well as changes in the way they envision the roles they play in those organizations (p. 210).As educators continue to have discussions about change, transformation must becomecentral to these conversations. Change is not superficial reform. It comes from the insideout. Education cannot be transformed with the same reform efforts used in the past.Statement of the Problem Despite a growing body of positive evidence, researchers have not yet determinedwhether or not the SLC model is an effective vehicle for transforming schools into amore effective model for the 21st century. However, academic leaders continue to searchfor a design to ensure that American students can compete in a global economy whilesuccessfully closing the achievement gap among sub-populations. The most recenteducational reform legislation resulting from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandatesachievement for all students regardless of their background, economic status or race, onceagain placing student success at the forefront of transformation efforts. In addition, thereality that the United States and its youth will require 21st century skills to compete in aglobal economy is motivating educational leaders to seek new and effective transforminitiatives that will allow high school campuses to meet or exceed student performanceexpectations. Selecting the appropriate method for this conversion process will be an importantdecision required for the success of educational transformation efforts. Althoughresearch on school improvement is now in its fourth decade, systematic research on whatthe change should actually be has been a major source of deliberation as school systemscontinue a traditional 19th century model of instructional delivery. Countless 12

improvement initiatives have been deployed that directly influence student learning andthe quality of teaching, but few have had the long-term impact required for truetransformation of the educational system. Although the SLC design, especially one thatinvolves career themes, has many elements that may meet present educationaltransformation efforts, limited research has emerged that compares this model to thetraditional high school and determines if achievement gaps between student populationsare closing.Research Questions The following questions will guide the study: 1. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-themed Smaller Learning Communities (SLCs) and traditional high schools, as reported on the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for ethnic subpopulations? 2. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported on the AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for economically disadvantaged subpopulations? 3. Is there a difference in student attendance between career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported in the AEIS? 4. Is there a difference in student dropout/completion rates between career- themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported in the AEIS? 13

Null Hypotheses H01 - There is no statistically significant difference in student achievementbetween career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported on the AEIS forTAKS in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for ethnic subpopulations? H02 - There is no statistically significant difference in student achievementbetween career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported on the AEIS forTAKS in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for economically disadvantaged subpopulation? H03 - There is no statistically significant difference in student attendance betweencareer-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported in the AEIS? H04 - There is no statistically significant difference in student dropout/completionbetween career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported in the AEIS?Purpose of the Study The purpose of this conceptual quantitative study is to determine if a differenceexists between the implementation of the career-themed smaller SLC design and anincrease in high school students’ academic achievement, attendance, and high schoolcompletion/dropout rate between populations as reported in the Texas Education AgencyAEIS report. The study will compare 25 career-themed SLCs and 25 demographicallysimilar traditional non-SLC schools. The study will focus on three areas: first, todetermine whether or not there are statistically significant differences in the achievementgaps among ethnic sub-population TAKS scores in English language arts andMathematics when comparing career-themed Smaller Learning Communities withtraditional programs; second, to identify whether or not there is a statistically significant 14

difference in the achievement gap between low socioeconomic status (SES) students andnon-low socio-economic status students, based on English language arts and MathematicsTAKS scores, when comparing career-themed SLCs and traditional programs; and third,to identify whether or not a statistically significant difference in attendance andcompletion/dropout rates exists when comparing career-themed SLC students attendancecompared to those of traditional high schools. The data from each of these 3 areas will bedrawn from data reported in the AEIS for sub-populations.Significance of the Study Transforming schools into a 21st century model will be required to ensure thatAmerican students can compete in a global economy. In order to meet changingexpectations for post secondary education, as well as close the achievement gap instudent learning and instruction, educational leaders across the nation have beenimplementing the SLC design. Results gathered from this study will provide informationto educational leaders about student achievement as it relates to the effectiveness ofSLCs. Another consideration is that the sustainability of educational change created bythe SLC movement remains vulnerable to todays school district and campus financialconstraints and post-grant commitments that SLCs require. Budget cuts and the financialdeficits in most school districts have resulted in school districts selecting to cut SLCs,leaving the smaller school design and its components in the archives as just another failedinitiative. This study is an attempt to examine the difference that Career Academy SLCshave on three areas: academics, attendance, and completion/dropout rates. Themethodological protocol and the research-based literature developed by this study will 15

provide school leaders with data to be able to ascertain whether or not SLCs impact thegaps in student achievement, attendance, and high school completion/dropout.Educational reform efforts have been attempted for centuries and continue into the 21stcentury. It is important to understand how the design change with teachers, students, andparents may impact the future of schools. In addition, as schools are transformed and the teacher role changes within asmaller learning organization, teacher preparatory programs and professionaldevelopment may be influenced. Although not the main focus of the study, new ideasmust have the support of all leaders in the district, especially the campus administration,to successfully achieve the change required to improve student academic success,attendance, and high school completion. According to Fullan (2002), ”We now mustraise our sights and focus on principals as leaders in a culture of change and theassociated conditions that will make this possible on a large scale, sustainable basisincluding the transformation of the teaching profession” (p. 14). Most educators wouldagree that without strong central administrative and principal support, any sustainableeducational change, much less sustainable transformation, will be more difficult, if notimpossible, to achieve.Assumptions 1. The schools used as the SLC campuses are organized in the career academy model. 2. The high schools in this study are similar in demographics. 16

Delimitations of the Study The delimitations of this study are: 1. This was a purposeful study. Only schools that were functioning as SLC career academies were studied. 2. The study focused on public high schools that had implemented career-themed SLCs. 3. The traditional high school structure was compared to the non-traditional high school SLC career-themed design for this study. 4. The findings of this study are limited to the state of Texas.Limitations of the Study The limitations of this study are: 1. It is possible that schools implemented different components of the career- themed academy SLC design, which were not identifiable in this investigation. 2. It is possible that schools are on different implementation timelines. 3. There are a limited number of SLC schools in Texas.Definitions of Terms For the purposes of this study, the key terms to be used are defined as follows: • Academic Rigor: According to Daggett (2008), academic rigor “refers to learning in which students demonstrate a thorough in-depth mastery of 17

challenging tasks to develop cognitive skills through reflective thought, analysis, problem solving, evaluation, or creativity” ( p. 4).• Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) Report: The AEIS “pulls together a wide range of information on the performance of students in each school and district in Texas every year. This information is put into the annual AEIS reports, which are available each year in the fall” (Texas Education Agency, 2009).• Achievement Gap: “The achievement gaps exist when groups of students with relatively equal ability do not achieve in school at the same levels; in fact, one group often far exceeds the achievement levels of others. Gaps in achievement exist across the nation and can be found based upon race/ethnicity, income levels, language background, disability status and gender” (National Education Association, 2006).• Annual Dropouts: “The annual dropout rate is the percentage of students in a specified grade range who drop out of school during one school year. This data set includes both the number and rate of annual dropouts for all Grade 7-12 students and various student groups” (Texas Education Agency, 2009).• Career Academies: A career academy is a school-within-a-school that focuses on a broad occupational area, such as engineering, natural resources, or the hospitality industry. Teachers and students are self-selected. The career academy curriculum directs students’ attention to the application of school- based learning by including in its curriculum work-based learning experiences with businesses in the community (U.S. Department of Education, (2006). 18

• Educational Transformation: Schlechty (2009) explains it as: “Transformation by necessity includes altering the beliefs, values, and the culture in which programs are embedded, as well as changing the current system of rules, roles, and relationships – social structure – so that the innovation needed will be supported” (p. 3).• High school completion: “The longitudinal high school completion rate is the percentage of students in a class of beginning ninth graders who complete their high school education by their anticipated graduation date. Numbers and longitudinal rates are provided for all students and various student groups, including graduates, continuers, dropouts, and GED recipients” (Texas Education Agency, 2009).• Interdisciplinary Lesson: Occurs when teachers from two or more curricular areas (ideally sharing a common set of students) work together to plan and implement an instructional unit by identifying and applying authentic connections that transcend their individual disciplines (TexEd Consulting, 2009).• No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The NCLB Act is an accountability system covering all public schools and students based on challenging State standards in reading and Mathematics, annual testing for all students in grades 3 to 8, and annual statewide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students reach proficiency within 12 years. Assessment results and state progress objectives must disaggregated by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency, to ensure that no group is left behind. School 19

districts and schools that fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) toward statewide proficiency goals will, over time, be subject to improvement, corrective action, and restructuring measures aimed at getting them back on course to meet state standards. Schools that meet or exceed AYP objectives or close achievement gaps will be eligible for State Academic Achievement Awards (Texas Education Agency, 2009).• Professional development: Give teachers, principals, and administrators the knowledge and skills to provide students with the opportunity to meet challenging State academic content standards and student academic achievement standards (United States Department of Education, 2004).• Smaller Learning Community (SLC): Any separated and defined school- within-a-school or individualized learning unit within a larger school setting. Students and teachers are scheduled together and frequently have a common area of school in which to hold most or all of their classes. SLC may or may not have a career theme or a set sequence of courses for students. The most comprehensive SLCs include: an administrative structure with a principal, lead teacher, and guidance counselor; a heterogeneous team of students and teachers (ranging in size from 350-500, with sub teams of 150); a home base or specific section of the school; an academic focus or career theme; extra help for students; data to drive decisions; time used effectively, including common planning time for teachers; coaching support and focused professional development for staff; inculcated traditions, practices, and beliefs; freshman orientation and support; service learning and work-based 20

learning opportunities; opportunities for student voice; advisory support; postsecondary planning; and a senior project (Sammon, 2008, p. 13).• Relevant Learning: According to Daggett (2008), relevant learning “refers to learning in which students apply core knowledge, concepts, or skills to solve real-world problems” (p. 5).• Student Engagement: The extent to which students are motivated and committed to learning, have a sense of belonging and accomplishment, and maintain relationships with adults, peers, and parents that support learning (Daggett, 2009).• Sustainable Educational Change: Sustainability in educational change consists of five key and interrelated characteristics: (1) improvement that fosters learning, not merely change that alters schooling; (2) improvement that endures over time; (3) improvement that can be supported by available or obtainable resources; (4) improvement that does not negatively affect the surrounding environment of other schools; and (5) Improvement that promotes ecological diversity and capacity throughout the educational and community environment (Hargreaves & Fink, 2003).• Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills: “As mandated by the 76th Texas Legislature in 1999, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS™) was administered beginning in the 2002-2003 school year. The TAKS™ measures the statewide curriculum in reading at Grades 3 to 9; in writing at Grades 4 and 7; in English Language Arts at Grades 10 and 11; in Mathematics at Grades 3 to 11; in science at Grades 5, 10, and 11; and social 21

studies at Grades 8, 10, and 11. The Spanish TAKS™ is administered at Grades 3 through 6. Satisfactory performance on the TAKS™ at Grade 11 is a prerequisite to a high school diploma” (Texas Education Agency, 2009). • Transformation: The transformation of a school “requires several significant shifts – from unconnected thinking to systems thinking, from an environment of isolation to one of collegiality, from perceived reality to information-driven reality, and from individual autonomy to collective autonomy and collective accountability” (Zmuda, Kuklis, & Kline, 2004). • Twenty-first century skills: Competencies needed to succeed in the current economy and prepare for the changing world as a wage earner and citizen (see Appendix A for complete details).Organization of the Study This study will consist of five chapters. Chapter 1 contains the introduction,background of the problem, statement of the problem, research questions, purpose of thestudy, significance of this study, assumptions, delimitations and limitations, anddefinition of terms. Chapter 2 is a comprehensive review of the literature on thehistorical perspective of reform efforts, learning organizations, Smaller LearningCommunities, and the role of the teacher, principal, and district in Smaller LearningCommunities. Chapter 3 describes the study methodology, including the researchquestions, hypotheses, design strategy, underlying assumptions and rationale, samplingdesign, measures applied for data collection and analysis procedures, and limitations ofthe methodology. The expected findings will be briefly discussed. Chapter 4 will offer acomprehensive review of the data analysis and findings before providing a summary of 22

all findings and a conclusion. Chapter 5 will include a comprehensive discussion of theimplications of the findings and recommendations for future studies. 23

Chapter II: Review of LiteratureTo Reform or Transform: A Challenge for American Schools The rapidly changing world has accelerated the discussions of educators, industryleaders, and politicians regarding the quality of the nation’s schools and whethergraduates are prepared to enter post-secondary education, as well as the work force. Theexpectations of America’s graduates have been changing, yet the educational system hasremained largely stagnant since the early 1900s. Grubb (2007) lamented, “The highschool has been extraordinarily averse to change: At least 70 years of criticism havefailed to dent this 19th century institution” (p. 33). Americans continue to be comfortablewith the present platform for delivering instruction; this has resulted in a lack of successfor educational innovations and limited political pressure to motivate systemic change.Contributing to the lack of political attention is the reality that the populations with mostto benefit are the farthest removed from the circle of influence. Lofstrom (2007) states,“The majority of Hispanic and African-American students attend schools located incentral cities. Students in these two minority groups also attend schools in district withlower expenditure per pupil” (p. 8). Nevertheless, transforming schools continues to be a concern that has producedfederal and state mandates, as well as recommendations, with a focus on closing the sub-population achievement gap and preparing students for post-secondary and 21st centuryopportunities. Current U.S. high school students will experience multiple career changesand will likely be employed in occupations that do not exist at this time. In a 2006 report,Answering the Challenge of a Changing World Strengthening Education for the 21st 24

Century, the U.S. Department of Education wrote, “Today, America faces not a streakingsatellite, but a rapidly changing global workforce. The spread of freedom is spurringtechnological innovation and global competition at a pace never before seen” (p. 4).Given the changes in the global economy and the requirements of the 21st centurystudent, the U.S. educational system cannot continue to provide the same type ofinstruction that it has implemented in the past. As Wolfe (2007) explained, "In virtuallyany occupation, learning is part of the job. Gone are the days when employees learned tomaster a single task and then spent the next 40 years repeating that task” (p. 40).Consequently, educators must remain flexible and innovative to keep up with the needsof the new millennium student and close the achievement gaps among student sub-populations.Transformation of Schools As school districts work on the concept of change, they must go beyond thestandard thinking of reforming processes and procedures or introducing the latestteaching fad. These methods of attempting change have proven to be mostly ineffectiveand short-lived. The buffet-style approach has also contributed to a passive resistance ineducators, creating the belief that this initiative too shall pass. Academic leaders mustthink about changing the way schooling is delivered and structured if true transformationis to be accomplished. Schlechty (2009) stated, “Transformation by necessity includesaltering the beliefs, values, and meanings – the culture – in which programs areembedded, as well as changing the current system of rules, roles, and relationships –social structure – so that the innovations needed will be supported” (p. 3). In order to gainthe support required to move the process forward, educators must understand several 25

concepts. First, “the 21st century learner is fundamentally different than those of the past.The instructional strategies and practices used will vary based upon how these studentslearn best” (Daggett, 2008, p. 1). Second, “schools must be transformed from platformsfor instruction to platforms for learning, from bureaucracies bent on control to learningorganizations aimed at encouraging disciplined inquiry and creativity” (Schlechty, 2009,p. 5). Finally, educators must learn from past lessons that resulted in failure or short-livedsuccesses. A commitment to long-term financial support, professional development, andthe support of a belief system that matches the changing student learning styles and needsis crucial to any conversation about real transformation.A Historical Perspective and Motivations for Change 1960s: The Sputnik effect. The history of public education has been overshadowed by criticisms of notmeasuring up to world standards. According to Schramm, Williams, Krasnow,Grossman, and Walters (2008), “The systems and infrastructure [of education] have notchanged in line with what is now needed to ready U.S. workers to compete in this newglobal economy” (p. 6). The criticism of Americans schools in the second half of thecentury was again ignited by the launching of the Russian space capsule, Sputnik, in1957. Surprised and stunned by this event, the American public became more observantof critics who claimed that U.S. schools lacked the rigor to compete in the race for spaceand national security. The resulting criticisms of U.S. education prompted President Johnson toauthorize the Commissioner of Education to conduct a nationwide survey of U.S. Schools 26

as part of his “war on poverty.” “The resulting report, Equality in EducationalOpportunity, was published in July 1966” (Marzano, 2003, p. 2). Although the report wasdeveloped by seven authors, it was titled “The Coleman Report” (1966), named after itssenior author. The results of the study only intensified findings such as the following: Taking all these results together, one implication stands above all: that schools bring little to bear on a child’s achievement that is independent of his background and general social context; and that this very lack of an independent effect means that the inequalities imposed on children by their home, neighborhood, and peer environment are carried along to become the inequities with which they confront life at the end of school (p. 325).The study concluded that there was a strong correlation between student academicachievement and family background. As a result of The Coleman Report, severalresearchers conducted studies to support and dispel the findings in the report. 1980s: A Nation at Risk. In 1983, with much fanfare, the White House released A Nation at Risk: TheImperative for Educational Reform to the American public. The report that was preparedby a prestigious committee steered by Secretary of Education Terrell Bell was fueled bythe fact that President Ronald Reagan endorsed it in one of his speeches. The reportstates that both the American society and educational institutions had lost sight of thebasic purposes of schooling and that our educational institutions were accepting mediocreperformance from our students (The National Commission on Excellence in Education,1983). Findings in the report were centered on curriculum, expectations, time, andteaching. In addition to the “Nation at Risk” report, Schlechty (2009) states that, “In the1980s, the apparent ascendance of Japanese over American manufacturers was attributedto the rising tide of mediocrity that was said to be besetting America’s schools” (p. 4). 27

Five recommendations were outlined as a result of A Nation at Risk. The first wasa minimum graduation curriculum that included the following: “(a) 4 years of English;(b) 3 years of Mathematics; (c) 3 years of science; (d) 3 years of social studies; and (e)one-half year of computer science. For the college-bound, two years of foreign languagein high school are strongly recommended in addition to those taken earlier” (NationalCommission on Excellence in Education, 1983). The second recommendation in thereport suggested raising expectations of students by setting higher graduationrequirements for admission into colleges and universities. The third recommendationwas to make more effective use of a school day as well as lengthen the school day andschool year. The fourth was a seven-part recommendation made in an effort to improveteaching and make it a more rewarding and respected profession. The fifth and finalrecommendation of the commission was the recommendation that citizens elect officialswho would be responsible for leading the reform efforts by creating stability andproviding the fiscal support to reform American schools. Most of the recommendations were not out of the realm of what education couldconsider; however, the following statement was insightful and aligned with the 21stcentury student achievement conversations that have been difficult to fully implement:“We must emphasize that the variety of student aspirations, abilities, and preparationrequires that appropriate content be available to satisfy diverse needs. Attention must bedirected to both the nature of the content available and to the needs of particular learners”(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). 28

1990s: Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). In the 1990s, a study titled Third International Mathematics and Science Study(TIMSS) again raised questions regarding the proficiency of U.S. schools. “The ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) is the largest and most ambitiousinternational study of student achievement ever conducted. In 1994–1995, it wasconducted at five grade levels in more than 40 countries (the third, fourth, seventh, andeighth grades, and the final year of secondary school” (TIMISS 1995 Home Page). Thefirst report indicated that 4th grade students performed average when compared tostudents from other countries, but found a notable drop in the 8th grade students; futurereports found that 12th grade American students preformed much lower than theircounterparts in other countries. During a 1998 press conference on 12th grade TIMSSresults, Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley observed the following, “These resultsare entirely unacceptable, and absolutely confirm our need to raise our standards ofachievement, testing, and teaching, especially in our middle and high schools --and to getmore serious about taking math and science courses” (Riley, 1998). Once again, the callto action was made as Secretary Riley outlined five areas needing to be addressed in aneffort to increase student achievement. The steps included 1) building a foundation inmiddle school; 2) raising state assessment standards; 3) recommending four years of mathand science; 4) ensuring more teachers were prepared to teach math and science; and 5)concluding much like the Nation at Risk report, with a call to arms: “as a nation, we mustmake sure that all students – not just the elite or the brightest – understand the importanceof math and science in their lives” (Riley, 1998). 29

Goals 2000: Educate America Act. The reform efforts that resulted from A Nation at Risk raised awareness, but failedto accelerate student achievement to the desired level. Consequently, the Goals 2000:Educate America Act (P.L. 103-227) was signed into law on March 31, 1994. The Actestablished eight guiding principles aimed at improving student achievement: first, wasthe expectation that all children would start school ready to learn; second, an increase inthe high school graduation rate to at least 90 percent; third, an expectation that students ingrades 4, 8, and 12 would demonstrate competency in the core subjects and that schoolsshould ensure students use their minds, helping them be more productive employees andcitizens; fourth, set the expectation that the U.S. would lead the world in math andscience achievement; fifth, adult literacy for every American; sixth, drug, weapon, andviolence-free schools; seventh, increase teacher professional development; and finally,increase parental involvement. Every state and their educational leaders were expected toreform their schools to achieve all eight national goals by 2000. No Child Left Behind.President George W. Bush announced what he called “the cornerstone” of hisadministration, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Rajala (2003) emphasizes that, asa result of NCLB, the role of the federal government has changed by asking schools todescribe success in terms of what each student accomplishes. It is the latest reform effortin a series of initiatives featuring high-stakes accountability, student achievement,standards, and parental choice. 30

NCLB has created a higher awareness on what statistics have been illustrating fordecades. Significant gaps do exist between minority and majority students as well as theeconomically disadvantaged. Among minority students, the problem is even more severewith nearly 50 percent of African American and Hispanic students not completing highschool on time (Americas Promise Alliance, 2009). The achievement gap is not closingfast enough to ensure improved living and earning opportunities for these sub-populations. According to Zhao (2009), “these gaps almost certainly put the minorities ata disadvantage for securing high-income jobs in the future. Plenty of evidence shows theclose association between amount of education and future earnings” (p.13). As theUnited States continues to make progress recovering from the present economicrecession, the academic achievement gaps, as illustrated in Appendix C, show the2004-2005 graduation rates as 50.6 percent for Native Americans, 55.3 percent forBlacks, and 57.8 percent for Hispanic students. Although there are reports that many states are making progress, the significantacademic achievement gaps between student sub-populations continue to draw social andpolitical attention, which has brought to light the need to transform schools for futurenational and individual economic benefits. The Cities in Crisis 2009: Closing theGraduation Gap report stated: “Notably, earning a high school diploma has increasinglybeen described not just as a source of individual economic benefit but also as an essentialfoundation for the nation’s competitiveness in a rapidly globalizing world economy”(Swanson, 2009). Social awareness and concern regarding the need to complete highschool resulted in the call to action from several organizations, including The Bill andMelinda Gates Foundation and The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation. These 31

organizations launched the Strong American Schools Campaign, which urged presidentialcandidates during the 2008 election to continue the dialogue on education. Theseconversations resulted in three suggestions, which are closely correlated to many of thefundamental concepts promoted by the Smaller Learning Community (SLC) model. As part of its call to action, the Strong American Schools Campaign, the Bill andMelinda Gates Foundation (2007) urged leaders to address and debate three common-sense priorities: 1. Strong American education standards. Regardless of where they live, all students need to acquire knowledge and skills that prepare them for college, for the workplace, and for life. 2. Effective teachers in every classroom. We need to enable teachers to improve their skills, measure teachers’ performance in the classroom, and pay them more if they produce superior results or take on challenging assignments. 3. More time and support for learning. We need to provide successful and struggling students alike more time for in-depth learning and greater personal attention. A New Administration. President Obama’s education plan has focused on reestablishing the U.S. as theworld leader in education. In addition, the 2009 American Recovery and ReinvestmentAct includes $5 billion for early learning programs; $77 billion for elementary andsecondary education; $48.6 billion to stabilize state education budgets; $5 billion for 32

competitive funds to close the achievement gap; and finally $30 billion to address collegeaffordability. On July14, 2009, President Barack Obama stated the following: “…but, we alsohave to ensure that were educating and preparing our people for the new jobs of the 21stcentury. Weve got to prepare our people with the skills they need to compete in thisglobal economy” (The White House Office Press Secretary, 2009). The statement was followed by the announcement of The American GraduationInitiative: Stronger American Skills through Community Colleges. In addition, thePresident’s remarks included the following goal: “By 2020, this nation will once againhave the highest proportion of college graduates in the world” (The White House OfficePress Secretary, 2009). The American Initiative is an effort to strengthen the nation’s community collegesand provides an affordable education to ensure a stronger 21st century economy. Theplan also calls for: five million additional community college graduates; creating acommunity college challenge fund; funding innovative strategies for completion;modernizing facilities; and creating new online skills laboratories. In addition, the Obama-Biden College Agenda expands Pell Grants, collegecredits, and focuses on reforming the student loan program, expanding the loan agentparticipation base beyond banks and other government lenders. Impact of reform efforts. For the past four decades, politicians have called for education reform. In theUnited States, the education reform movement has: (1) focused increasingly on thedevelopment of new standards for both students and teachers; (2) intensified with a call to 33

go beyond reform; and (3) began a transformation of the educational process. In the1960s, the space race resulted in a call for more academic rigor. In the 1980s, the WhiteHouse released A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. The 1990sbrought the TIMSS reports and Goals 2000, and former President George W. Bush leftschools with the legacy of NCLB. Public school reform has been at the forefront ofpolitical agendas for decades, leaving no American President without the challenge ofaddressing education. Now, President Barack Obama has the opportunity to lead ournation beyond reform and to transform the American education system. A challenge for transformational efforts will continue to be the inconsistenthistory of the many different initiatives that have resulted from past reform efforts. Untilrecently, educational transformation was done in a disjointed manner. Legter (1999)states, “More and more educators are understanding that piecemeal reform too oftenproduces a confusing and inefficient proliferation of programs that generates resourcebattles, reinforces inequity, and ultimately helps only a few students” (p. 23). As thenation transitions from one President’s educational agenda to a new President’s agenda,the challenge for educators will be to establish sound research based on ideas andinitiatives that will result in change and by doing so, ensure the academic achievement,equality among student populations, and 21st century skills required for students tocompete in the 21st century global society.Smaller Learning Communities In the context of education, transformation may be defined as moving schoolsfrom 19th century traditional platforms, which are centered on the instructor andinstruction, to learning environments that meet students’ ability and knowledge levels. 34

This type of progressive and aggressive thinking is required to move learning into newdimensions that increase overall student academic success and close the achievementgaps among student sub-populations. Schools committed to changing the design ofinstructional delivery have the best opportunity to institute an environment, whichidentifies student academic needs as the principal focus for success. Educators who wantto lead schools effectively through the 21st century have the task of establishing adirection for standards and design that ensures rigor, relevance and relationships in orderto benefit students and prepare them for a global economy. Finding the best vehicle to move a school forward is first and foremost a decisionfor innovative school leaders. Many educators have implemented career-themed SmallerLearning Community (SLC) models as a means to advance the transformation process.Torrez and Kritsonis (2008) state that “implementing smaller learning communities inlarge schools can be argued as the best way to advance student achievement and improveteacher professional learning” (p. 60). The benefits associated with dividing schools into SLCs have increased theinterest in this type of school design. “Research has been rapidly accumulating that, asfar as high schools are concerned, size does matter – and smaller is better” (Daniels,Bizar, and Zemelman, 2001). Student achievement in small schools has been found to besuperior to that in large schools (Bates 1993; Eberts, Kehoe, and Stone 1982; Eicherstein1994; Fowler and Walberg 1991; Kershaw and Blank 1993; Miller, Ellsworth, andHowell 1986; Robinson-Lewis 1991; Walberg 1992) (as cited in Cotton, 1996).Restructuring high schools by creating career-themed SLCs represents a major steptoward personalizing education, creating a different platform for learning, and 35

establishing the right conditions to ensure 21st century student preparedness while closingthe achievement gaps among student sub-populations. SLCs consist of three mainconcepts that may prove to be the design required to transform schools. These conceptsare as follows: create a culture of collaboration for students and educators to ensureauthentic and relevant learning; create smaller schools-within-schools to ensure thatstudents benefit from meaningful relationships with both peers and educators; and, as aresult of collaboration, relevant learning, and relationships, smaller schools support theacademic rigor necessary to ensure competitive 21st century graduates. Teacher collaboration and smaller learning communities. The traditional model of education creates a system in which most teachers areaccustomed to being isolated from their peers, and the primary topics of discussion arecontent and curriculum instead of shared students and individual academic needs. Ifschools are to effectively address important issues such as student achievement,attendance, and completion/dropout rates, academic leaders must give teachers the timeand place to collaborate. Oxley (2006) states: “Smaller Learning Communities aremaximally effective when interdisciplinary team members share students in common andare thereby able to pool their knowledge of students, communicate consistent messages,and create coherent instructional programs” (p. 21). Providing common planningopportunities without giving up instructional time within the school day continues to beone of the biggest obstacles to transformation. Besides creating a schedule that allows common planning, establishing anenvironment that supports increased collaboration requires instituting an effectiveProfessional Learning Community (PLC) initiative. The PLC is a foundation for 36

assisting SLC teams in understanding the benefits resulting from small-schoolcollaboration opportunities. “The first and most fundamental task of building acollaborative culture is to bring together those people whose responsibilities create aninherent mutual interest in exploring the critical question of PLC” (DuFour, DuFour,Eaker, & Many, 2006). In addition, the SLC model, by its design of grouping teachersand students, assists the enhancement and support of the PLC initiative. In a report on 21st century high schools titled Breaking Ranks: Changing anAmerican Institution, working in communities is supported as a best practice. The reportstated: The success of a high school depends on its being more than a collection of unconnected individuals. The word “community” implies a commonality of interests and so it should be in any high school. The building of community very much involves the members of the staff. And, on a practical level, the synergy of cooperation ought to end up enabling the educators in a high school to accomplish more for the students than they could by acting on their own. School improvement more readily succeeds in situations in which teachers work in a collegial manner (National Association of Secondary School Principals, (2001 p. 90).Despite the obstacles that are associated with changing the paradigm of meaningfulcollaboration, common benefits include the possibility of enhancing student relationshipswith peers and faculty, increased academic achievement, improved attendance, anddecreased dropout rates. These results can help to encourage and support the idea ofinnovation. It is important to note that establishing PLCs to enhance SLC teams may result in some opposition. Torrez and Kritsonis (2008) state: “the challenge for administrators is overcoming the established traditional school and familiar structure that creates an environment of isolation for teachers” (p. 64). This disconnect creates a negative 37

cycle of non-collaboration and produces long-term difficulties for campus teams who are prepared to move forward with a more collaborative approach to teaching. DuFour (2005) noted: “Despite compelling evidence indicating that working collaboratively represents best practice, teachers in many schools continue to work in isolation” (p. 36). Therefore, a major focus for education leaders is to establish the right framework and purpose for teachers to have meaningful collaboration, moving away from traditional isolation to a more personalized learning environment. Miller and Rollnick (2002) found that “motivation is in many ways an interpersonal process, the product of an interaction between people" (p. 22). Most educators would agree that bridging the divide between a structure that has been mostly non-collaborative to one that provides an opportunity for teachers to work together create new relationships, and focus on individual students is a critical factor in ensuring the right academic setting for students and teachers. Senge, Cambron-McCabe, Lucas, Smith, Dutton and Kleiner (2000) state, “A strong professional community encourages collective endeavor rather than isolated individual efforts” (p. 327). Developing a sense of teamwork and an understanding of the strength of collective collaboration will be crucial to breaking down institutional isolationism and to transform schools. Relationships and smaller learning communities. Educators and students in large high schools are familiar with the difficulties ofdeveloping meaningful relationships. A benefit associated with SLCs is that teachers aregrouped into smaller schools or teams that work with the same cohort of studentsassigned to that community. In addition, the structure provides a teacher, who haslimited or no history with a group of students, the support of an existing cohort who has 38

knowledge of the students’ personalities and academic strengths and weaknesses. Thissupport system increases the potential to assist struggling learners and improve the grade-level transition process. Substantiating studies have established that students need relationships withadults as part of a healthy learning environment. Adult connections and personalizationimprove the school experience. An important component to closing the achievement gapamong student populations is the personalization that occurs as a result of the smallerlearning community model. Each student needs to know at least one adult in the school is closely concerned with his or her fate…The relationship between the student and the advocate should ensure that no youngster experiences the sense of isolation that frequently engulfs teenagers during this critical period of their lives. Having someone on his or her side can help a young person feel a part of the school community (National Association of Secondary Principals, 2001, p. 31). A feeling of belonging can begin a process that crosses cultural histories andeconomic social barriers, bringing students to a common place so that academic successcan flourish, attendance can improve, and graduation plans can be realized. The sense ofconnectedness that comes from belonging to a group helps students have the confidenceto engage in authentic conversations with caring adults about the importance ofcontinuing to improve academically. If high achievement for all students is the goal of reform, then personalization anda rigorous curriculum are two essential ingredients. Although some students might beable to make it through four years of high school despite the lack of any personalconnections, all students require a supportive environment-some more than others.Creating that environment is essential to bringing learning to fruition. (NationalAssociation of Secondary Principals, 2004, p. 67). 39

Fundamentally, most educators agree that relationships are a key ingredient to arewarding and academically successful student experience. Many students fail tocomplete high school due to a lack of connection to adult educators at their schools. TheGrad Nation Guidebook (America’s Promise Alliance, 2009) cited some of the followingas reasons that students fail to complete school: • Life Events: Students drop out because of an event or a need outside of school. Pregnancy, incarceration or out-of-home placement in the juvenile justice system, health problems, aging out of foster care, caring for an ill family member, or needing to work to support themselves or family members are the most frequent factors. • Fade Outs: Students drop out because they no longer see the point of staying in school. Often these are students with decent grades and attendance records who at some point become bored, frustrated, or disillusioned with school and believe they can make it in life on their own without a high school diploma. • Push Outs: Some students may be viewed as behavioral problems or low achievers, and/or they seldom attend school. Once these students reach the legal dropout age, sometimes their schools apply administrative rules — related to suspensions, inadequate credits earned by a certain age, or chronic absenteeism — to remove them from school or transfer them to another school. • Failure to Succeed in School: Students drop out of school because they do not pass enough courses or earn enough credits to be promoted to the next grade. Many of these dropouts begin to fall off the path to graduation in the middle 40

grades, where they begin to fail courses, miss a lot of school, or misbehave. The key point for promotion — or failure — is from 9th to 10th grade. These students often have to repeat the entire 9th grade and, without any supports, do no better the second time. At some point after repeated attempts to succeed (though often with decreasing effort), it seems to them that they will never succeed in school, so they drop out. (p. 26-7) As educators struggle to understand the many dynamics that contribute to astudent’s poor attendance, lack of academic achievement, and low completion/dropoutrates, especially among student sub-populations, the personalization of education must beharnessed more effectively than in previous decades. SLCs may provide an effective wayfor students to build more relationships with teachers, thereby enhancing their experienceof school, as well as their academic achievement and related factors. Academic rigor, relevance, and smaller learning communities. Future graduates will continue to require increased academic preparation andskills in order to be successful in the rapidly changing postsecondary landscape. Thisreality will require educators to have a clear understanding of how academic rigor andrelevance will be a part of gearing up students. Lopez (2006) states, “The emergingnational consensus argues that all students should have access to the rigor and standardsof a college prep program curriculum, and high school standards must be more firmlyanchored in the skills demanded by colleges and real world employers” (p. 17). Thecontinued emphasis on academic rigor has been driven by the statistics showing thatmany students who attend two and four-year colleges need remedial coursework.Daggett (2008) defines academic rigor as “learning in which students demonstrate a 41

thorough in-depth mastery of challenging tasks to develop cognitive skills throughreflective thought, analysis, problem solving, evaluation, or creativity” (p. 2). Educatorsthat understand the shift in demands from both colleges and present day employers knowthat rigors curriculum must be balanced by allowing students to apply their real worldknowledge giving them the content relevance required to be creative and innovative. The application of instructional rigor and relevance to improve the level ofstudent engagement must be of utmost importance if schools are to address the needs ofstudents, especially those of who have traditionally been disconnected and, therefore,academically unsuccessful. Through the SLC design, teachers are provided a structure tocollaborate and build more authentic interdisciplinary and thematic lessons, a majorcomponent of the framework that creates genuine student engagement and elevatesacademic achievement. According to Lee (2003), instructional assignments that connectto real-world problems and offer the opportunity for creativity and problem solvingmotivate students and dramatically increase the quality of teaching and learning.Providing the right structure for teachers to collaborate and connect learning beyond theirown discipline, while creating rigorous and relevant instructional assignments, is at thecore of bridging the sub-population academic gap. Daggett (2005) supports these ideas bynoting: Studies have shown that students understand and retain knowledge best when they have applied it in a practical, relevant setting. [An educator] who relies on lecturing does not provide students with optimal learning opportunities. Instead, students go to school to watch the teacher work. The International Center’s Rigor/Relevance Framework is a powerful tool that has captured the imagination of teachers to aspire to teach students to high rigor and high relevance. All educators can use the Rigor/Relevance Framework to set their own standards of excellence as well as to plan the objectives they wish to achieve. This versatile Framework applies to standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment. (p. 2). 42

Figure 1 illustrates Daggett’s (2005, 2009) suggested movement from traditionalinstructional assignments to cross-curricular and career-skill relevance. As educatorsdevelop and utilize instructional assignments and strategies that connect learning from Aand C quadrants into the B and D quadrants, students will benefit from their expandedapplied learning. According to Daggett (2009), educators who require utilization andapplication of 21st century skills (see Appendix A for details) in the D quadrant increasethe likelihood that students learn and are able to apply knowledge in quadrants A, B, andC, as well as on state assessments. 6 Evaluation D 5 Synthesis C Adaptation Assimilation 4 Analysis 3 Application A B 2 Comprehension Acquisition Application 1 Knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 Knowledge Apply Apply Apply Apply in one knowledge in knowledge knowledge to knowledge to discipline one across real-world, real-world, discipline disciplines predictable unpredictable situations situationsFigure 1. Rigor/relevance framework with progression of assignments arrow. Adaptedfrom Achieving Academic Excellence Through Rigor and Relevance, by W. R. Daggett,2005, http://www.daggett.com/pdf/Academic_Excellence.pdf, and The Solutions toSchool Improvement, by W. Daggett, 2009, Symposium hosted by the Harris CountyDepartment of Education. As shown by the arrow in Figure 1, educators seeking to provide qualityinstructional assignments that connect learning to real-world situations must start byunderstanding the basic framework that drives this philosophy. Unfortunately, rigor andrelevance have almost become a cliché in the educational arena. This fact makes itnecessary for educators to understand that rigor does not mean more and harder, butrather the depth of teaching and the clarity of learning for students during a lesson. Davis 43

(2010) states: “You can use a simple text and still make your lesson rigorous. With theright kind of questioning and the right kind of activities, you can make students delvedeeper into a text regardless of its length and/or complexity” (p. 14) Instructional assignments that are interdisciplinary are more likely balanced inmultiple quadrants of the Rigor/Relevance Framework. The most effective instructionalassignments are designed to help students move from quadrant A to quadrant D as theircontent knowledge increases. Students who have the strongest quadrant A knowledgemay have the best opportunity to move seamlessly to other quadrants. In addition, it islikely that students may learn a concept better in quadrant B when application to real-world situations is connected to the learning. The ultimate goal for educators is to teachlessons that help students work in quadrants B and D, assisting them in developing skillsthat aid in post-secondary education, as well as becoming more competitive in a 21stcentury global economy. Educators must provide students with the opportunity topractice what to do when students do not know what to do (Daggett, 2008).The Design of Smaller Learning Communities For the purpose of this study, the Career Academy SLC structure was selected asthe main focus. Although there may be different variations of the career academies, mostare designed in some form with the following areas of career fields: • Communication, Law, and Social Services; • Design, Technology, and Engineering; • Visual and Performing Arts; • Medical and Health Sciences; and 44

• Business and Applied Technologies. The major attribute of the career academy design is the connection topostsecondary discussions, based on the career choice component. Career academies areconsidered to have the potential to reengage high school students in the learning processbecause they allow students to exercise a voice in determining the trajectory of theirexperiences in high schools. The connection to career choice leads to endlesspossibilities for teachers to connect student learning to relevant experiences and supportstudent discussions regarding potential career interests, along with the skills required toobtain the career. In addition, the career academy SLC design is conducive tointerdisciplinary instruction, which must be a major element of SLCs so that studentsmake the connections across disciplines and to real world situations. The CareerAcademy Network defines career academies as: “… a small learning community within a high school, which selects a subset of students and teachers for a two-, three-, or four-year period. Students enter through a voluntary process; they must apply and be accepted, with parental knowledge and support. While academies vary in size, they usually have from one to three sections of students at each grade level, or 100-300 students in all.” This definition was agreed upon in 2005 by leading organizations (see Appendix B for complete details). There are different types of SLCs that may be more suitable for different schoolsbased on their academic status, culture, or community expectations. The U.S. Departmentof Education (2006) describes four mains SLC structures: • Structure I: Academies are subgroups within schools, organized around particular themes. For example, career academies combine key principles of the school-to-career movement—integrating academic and vocational instruction, providing work-based learning opportunities for students, and 45

preparing students for postsecondary education and employment—with the personalized learning environment of a small, focused learning community. Teachers and students integrate academic and occupation-related classes as a way to enhance real-world relevance and maintain high academic standards. Local employer partnerships provide program planning guidance, mentors, and work internships. Career academies share with other restructuring initiatives an emphasis on building relationships between students and adults (teachers as well as work-site supervisors and other employer representatives).• Structure II: House plans divide students in a large school into groups of several hundred, either across grade levels or by grade levels. Students take some or all courses with their house members and from their house teachers. House arrangements may be yearlong or multiyear arrangements. House plans personalize the high school experience but usually have limited effect on curriculum or instruction. Each house usually has its own discipline plan, student government, social activities, and other extracurricular activities, although students may also participate in activities of the larger school. Grouping ninth-graders into a separate house is one way to ease freshman transition to high school.• Structure III: A school-within-a-school is a small, autonomous program housed within a larger school building. Schools-within-schools are generally responsible to the district rather than to the host school’s principal, and are formally authorized by the superintendent or board of education. Schools- within-schools have their own culture, program, personnel, students, budget, 46

and school space (negotiating the use of common space with the host school in the same way office building tenants arrange for use of shared conference facilities). Like an academy, the school-within-a-school structure supports constructive relationships between and among students and teachers by grouping students together each year to take core courses with the same group of teachers, thus increasing the supports students receive from peers, teachers, and other adults.• Structure IV: Magnet programs use a specialty core focus (such as math, science, creative arts, or a career theme or cluster) to attract students from the entire school district. Some magnet programs have competitive admission requirements; others are open to any interested student. Students in a magnet program stay together for their core classes and may take other courses with non-magnet students.The following graph shows the number of SLCs using the five major structures:Percentages of SLC Schools Implementing Each Type of SLC Structure (n=105) 47

Figure 2. (Note: Percentages exceed 100 percent within a school year because schools may implementmore than one SLC structure.) Source: Implementation Study of Smaller Learning Communities, PeriodicImplementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003. Percentages based on number of respondents completing surveymodule corresponding to each type of SLC structure.Closing the Achievement Gaps and Smaller Learning Communities Closing the achievement gaps will become even more urgent considering thedemographic swing in race, ethnicity, immigration, and growing projections of low SESK-12 student enrollment. In addition to the demographic shifts and the need for studentswith more advanced 21st century skills, educational leaders must continue to focus ontransformation and innovative strategies to support the diversification of the nation’sschools. The changes in demographics are illustrated in the following chart: 48

Numeric Change in the Projected U.S. Population by Race and Hispanic Origin: 2000 to 2050 (in millions) 156.9 97.2 23.0 17.5 11.6 7.6 Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic all Hispanic (any Total White alone Black alone Asian alone other races race)Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 National Projections Redesigning high schools by creating SLCs represents a step toward personalizingeducation and establishing the right conditions for improved student achievement andgraduation rates. However, experienced educators recognize that there is no silver bulletfor ensuring student success and that true transformation will be more complex thanpreviously thought. Cotton (2001) points out that, once the notion is dispelled that smallschool size alone is somehow magical, educators, students, parents, and others are bettersituated to appreciate the results that well-conceived and well-operated small schools areproducing (p. 6). As a result, communication regarding the short-term and long-termbenefits of SLCs will be critical to sustaining the redesign and realizing the desired 49

student academic success that will address the low graduation rates. The following chartdepicts the graduation challenges facing Texas educators:Figure 4. Texas Graduation Gap. Numbers were calculated prior to rounding. All graduationrates are for the school year 2005–06. Source: Alliance for Excellence in Education (2009). Addressing the many challenges associated with lower graduation rates forminority and economically disadvantaged students continues to be a major obstacle foreducators. Addressing school size may assist in overcoming one of the major barriers tostudent success. Howley and Bickel (2000) found that: 1. The larger the school, the greater the negative effect of poverty on student achievement. The less affluent the community, the smaller a school should be in order to maximize performance, as measured by standardized tests. 2. The correlation between poverty and low achievement is as much as 10 times stronger in larger schools than in small ones. 50

3. Although the relationship between school size, poverty, and achievement holds true for all races, minority children are more likely to be enrolled in large schools. (p. 12) The complexities resulting from a global economy and an evolving workforcemagnify the importance of not just graduating students but ensuring that they are wellequipped with the 21st century skills they are going to need to succeed. “Since almost 90percent of the fastest-growing and highest-paying jobs require some postsecondaryeducation, having a high school diploma and the skills to succeed in college and theworkplace are essential” (Alliance for Excellence in Education, 2009, p. 1). Innovativeeducators understand the expectation for improved skills and that a major ingredient willbe a student’s capacity to apply his or her knowledge. The skills necessary to succeed in both higher education and the workforce,termed 21st century skills, are gaining extensive attention from researchers, businesses,and educational institutions. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2004) describedthese skills as the following (see Appendix A for complete details): 1. Core subjects and 21st-century themes—global awareness; financial, economic, business, and entrepreneurial literacy; civic literacy; and health literacy. 2. Learning and innovation skills—creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, and communication and collaboration. 3. Information, media, and technology skills—information literacy; media literacy; and information, communications, and technology (ICT) literacy. 4. Life and career skills—flexibility and adaptability, initiative and self- direction, social and cross-cultural skills, productivity and accountability, and leadership and responsibility. 51

Educators can simultaneously prepare students for higher education and theworkforce when they utilize and impart 21st century skills instead of focusing on contentknowledge through the traditional lecture format (Hoachlander, 2008). Unfortunately,educators continue to be very slow in changing the content, structure, and old-stylepedagogy practiced in U.S. public education institutions. As Gewertz (2007) noted, "A1991 report by the U.S. Secretary of Labors Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills,called the SCANS report, called for many of the same competencies that educators andbusiness leaders have been urging in a flurry of reports during the past year" (p. 26).The Right Steps to Successful Smaller Learning Communities Four key elements to successful small learning communities are a commonunderstanding regarding the need for transformation, strong SLC practices, professionalstaff development, and the understanding that the SLC design cannot be implemented in afew months or even a few years. The first element consists of a clear understanding thatthe re-design is based on the need to improve student success. Sammon (2008) laments,“yet, almost forty years into reform, the national data tell us that we are woefullyunskilled as an educational community to meet the ever-demanding needs of a culturallydiverse student population which must be prepared to take its place in a global economy”(p. 5). Educational leaders who establish why change is important to their organizationare more likely to successfully maneuver past the inherent stages associated with change.In fact, we are convinced that one of the most common mistakes school administratorsmake in the implementation of improvement initiatives is to focus exclusively on the“how”, while being inattentive to why (Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, & Many, 2006). 52

The second element is to establish the right conditions and practices required for asuccessful SLC. Due to the complexity of implementing and sustaining SLCs it isessential that the guiding teams ensure the best practices are at the core of the re-design.The following have been identified as essential for success. In New Small LearningCommunities, Cotton (2001) identified several conditions and practices that distinguishsuccessful SLCs: 1. Self-determination—Autonomy in decision making, physical separateness, self-selection of teachers and students, and flexible scheduling must all be present to allow SLC members to create and realize their own vision. 2. Identity—SLCs benefit from developing a distinctive program of study that originates in the vision, interests, and unique characteristics of their members. 3. Personalization—SLC members know each other well. Teachers are able to identify and respond to students’ particular strengths and needs. 4. Support for Teaching—SLC teachers assume authority as well as responsibility in educating their students. School leadership does not reside only in the administrative staff; administrators teach, and teachers lead. 5. Functional Accountability—SLC teams use performance assessment systems that require students to demonstrate their learning and the SLC to demonstrate its success. Significantly changing the present culture of a school can be an exceptionallydifficult process. Creating and supporting the right practices and conditions will beessential for success. Collins (2001) states that “under the right conditions, the problemof commitment, alignment, motivation, and change largely melt away” (p. 11). 53

Establishing strong and effective professional learning communities is critical tothe SLC initiative. Too often, unfortunately, little care is taken to provide professionallearning that ensures staff members’ deep understanding of content and development ofskills for using new practices (Hord & Sommers, 2007). There are a wide range ofinitiatives and components that are considered necessary for successful SLCs. Thefollowing is a broad list of areas that require professional development prior and duringthe conversation to SLCs. Torrez and Kritsonis (2008) identify the following list of topicsthat require professional learning during pre-implementation: • What is a professional learning community • Professional learning communities individual and team responsibilities • How to develop interdisciplinary lessons • Interdisciplinary teaching techniques • Use of advisory period • Building support for individual and student groups • Building capacity in the program • Sustained leadership • Team stability • Articulation with college/university systems • Building community support The professional learning communities must maintain a focused and relevantcourse of learning opportunities if continued improvement is to occur among alleducators. A deep knowledge and understanding of the SLC design is required to ensurethat it becomes an integral part of today’s educational landscape. 54

Finally, it is important to understand that change does not happen easy and thatsustainable change will take time. Teams that dispel the idea that an over hall of thepresent 19th century design will not happen without the common elements associated withlong term change prepare stake holders for the required journey. Continued improvementthat can only happen over time resulting in positive student outcome must be maintainedas the focal point of the change.Concluding Remarks As described in the previous sections, today’s school districts face manychallenges, including transforming an outdated 19th century model that has been slow tochange and adapt to the 21st century student learning needs. Leaders who view the bigpicture and comprehend the complexities and challenges of educating today’s youth havea greater chance for success. These leaders understand the importance of having the rightvision and courage as they articulate the vision of learning for all students. Schlechty(2009) emphasizes, “Transformation is intended to make it possible to do things that havenever been done by the organization undergoing the transformation” (p.3). Making it possible to do things that have never been done will take selecting newinnovations in how schools deliver instruction. SLCs are rooted in the belief that rigorand relevance can be achieved through teacher collaboration. In addition, positive factorssuch as opportunities for increased and improved student relationships with peers andfaculty, resulting in improved attendance, decreased dropout rate, and improvedacademic success, are the main cornerstones to convincing educators to embrace SLCs asa way to encourage transformation. 55

A culmination of an 80-year movement that has been calling for reform has, forthe most part, had minimal impact on educator perceptions of teaching and learning. Thesuccess of the nation’s schools is dependent on a sound plan for transformation that mustinclude bold actions and a firm resolution to the many innovations it will take toovercome the barriers required to ensure today’s youth are prepared for their future. 56

Chapter III: MethodologyIntroduction Smaller Learning Communities (SLCs) have been an avenue for improved studentachievement when implemented as a long-term and on-going initiative. When reviewingthe educational literature, a growing body of information on small schools versus largeschools and the change in student culture, teacher collaboration and practices, wasevident. However, finding information on student achievement as a specific result ofSLCs has been more difficult. More recently, one can find literature calling for continuedaction beyond restructuring of schools to a movement calling for full transformation tothe 21st century. How leaders create change and sustain change so that it endures overtime has been a major challenge. DuFour and Eaker (1992) believe that “one of the mostdifficult problems that school practitioners must overcome in their efforts to bring aboutmeaningful school improvement is the mistaken notion that school improvement is ashort-term task to be completed rather than a long-term commitment to a new approach”(p. 138). Teachers often become frustrated with new reform initiatives because of thehistory of unsuccessful reform efforts and the frequency with which they haveencountered reform initiatives. Sustainable transformation is more likely to occur as aresult of both teacher and administrative leaders transforming schools into collaborativesmaller communities. The process of transforming schools into SLCs and addressing studentachievement is positively impacted by ascertaining the commitment and process ofestablishing SLCs. Sammon (2008) states, “It is not the design, primarily, that 57

contributes to the effectiveness, but rather engaging in a thoughtful process that requires astrong focus and commitment to quality implementation of what we refer to as the ‘bigfive’ or ‘bins of work’ that transforms high schools” (p. 9). The big five or bins of workare: • Personalization; • Data-driven management; • A curriculum – and instructional – centric approach; • Community partnerships; and • Creating a climate for success. Whether or not to implement SLCs is centered on three primary questions directlyrelated to student performance. The questions are: (1) Does the SLC structure improvestudent academic success?; (2) Does the SLC structure contribute to closing the gapbetween white and minority students?; and (3) Does the SLC structure affect the gap inlow Socioeconomic status and non low Socioeconomic status student academicachievement?Research Questions The research questions guiding this study are: 1. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported on the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for ethnic subpopulations? 58

2. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported on the AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for economically disadvantaged subpopulations? 3. Is there a difference in student attendance between career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported in the AEIS? 4. Is there a difference in student dropout/completion rates between career- themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported in the AEIS?Null Hypotheses H01 - There is no statistically significant difference in student achievementbetween career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported on the AEIS forTAKS in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for ethnic subpopulations? H02 - There is no statistically significant difference in student achievementbetween career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported on the AEIS forTAKS in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for economically disadvantaged subpopulation? H03 - There is no statistically significant difference in student attendance betweencareer-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported in the AEIS? H04 - There is no statistically significant difference in student dropout/completionbetween career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported in the AEIS?Research Method A quasi-experimental research design utilizing post hoc data will be used todetermine if a difference exists in student achievement between SLCs and traditional highschools as reported on the AEIS for TAKS in English Language Arts/Reading and 59

Mathematics scores for ethnic subpopulations and economically disadvantagedsubpopulations. In addition, a series of Analysis of Covariant (ANCOVA) will becalculated to determine if there is a meaningful difference in the areas of attendance andcompletion/dropout rates. Creswell (2008) explains experimental research as “you firstdecide on an idea with which to ‘experiment,’ assign individuals to experience it (andhave some individuals experience something different), and then determine whether thosewho experienced the idea (or practice or procedure) performed better on some outcomethan those who did not experience it” (p. 299). A factorial ANOVA analysis will be usedto determine if a degree of difference existed between the two variables. Experimentalresearch is used when a researcher wants to establish a possible cause and effect betweentwo variables. Information will be collected and analyzed from the Texas EducationAgency (TEA) website and then quantitatively analyzed using Statistical Package for theSocial Sciences (SPSS) version 12.0.1. Before the post hoc statistics are calculated, descriptive statistics will begenerated. DeMoulin and Kritsonis (2009) explain that, in descriptive statistics, “bytaking raw data and describing it in a meaningful way (to make sense out of data) we are,in reality, generating a profile of that data set. This branch of Mathematics is referred toas descriptive statistics, or compiling raw data in terms that are easily and readilyunderstood by mere humans” (p. 4). For the purposes of this research, schools will becategorized as non-traditional career-themed SLC high schools and traditional highschools. Once categorized, student achievement comparisons will be analyzed. 60

Research Design Descriptive statistics will be used to compile demographic data comparing non-traditional SLC high schools and traditional high schools. For the first two researchquestions, a series of Factorial ANOVAs will be calculated to determine if meaningfuldifferences in the areas of English Language Arts/Reading and Mathematics exist instudent achievement between the two different types of high schools. For researchquestions three and four, a series of Analysis of Covariant (ANCOVA) will be calculatedto determine if there is a meaningful difference in the areas of attendance and completion/dropout rates. An analysis of 2008-09 and 2009-10 AEIS data will be collected todetermine the outcome. The first quantitative variable identified in the study is the cohort of schoolsimplementing the SLC design, which represents the independent or predictor variable.According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2006), “independent variables are those that theresearcher chooses to study in order to assess their possible effect(s) on one or more othervariables” (p. 43). The second quantitative variable is the student TAKS scores in theareas of English Language Arts/Reading and Mathematics; attendance andcompletion/dropout rates compared from the data collected will represent the dependentvariable. Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) classify this variable as, “in commonsense terms,the dependent variable ‘depends on’ what the independent variable does to it, how itaffects it” (p. 43). The schools included in this study will be Texas public high schools that areidentified as having implemented the career-themed SLC design. A database of schoolsthat received a federal SLC grant was obtained through Education Northwest (formerly 61

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory) and the U.S. Department of Education SLCProgram webpage. After the SLCs and the similar traditional high are selected, the state TAKS scoredata for the school years 2008-09 and 2009-10 will be collected, disaggregated, andanalyzed. The TAKS data will be collected from the AEIS on the TEA website. EnglishLanguage Arts/Reading and Mathematics scores will be obtained for the 2008-09 and2009-10 school years. It is important to note that the TAKS passing score standard of 75percent for all areas in 2008-09 is different from the 2009-10 passing rate of 80 percentfor all areas. Because the 2009-10 standards are more difficult, the 2008-09 reports mayshow higher passing rates but the comparison from each year is under the same standard,thereby showing an accurate comparison of performance across the two years. The second step will be to calculate the data in English Language Arts/Readingand Mathematics TAKS scores for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years. TAKS datawill be used to determine if there is a difference in student achievement in EnglishLanguage Arts/Reading and Mathematics TAKS scores between high schoolsimplementing career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools. Attendance andcompletion/dropout rate data for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years will also becollected. AEIS report data will be used to determine if a significant difference existsbetween high schools implementing career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools. The third step will be to create a spreadsheet using Excel. Data obtained from theAEIS reports will be entered into the spreadsheet. Once all data has been entered into theExcel spreadsheet, the data will be transferred into SPSS to determine statisticalrelevance. TAKS scale scores in English Language Arts/Reading and Mathematics will 62

be disaggregated by subpopulations, including by ethnicity (African American, Hispanic,and White) and economically disadvantaged. Attendance and dropout rates will also beentered into an Excel spreadsheet and transferred into SPSS. Attendance and dropoutrates will be disaggregated by subpopulations of ethnicity (African American, Hispanic,and White) and economically disadvantaged. All data collected will be analyzed usingthe Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).Population of the Study The purposive cohort selected for this study will be composed of schools thathave implemented the career-themed SLC design in the state of Texas. Onlycomprehensive high schools with grades 9 through 12 and a student population of greaterthan 1,500 will be considered for this research. Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) definepurposive sampling as “on occasion, based on previous knowledge of a population andthe specific purpose of the research, investigators use personal judgment to select asample” (p. 100). Generalizations regarding the study will be made to the cohort of publichigh schools as described above that are attempting transformation to the 21st centurymodel of education by implementing the career-themed SLC design. The target population of high schools will be identified from several sources.Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) defined a target population as “all the members of a real orhypothetical set of people, events, or objects to which researchers wish to generalize theresults of their research” (p. 167). A database of high schools in Texas that received SLCfederal grant monies will be obtained from the U.S. Department of Education SmallerLearning Communities Program webpage and Texas High School Project. In addition, alist of the Texas schools that attended the 2010 Smaller Learning Communities: From 63

Structure to Instruction conference at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas has alsobeen obtained from Education Northwest. The National Career Academy Coalitionwebsite, which maintains a database of districts and schools that have selected the SLCdesign, was also used in the selection. The directory shows schools from across theUnited States that participate in career academies. From these 4 sources and an extensiveinternet search, 25 high schools will be identified as the population for this research. Aconvenience sample of 25 traditional schools will be selected from the TEA assignedschool cohort. Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) explain convenience sampling as “manytimes, it is extremely difficult (sometimes even impossible) to select either a random or asystematic nonrandom sample. At such times, a researcher may use conveniencesampling” (p.100). A database with the assigned cohorts of the traditional public highschools will be obtained through TEA. The schools will be selected based on the TEAcohort school that is most similar in size, ethnic subpopulations (African American,Hispanic, and White) and economically disadvantaged.Instrumentation This research study will utilize TAKS scores for campuses that are identified ascareer-themed SLC schools for school years 2008-09 and 2009-10. Test reliabilitymeasures such as the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) indicate the internalconsistency rate of the TAKS test for multiple choice and short answer questions to beapproximately .81 to .93. TEA rates the validity of the TAKS test as extremely high; theagency ensures the validity of the TAKS test with the following statement, “the staff atTEA, as well as professional test developers from Educational Testing Service, PearsonEducational Measurement, and Questar, Inc., provide a wealth of test-building 64

experience, including content expertise. Each internal review of an item by these expertsincreases the probability of the item being an accurate measure of the intended objective”(TEA, 2009, p. 178). TEA (2009) states that the TAKS offers a “genuine evaluation” ofthe state curriculum and student performance (p. 178). The level of validity of the TAKSinstrument has been measured as effective for all student sub-populations. TAKS testitems are field tested for validity each year, to check for bias and reliability, and revisionsare made as needed. A committee comprised of educators, test specialists, and membersof TEA establish the validity standard (Texas Education Agency, 2009). TAKS scale scores in English Language Arts/Reading and Mathematics will bedisaggregated by subpopulations, including ethnicity (African American, Hispanic, andWhite), and economically disadvantaged. Attendance and dropout rates will also bestudied. All collected data will be analyzed using SPSS.Procedures The first step in the process will be to identify the schools implementing thecareer-themed SLC design that meet the criteria to be included in this study. From thisinformation, a cohort of 25 career-themed SLC schools will be selected for this study. Adatabase of high schools in Texas that received SLC federal grant monies will beobtained from the U.S. Department of Education Smaller Learning CommunitiesProgram webpage and Texas High School Project. In addition, a list of the Texas schoolsthat attended the 2010 Smaller Learning Communities: From Structure to Instructionconference at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas has also been obtained fromEducation Northwest. The National Career Academy Coalition website, which maintainsa database of districts and schools that have selected the SLC design, was also used in the 65

selection. The directory shows schools from across the United States that participate incareer academies. This process will also require an extensive internet search to findschools that are not list as grant recipients or career academy coalition members. Secondly, each school’s AEIS report will be downloaded from the TEA website.Based upon the AEIS report of each career-themed SLC School, a comparison schoolwill be selected from the TEA assigned cohort of 25 traditional high schools. The schoolwill be selected by reviewing the cohort of 25 and selecting the campus that is mostcomparable in total student enrollment, ethnic subpopulations (African American,Hispanic, and White), and the economically disadvantaged subpopulation. Each schoolselected will then be placed in a group that will comprise the convenience sample for thisstudy.Data Analysis The research of student performance data from the selected SLC and traditionalhigh schools, as reported by the AEIS, will be conducted by the accepted quantitativemeasures identified by Gall, Gall, and Borg (2003). SPSS will be utilized to disaggregateand analyze data. The performance of the selected career-themed SLC school cohort willbe analyzed and compared to the traditional high school cohort to address the fourresearch questions guiding this study. The research questions will be answered through arange of statistical procedures that will include analysis of variance (ANOVA) todetermine if there is a statistically significant difference between the student performancevariables. TAKS data will be utilized to answer the first and second research questions.English Language Arts/Reading and Mathematics scale scores will be analyzed for thesetwo questions. Definable ethnic subpopulations, for the purposes of answering questions 66

one and two, will include African American, Hispanic, White, and economicallydisadvantaged students. The descriptive statistics will include mean scores, standarddeviations, and frequencies. These methods will be used to define subpopulation data ina concise manner. Inferential statistical data will also be applied to answer researchquestions one and two. This procedure will be used to evaluate and infer if there is astatistically significant difference when measuring the student performance of career-themed SLC schools compared to traditional high schools. The level of significance fortesting the hypotheses of this research was set at .05 or at a 95% confidence level. Student attendance and completion/dropout rates will be used for the purpose ofanswering research questions three and four. The descriptive statistics will include meanscores, standard deviations, and frequencies. These methods will be used to definepopulation data in a concise manner. An Analysis of Covariant (ANCOVA) test willthen be used to help answer the last two questions of the study. This procedure will beused to test the association between categorical variables, and also to evaluate and inferthe degree of statistical significant difference when measuring student attendance andcompletion/dropout rates in career-themed SLC and traditional high schools. The levelof statistical significance for testing the hypotheses of this research will be set at .05 or ata 95% confidence level. The following questions will guide the study: 1. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported on the AEIS for the TAKS in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for ethnic subpopulations? 67

2. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported on the AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for economically disadvantaged subpopulations? 3. Is there a difference in student attendance rates between career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported in the AEIS? 4. Is there a difference in student dropout/completion rates between career- themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported in the AEIS? In order to answer the first two research questions, data from the AEIS will beanalyzed in English Language Arts/Reading and Mathematics for each identified ethnicsubpopulation. The demographic breakdown of ethnicity will be presented in detail inChapter IV. For research questions three and four, the attendance and dropout data willbe disaggregated using the AEIS information and will be presented in detail in ChapterIV. This study will include both descriptive and inferential statistics. The data will bereported in table format as mean score, standard deviation, and standard error of themean. The difference between SLCs and traditional high schools will be analyzed byapplying an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) statistical test. The comprehensivedisaggregation, analyses, and interpretations of the data, as well as recommendations,will follow the principles identified by Gall, Gall, and Borg (2003). The findings fromthis study will be presented in detail and discussed further in Chapter IV. 68

ReferencesAlliance for Excellence in Education. (2009). Understanding high school graduation rates in Texas. Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org/files/Texas_wc.pdfAmerica’s Promise Alliance (2009). Grad nation: A guidebook to help communities tackle the dropout crisis. Retrieved from http://www.civicenterprises.net/pdfs/gradnation.pdfBalfanz, R., Fox, J., Bridgeland, J., & McNaught, M. (2009). Grad nation: A guide to help communities tackle the dropout crisis. Retrieved from http://www.americaspromise.org/Our-Work/Dropout-Prevention/Grad-Nation- Guidebook.aspxBill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2007). Strong American schools campaign launches to promote education reform in 2008 presidential election. Retrieved from http:// www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/2008-presidential campaign educationBill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2003). Closing the graduation gap: Toward high schools that prepare all students for college, work, and citizenship. Retrieved from http://www.learndoearn.org/For-Educators/Gates_Foundation.pdfCareer Academy Support Network (CASN). (2005). Retrieved from http://casn.berkeley.eduCollins, J., (2001). Good to Great: Why some companies make the leap…and others don’t. New York: Harper Business. 69

Cotton, K. (1996, May). School size, school climate and student performance. Retrieved from http://whttpww.nwrel.orgCotton, K. (2001). New small learning communities: Findings from recent literature (ERIC Document No. ED459539). Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.Creswell, K. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River: NJ.Daggett, W. R. (n.d.). Jobs and the skills gap. Retrieved from http://www.leadered.com/pdf/JobSkills%20Gap%20White%20PaperPDF.pdfDaggett, W. R. (2005, September). Achieving academic excellence through rigor and relevance. Retrieved from http://www.daggett.com/pdf/Academic_Excellence.pdfDaggett, W. (2007). The education challenge: Preparing students for a changing world. International Center for Leadership in Education. Retrieved from http://www.leadered.com/2007%20NV %20Mega/Casehandouts/1Daggettpaper.pdfDaggett, W. (2008). Rigor/Relevance Framework. Retrieved from http://www.leadered.com/pdf/R&Rframework.pdfDaggett, W. (2009, January). Leadership today for tomorrow’s schools: Dr. William Daggett “the solutions to school improvement.” Symposium hosted by Harris County Department of Education.Daniels, H. Bizar, M. & Zemelman, S. (2001). Rethinking High School: Best Practice in Teaching, Learning, and Leadership. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann 70

Davis, K. (2010, June). Kujenga: Stabilizing and sustaining SLCs. Session presented at the conference From structure to instruction: Sharing best practices and lessons learned from high school redesign efforts. Conference hosted by Education Northwest.Davenport, P. & Anderson, G. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: No excuses. Houston, TX: American Productivity & Quality Center.DeMoulin, D. & Kristsonis, W. (2009). A statistical journey: Taming of the Skew! Murrieta, CA: The Alexis Austin Group.DuFour, R. (2005). What is a professional learning community. In R. DuFour, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree (formerly National Educational Service).DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1992). Creating the new American school: A principals guide to school improvement (1st ed.). Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.Feldman, J., Lopez L., & Simon, K. (2006). Choosing small: The essential guide to successful high school conversion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Fraenkel, J. & Wallen, N. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Fullan, M. (2002b). Principals as leaders in a culture of change [Special issue]. Educational Leadership, May. 71

Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Gewertz, C. (2007, June). “Soft skills” in big demand. Education Week, 26, 25–27.Goals 2000: Educate America Act. http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/ index.htmlGrubb, W. (2007, June 12). Life after high school: Taking the education gospel seriously. Education Week, 26, 33.Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2003). Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 693-700.Hoachlander, G. (2008, May). Bringing industry to the classroom. Educational Leadership, 65, 8.Hord, M. & Sommers, W.A. (2007). Leading professional learning communities: Voices from research and practice. Thousand Oaks. CA: Corwin Press.Howley, C., & Bickel, R. (2000). When it comes to schooling… small works: School size, poverty, and student achievement. Randolph, VT: Rural School and Community Trust Policy Program.Lafstrom, L. (2007). Why Are Hispanic and African-American Dropout Rates So High? University of Dallas and IZA Discussion paper No. 3265, December 2007.Lee, J. O. (2003). Standards, testing, and urban schools – Implementing high standards in urban schools: Problems and solutions. Phi Delta Kappan (84)6, p. 449. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/read/5000603190?title= STANDARDS%2c%20TESTING%2c%20AND%20URBAN%20SCHOOLS %20--%20Implementing%20High%20Standards%20in%20Urban%20Schools 72

%3a% 20Problems%20and%20SolutionsLegter, N. E. (1999). Small learning communities meet school-to-work: Whole-school restructuring for urban comprehensive high schools. Report no. 31. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.Lopez, J. (2006). The impact of demographic changes on United States higher education: 2000-2050. Retrieved from http://www.sheeo.org/pubs/demographics-lopez.pdfMarzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum DevelopmentMiller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change. New York, NY: The Guliford Press.National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2001). Breaking ranks: Changing an American institution. (5th ed.). Reston, VA: NASSP.National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2004). Breaking ranks II: Strategies for leading high school reform. Reston, VA: Author.National Education Association. (2006). Closing the achievement gap: An associated guide. Washington, DC: Author.Oxley, D. (2006). Small learning communities: Implementing and deepening practice. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.nwrel.orgPartnership for 21st Century Skills. (2004). Overview. Retrieved from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=195&Itemid=183#what_21st 73

Rajala, J. (2003). Education Reform. T.H.E. Journal, 30(6), 31.Riley, R. (1998, February). Remarks as prepared for delivery by U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley Press Conference on 12th Grade TIMSS Results. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/sec102.htmlSammon, G. (2008). Creating and sustaining smaller learning: Strategies and tools for transforming high schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Schlechty, P. (2009). Leading for Learning: How to Transform Schools into Learning Organizations (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publications.Schramm, J., Williams, S., Krasnow, M., Grossman, B., & Walters, L. (2008). SHRM 2007 symposium on the workforce readiness of the future U.S. labor pool. (Workforce Readiness Executive Summary). Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/trends/08workplacereadiness.pdfSwanson, S. (2009). Cities in Crisis 2009: Closing the Graduation Gap. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/media/cities_in_crisis_2009.pdfTEA (2009). 2009 Adequate yearly progress (AYP) guide. TEA Department of Assessment, Accountability, and Data Quality. Austin, TX: Author.The Coleman Report Coleman, James S. Equality of Educational Opportunity (COLEMAN) Study (EEOS), 1966 [Computer file]. ICPSR06389-v3. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2007-04-27. doi:10.3886/ICPSR06389TexEd. Consulting Services. 2009. Retreived from http://www.texedconsulting.com/texedconsulting/contact.html 74

The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. A Report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education United States Department of Education.The White House Office Press Secretary. (2009). Remarks by the President on the American Graduation Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-the- American-Graduation-Initiative-in-Warren-MIThird International Mathematics and Science Study. (1995). 1995 TIMSS 1995 Home Page. Retrieved from: http://timss.bc.edu/timss1995.htmlTorrez, A., Kritsonis, W. A. (2008). Smaller Learning Communities: Pre-Implementation Planning Critical To Success. National FORUM of Applied Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 60-66.Wick, C. (2007). Most likely to succeed: Real-life stories of progress in five redesigned urban high schools: Every student deserves a legacy. Retrieved from http://kathleencolan.com/articles/Legacy%2007%20small%20schools %20final.pdfU.S. Census Bureau. (2010). 2008 National Projections. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/U.S. Department of Education. (2006). An Overview of Smaller Learning Communities in High Schools. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and Office of Vocational and Adult Education. Washington, DC: Author. 75

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Answering the challenge of a changing world: Strengthening education for the 21st century. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/competitiveness/strengthening/strengthening.pdfU.S. Department of Education. (2004). Elementary & Secondary Education Title IX — General Provisions. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg107.htmlWolfe, G. (2007, July). Leveraging the learning space. T+ D, 40.Zhao, Y. (2009). Catch up or leading the way: American education in the age of globalization. Alexandria, VA: Association For Supervision and Curriculum Development.Zmuda, A., Kuklis, R. & Kline, E. (2004). Transforming schools: Creating a culture of continuous improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 76

Appendix A: List of 21st century skillsCore Subjects and 21st Century Themes Mastery of core subjects and 21st century themes is essential for students in the21st century. Core subjects include English, reading or language arts, world languages,arts, Mathematics, economics, science, geography, history, government and civics. Webelieve schools must move beyond a focus on basic competency in core subjects topromoting understanding of academic content at much higher levels by weaving 21stcentury interdisciplinary themes into core subjects: (a) global awareness, (b) financial,economic, business and entrepreneurial literacy, (c) civic literacy, and (d) health literacy.Learning and Innovation Skills Learning and innovation skills are what separate students who are prepared forincreasingly complex life and work environments in the 21st century and those who arenot. They include (a) creativity and innovation, (b) critical thinking and problem solving,and (c) communication and collaboration.Information, Media and Technology Skills People in the 21st century live in a technology and media-driven environment,marked by access to an abundance of information, rapid changes in technology tools andthe ability to collaborate and make individual contributions on an unprecedented scale.To be effective in the 21st century, citizens and workers must be able to exhibit a range 77

of functional and critical thinking skills, such as (a) information literacy, (b) medialiteracy, and (c) ICT (information, communications, and technology) literacy.Life and Career Skills Today’s life and work environments require far more than thinking skills andcontent knowledge. The ability to navigate the complex life and work environments inthe globally competitive information age requires students to pay rigorous attention todeveloping adequate life and career skills, such as (a) flexibility and adaptability, (b)initiative and self-direction, (c) social and cross-cultural skills, (d) productivity andaccountability, and (e) leadership and responsibility. (Partnership for 21st Century Skills,2004). 78

Appendix B: Leading Organizations Establishing “Standards of Practice” for Career Academies• The California network of academies, called the California Partnership Academies, in the California Department of Education• The Career Academy Support Network (CASN), based in the Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley• The Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR), sponsors of Talent Development High Schools , a school wide application of academies, based at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore• The Illinois network of academies, called the Illinois Partnership Academies, in the Illinois State Board of Education• Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC), a leading national evaluator of academies, based in New York City• The National Academy Foundation (NAF), with the largest network of academies nationally (over 500), focused in finance, travel & tourism, and information technology, based in New York City• The National Career Academy Coalition (NCAC), associated with the Philadelphia Academies, a membership organization that sponsors an annual national academy conference• The Philadelphia Academies, Inc., now with 29 academies in 12 career fields in 19 high schools, and nearly 7,000 students• The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), sponsor of High Schools That Work , the largest high school reform effort in the country, with over 1,000 high schools, based in Atlanta, Georgia 79

Appendix C: National High School Graduation Rates, Class of 2005 80

Alex Torrez (Cohort 4) Dissertation Proposal, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair, PVAMU/The Texas A&M University System

by Will1945 on Dec 20, 2010

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Alex Torrez (Cohort 4) Dissertation Proposal, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair, PVAMU/The Texas A&M University System Document Transcript