Margaret Patton, Dissertation Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Dissertation Examining Committee Member, PVAMU/The Texas A&M University System

1. Factors Influencing Greatness in Economically-Challenged Minority Schools Presented to the Whitlowe R. Green College of Education Prairie View A & M University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Presented by Margaret Curette Patton Dissertation Committee Douglas S. Hermond, PhD., Chair Camille Gibson, PhD., Member David E. Herrington, PhD., Member William A. Kritsonis, PhD., Member March 2009

13. Conceptual Framework Good to Great ™ – Jim Collins Visit www.jimcollins.com to take the Good to Great™ survey. Input Principles Stage 1: Disciplined People Level 5 Leadership First Who, Then What Stage 2: Disciplined Thought Confront the Brutal Facts The Hedgehog Concept Stage 3: Discipline Action Culture of Discipline Technology Accelerators Output Results Delivers Superior Performance relative to its mission Makes a Distinctive Impact on the communities it touches Achieves Lasting Endurance beyond any leader, idea or setback

16. Conceptual Framework Good to Great ™ – Jim Collins Disciplined Action In the culture of discipline , disciplined people with disciplined thought combined with an ethic of entrepreneurship yields great performance. Technology accelerators were found to have never been a primary role in achieving excellence, but when carefully selected assisted in transforming companies.

17. Making Literature Connections What does Good to Great ™ have to do with Economically-Challenged Minority Schools? The literature on high-performing ECM schools reveals… INPUT FACTORS Disciplined People Collaborative leadership Purpose-driven Staff Disciplined Thought Address Student Need Clear vision Curriculum Focus Data Driven High Expectations/No Excuses Streamlined Activities Discipline Action Assessment for improvement Distributed Accountability Learning Communities OUTPUT RESULTS High levels of proficiency among students Continued gains in achievement; Effective and enduring practices and policies are widespread. 0.2% 0.7% Annual Dropout Rate 95.0% 85.0% Completion Rate I 90% 70% SDAA II All Subjects 90% 75% Social Studies 90% 75% Science 90% 75% Writing 90% 75% Math 90% 75% Reading/ELA TAKS (Met Standard) Exemplary Recognized Output Results in 2007 Texas Accountability Rating Terminology

20. Why these groups? 2006 Accountability State Summary Report – Texas Education Agency

21. Sample A A A A 77.7 71.1 958 CMID4/5 A A A A 80.7 81.9 839 CELEM4/5 Comparison R R A R 85.3 79.2 878 MID5 A R A R 90.2 90.5 591 ELEM5 A R R R 95.1 92.2 841 MID4 E R R R 88.9 83 613 ELEM4 High Performing A A A A 96.4 79.9 971 CMID3 A A A A 97.6 87.3 780 Cfifth-Sixth3 A A A A 98.2 92.4 799 CELEM3 Comparison R R R R 96 86.5 971 MID3 R A A R 95.9 90.8 949 Fifth-Sixth3 E E E E 98 88.8 891 ELEM3 High Performing A A A A 98.8 61.7 1090 CMID1/2 A A A A 96.5 73.7 696 CELEM1 Comparison A R A R 93.1 68.3 938 MID1 R R A R 83.7 67.9 1299 MID2 R R R R 88.5 68.9 1112 Sixth -1 E E E E 96.2 81.3 653 ELEM1 High Performing 2007 2006 2005 2004 Min. Econ Dis. Total School

27. Data Analysis APPENDIX E - CODING MATRIX – HIGH-PERFORMING SCHOOLS Disciplined People Category 2: Recruiting and Retaining Staff Category 1: Leadership Disciplined People Significant Quotes Freq. Responses

28. Displaying the Findings - Chart APPENDIX F – Checklist Matrix: Predictors of Recognized or Exemplary ECM Schools Disciplined People First Who Then What Level 5 Leadership Acceptable Campus Exemplary/Recognized Campus Category

32. Distinguishing Factors

47. What sparked a transition? Exemplary/Recognized Schools “ Data initiatives were undertaken to improve student performance. Status quo was not accepted. There was a school-wide culture to excel.” “ When the science TAKS test first came about, this kept our school from becoming exemplary, so a conscious decision was made to focus on science. Our goal is for all students to pass to the best of their ability.” “ We haven’t made a major transition. We just looked closer at what we were already doing, and decided that we needed to work smarter, not harder.”

49. What sparked a transition? Acceptable Schools “ Teachers left based on academic problems, discipline problems, principal/teacher relationships, and principal/community relationships.” “ In 2005, accountability as well as administrative changes, i.e. new superintendent and new principal” sparked the transition. “ The district became increasingly involved in our day to day routine. Tests were provided. In Language Arts, layered lesson plans were introduced.” “ When classroom observations showed that teachers were still teaching using TAAS strategies, we began disaggregating data often and used it to begin the critical thinking process.”

50. How are decisions made? Exemplary/Recognized Schools “ The school went about making decisions through collaboration. We have a Site Based Management Team that consists of teachers, parents, and administrators, as well as community members. Any major decision is brought before this team to discuss and decide. That information is then brought before the rest of the campus to get feedback.” “ Student needs were at the core of all decisions. Grade level teams addressed needs of individual students. School wide initiatives were addressed through grade level, vertical teams and the SBDM (site-based decision making team).” “ Our principal, met with vertical team leaders, specialists, and teacher leaders on the campus to create new strategies. She also studied success stories from other successful campuses.”

51. How are decisions made? Acceptable Schools “ The school collaborated with its stakeholders prior to making any decisions. Several meetings and mock sessions were held on developing goals.” “ As the principal, I could not do it all on my own. We developed a school-wide decision making process of looking at data. We decided to put the data up-front and let it guide all of our decisions.” “ The principal made decisions solely…did not accept recommendations from administrative team. There was no collaboration.” “ There was a shell of a Campus Building Leadership Team that held meetings twice a month. Everything looked good on paper. Administrators began doing classroom walk-throughs (CWTs). The data collected from the CWTs showed that we were a “seat work” campus. We collected data, but there was no follow-up as to what to do next. Decisions were ultimately made by the principal, dean of instruction, and associate principal.”

53. Participant Perceptions of Differences in School Groups Builds leadership capacity Effective use of data Collaboration Student Intervention Committed teachers High expectations “ No excuses” attitude Parent involvement Campus culture District support Monitoring Play accountability game Different communities Only a few percentage points Strong leadership Data Driven Collaborative environment Student Interventions Self-disciplined teachers High expectations “ Whatever it takes” attitude Parent/Community involvement Trusting/Positive climate District support Student needs are priority Caring relationships Acceptable What do they have that we don’t? Exemplary/Recognized What are they missing?

56. Stages in School Improvement Process “ Whatever it takes” attitude. Individual student needs addressed immediately. Group’s needs are known, but effective action not in place. Staff training on best practices.