Patton dissertationmarch

FACTORS INFLUENCING GREATNESS IN
ECONOMICALLY-CHALLENGED MINORITY SCHOOLS
A Dissertation
by
MARGARET CURETTE PATTON
Submitted 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 PHILOSOPY
March 2009

ii
FACTORS INFLUENCING GREATNESS IN
ECONOMICALLY-CHALLENGED SCHOOLS
A Dissertation
by
MARGARET CURETTE PATTON
Approved as the style and content by:
___________________________________
Douglas S. Hermond, Ph.D.
(Dissertation Chair)
______________________________ ______________________________
William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D. David Herrington, Ph.D.
(Member) (Member)
______________________________________
Camille Gibson, Ph.D.
(Member)
______________________________ ________________________________
Lucian Yates, Ph.D. William Parker, Ed.D.
(Dean, Whitlowe R. Green (Dean, Graduate School)
College of Education)
March 2009

iii
ABSTRACT
Factors Influencing Greatness in Economically-Challenged Minority Schools.
(March 2009)
Margaret Curette Patton: B.A., University of Southwestern Louisiana;
M.Ed., University of Southwestern Louisiana
Chair of Advisory Committee: Douglas S. Hermond, Ph.D.
Although excellence is the standard for every school, there are many
economically-challenged minority (ECM) schools that are performing below the
mark in Texas and a few considered successful (Texas Education Agency,
2007). The purpose of this study was to explore the distinguishing factors that
exist among successful ECM schools compared to similar acceptable performing
schools.
Jim Collins’ (2001) Good to GreatTM
corporate model was used to frame
the study. Findings in his study suggested that each of the eleven great
companies defied gravity and converted long-term mediocrity into long-term
superiority. The distinguishing characteristics that caused these companies to
become the leaders in their markets were summarized in three principles that
led to excellence: disciplined people, disciplined thought, and disciplined action.

iv
The research questions that guided this study were:
1. What distinguishing characteristics predict that economically-challenged
minority (ECM) schools will be recognized or exemplary in the state of
Texas?
2. What practices associated with the transition from elementary to middle
schools are predictive of student achievement in high performing
economically-challenged minority (ECM) feeder groups?
Three high achieving ECM feeder pattern groups in Texas that received a
recognized or exemplary rating from the Texas Education Agency for at least
two of the past four school years were compared to two lower performing groups
that were similar in five areas: grade span, campus size, percentage of
disadvantaged and minority population, and location. Data were collected
through face-to-face and/or online interviews and coded into the themes found in
the Good to GreatTM
framework.
The qualitative data that were collected indicate that the education
system has the distinct opportunity to significantly improve the quality of
education for students. Creating transparent schools involve bold moves in the
areas of leadership, teamwork, data utilization, and individualized student
interventions.

v
DEDICATION
To my mother and father, Jack and Lelia Curette, for giving me the
foundation I needed to pursue academic excellence. I am grateful for the value
you placed on education even though you did not have the opportunity of a
formal education.
To my husband, Kevin Patton, for giving me the love, support, and
flexibility I needed on a daily basis in order to pursue my dreams.
To my children, Kanaan and Kenzi, for always being a breath of fresh air
and for making me laugh everyday.
To all children, for being my inspiration to pursue this degree. You are
able to accomplish anything you are passionate about. Never give up.

vi
ACKNOWDLEGEMENTS
First, I want to thank God for leading and protecting me through this
process. Additionally, I want to thank my Mt. Carmel church family for their
constant prayers and spiritual guidance.
I would like to thank my committee members for their dedication and
continued support throughout the construction and completion of this study. I
offer a special thanks to Dr. Douglas Hermond for serving as my chairperson,
but more importantly for being a great statistics teacher. I also want to thank him
and Dr. Camille Gibson for helping me reflect on my work in order to develop a
study that is more coherent and meaningful to a broader audience and for
helping me understand different perspectives of the study. I would like to thank
Dr. Kritsonis for helping my paper “come alive” and to become a more focused
writer. I would also like to thank Dr. Herrington for helping me to understand
protocol.
I would have never finished this chapter in my life without my great aunt,
Ola Smith (T-Nanny) who lovingly cared for my infant daughter and toddler son
while I attended class.
I am grateful to the host of family and friends who were emotionally,
spirtitually, and physically supportive throughout this educational endeavor. First
to my two sisters, Jane and Liz, who read every page and offered critical advice.
To my friends, Ilene, Rhodena, Desiree, Barbara, and Cohort III who shared
their educational experience to assist with editing and refining my words.

vii
Finally, I would like to thank my husband and best friend, Kevin for
praying and supporting me, and for believing in my dream to accomplish this, not
only for me, but for our family.

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………….…...iii
DEDICATION……………………………………………………………….……….v
ACKNOWDLEGEMENTS………………………………....................................vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………..viii
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………….xvii
LIST OF TABLES..………………..………………………………….................xvii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………1
Statement of the Problem………………………………............................5
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………..9
Research Questions……………………………………………………….10
Conceptual Framework……………………………………………………11
Disciplined People………………………………………………….12
Disciplined Thought………………………………………………...12
Disciplined Action…………………………………………………..12
Significance of Study……………..………………………………………..13
Limitations of the Study……………………………………………………13
Assumptions…………………………………………...............................15

ix
Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………15
Organization of Study…………………………………………..…………20
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE………………………….…………..21
Overview……………………………………………………………………21
Makeup of the Nation’s Schools………………………………………. ..23
Disciplined People…………………………………………………………26
Level 5 Leadership ………………………………………………..26
First Who…Then What……………………………………………32
Disciplined Thought ……………………………………………………….40
Confront the Brutal Facts…………………………………………40
Hedgehog Concept………………………………………………..47
Disciplined Action …………………………………………………………53
Culture of Discipline……………………………………………….54
Technology Accelerators………………………………………....66
Synopsis of Literature…………………………………………………….67
Output Results……..………………………………………………………83
Summary …………………………...……………………………………...86
CHAPTER III. METHOD………..………………………………………………..90

x
Overview……………... ………………….………………………………..90
Research Questions………………………………………………………92
Research Design……..…………………………………………………....92
Population and Sample…………………………………………………...94
Criteria for Sample ………………………………….…………….94
Grade Span………………………………………………………..96
Campus Size – Total Student Population………………………97
Location…………………………………………………………….98
Economically Disadvantaged Minority Percentages…………..98
Sampling Procedures………………………………………….....99
Regional Makeup of Schools Qualifying for Study…………..101
Schools in Study………….……………………………………..104
Instrumentation………………………………………………………….105
Validity and Reliability…………………………………………………..106
Research Procedures…………………………………………………..107
Data Collection and Data Analysis.………………………………...…109
Interview………………………………………………………….110
Coding Documents……………………………………………...112

xi
Coding Categories……………………………….……………...113
Disciplined People………………………….…………….113
Coding Category 1……………………………….113
Disciplined Thought……………………………..……….113
Coding Category 3…………………………….....113
Disciplined Action…………………………………...……116
Coding Category 10……………………………...116
Coding Category 11………………………………116

xii
Drawing Conclusions…………….………………………………………117
Displaying the Findings…………………………………………….……118
Trustworthiness……………………………………………………….….118
Summary………………………………………………………………….119
CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS OF DATA………………………………………….121
Introduction……………………………………………………………….121
Organization of Data Analysis………………………………………….122
Characteristics of Respondents………………………………………..122
Data Collected - Research Question 1………………………………..123
Interview Question 1: General Information…………………..124
Interview Questions 2-4: Performance Factors………..……124
Factors Contributing to School Performance ………..126
Elaboration of Top Factors ………….…………………129
Leadership – Exemplary/Recognized Schools….129
Leadership – Acceptable Schools………………..130
Teamwork – Exemplary/Recognized Schools…..131
Teamwork – Acceptable Schools…………………132

xiii
Data-driven Decisions – Exemplary/Recognized
Schools…………………………………………….....133
Data-driven Decisions – Acceptable Schools……134
Student Intervention – Exemplary/Recognized Schools
…………………………………………………….....135
Student Intervention – Acceptable Schools……...136
Factors Influencing Greatness in ECM Schools……….141
Interview Questions 5-7: Change/Transition……………….….141
Exemplary/Recognized Schools……………………..…..141
Acceptable Schools………………………………….……143
Interview Questions 8-13: Decision Making Process…….…..143
Exemplary/Recognized Schools…………………….…..143
Acceptable Schools………………………………….……145
Confidence Score…………………………………….…...146
Interview Question 16: Perception of Differences……….……147
Participant Perceptions of Differences in School Groups
……………………………………………………………....148
Exemplary/Recognized Schools………………………...149
Acceptable Schools………………………………………150

xiv
Data Collected - Research Question 2……………………………..…..151
Interview Question 18: Feeder Schools……………….………151
Exemplary/Recognized Schools………………………...151
Acceptable Schools………………………………………152
Summary…………………………………………………………………..153
CHAPTER V: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS……156
Introduction………………………………………………………………..156
Summary of the Study…………………………………………………...156
Findings (Research Question 1)………………………………………..158
Disciplined People……………………………………………….160
Leadership Capacity…………………………………….161
Leadership Capacity (Transparent Stage)……………162
Things That Principals of High Performing Schools Do
Differently………………………………………………..163
Leadership Capacity (Transitional Stage)……………164
Teamwork………………………………………………..165
Teamwork (Transparent Stage)……………………….165

xv
Teamwork (Transitional Stage)………………………..166
Disciplined Thought……………………………………………..167
Data-Driven Decisions (Transparent Stage)………….168
Data-Driven Decisions (Transitional Stage)………….169
Disciplined Action……………………………………………….170
Individualized Student Intervention (Transparent Stage)
……………………………………………………………170
Individualized Student Intervention (Transitional Stage)
……………………………………………………………172
Summary of Findings………………………………………………... 172
Findings (Research Question 2)………………………………………173
Conclusions……………………………………………………………..174
Summary………………………………………………………………...175
Recommendations……………………………………………………..180
Leadership Training…..………………………………………..180
High Quality Educators………………………………………..181
Deeper Understandings via Data…………………………….182
Transparent Organizations……………………………………183

xvi
Suggestions for Future Research….…………………………………184
REFERENCES……………………………………….…………………………186
APPENDIXES.............................................................................................200
Appendix A: Requirements for Accountability Ratings……………..200
Appendix B: Permission to Use Interview Questions………………201
Appendix C: Interview Questions....................................................202
Appendix D: Interview Question Response Form…………………..204
Appendix E: Coding Matrix…………………………………….………206
Appendix F: Checklist Matrix: Predictors…………………………...208
Appendix G: Letter to Principals…………………..…………………..209
Appendix H: Principal Permission Form……………..………………..211
Appendix I: Informed Consent…………………..……….…………….212
Appendix J: IRB Approval Letter ………………………………….......214
Appendix K : Sample Interview Question Responses ………………215
Appendix L : Interview Responses – Exemplary and Recognized
Schools……………………………………………………………………219
Appendix M : Interview Responses – Acceptable Schools…………229

xvii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Good to GreatTM
Framework……………..………………….21
Figure 2: Factors Influencing Greatness in ECM Schools - Literature
Review and Texas Requirements for High Performance…………….86
Figure 3: Distinguishing Factors……………………………………...125
Figure 4: Factors Influencing Greatness in ECM Schools – Research
Findings………………………………………………………………….141
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Synopsis of Literature……………………………..…………67
Table 2: Regional Makeup of Schools Qualifying for Study…..….101
Table 3: Schools in Study………………………………………..…..104
Table 4: Factors Contributing to School Performance………..…..126
Table 5: Elaboration of Top Factors Contributing to School
Performance……………………………………………….…..……….137
Table 6: Participant Perceptions of Differences in School Groups..
…………………………………………………………………..……….148

1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
How many effective schools would you have to see to be
persuaded of the educability of poor children? If your answer is
more than one, then I submit that you have reasons of your own
for preferring to believe that pupil performance derives from family
background instead of school response to family background. We
can, whenever and wherever we choose, successfully teach all
children whose schooling is of interest to us. We already know
more than we need to do that. Whether or not we do it must finally
depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven't so far.
(Ronald Edmonds, Harvard University as cited in Bell, 2001)
After countless performance accountability program implementations
nationwide, the gap between economically-challenged populations of students
and their more affluent counterparts continues (Thernstrom & Thernstrom,
2003). As a result of this disparity, American schools have been under scrutiny.
Academic scores of minority groups, namely African Americans and Hispanics,
continue to fall well below Caucasian students. In response, Texas and North
Carolina led the process of implementing accountability standards in their
schools. All students improved academically, but the racial gap remains
(Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003, p. 6). Several themes surfaced when

2
educators tried to explain the discrepancy in student achievement scores:
unfunded mandates, teacher quality, parental support, unprepared entrants,
racial isolation, and behavior concerns.
Despite overwhelming obstacles, several schools with a large population
of economically-challenged-minority (ECM) students have achieved academic
excellence. These schools made remarkable transitions to becoming great. This
study sought to find out how some ECM schools made the leap to superiority
while others remained acceptable? There were enough low income schools that
defied the trend of being low performing to indicate that the background of the
student body does not have to determine the student’s achievement results
(Kannapel & Clements, 2005).
Although the goal of creating a high-performing school based on student
outcomes had been part of the educational culture for years, it had not been the
priority. Educational organizations had traditionally focused on management by
objectives and a top-down direction of authority and decision making (Huberman
& Miles, 1998). The scope was narrow, did not look to the future or school
culture (DuFour, 2002), and did not focus on the needs and issues closest to the
point of contact— the students (Elmore, 2002; Odden, 1995).
According to a U. S. Census Bureau Report (2007), the poverty rate in
2006 was 12.3% revealing an increase from 11.7% in 2001. Poverty rate
increases were noted most significantly in Blacks, 22.7% in 2001 to 24.3% in
2006; followed by non-Hispanic Whites, 7.8% to 8.2%, respectively. The poverty

3
rate decreased for Hispanics from 21.8% in 2001 to 20.6% in 2006. For children
under 18 years old, the poverty rates increased from 16.3% in 2001 to 17.4% in
2006 (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor & Smith, 2007).
A recent study showed a direct correlation between a person’s
educational level and his/her socioeconomic status. According to Rouse and
Barrow (2006), for low-income students, greater psychological costs, the cost of
forgone income (continuing in school instead of getting a job), and borrowing
costs all help to explain why these students attain less education than more
privileged children. Essentially, when the poverty rate increases, the level of
education weakens or remains unchanged.
Considering the large percentage of K-12 public school children who are
economically disadvantaged, a series of federal mandates were to equalize
quality education for all. The U. S. government created an accountability system
that was to dispel the myth that economically disadvantaged was synonymous
with academically disadvantaged. The reality of the condition of schools in the
United States had become a hot topic among educators, policy makers,
community, and the business world since the inception of the accountability
system under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001.
Through NCLB, every school was responsible for providing each child, no
matter his or her ethnicity, socio economic status, or disability with a high quality
education (U. S. Department of Education, 2002). What seemed to be a straight
forward task was overwhelmingly problematic in schools considered highly

4
economically-challenged. The concept of low achieving schools was almost
always coupled with high levels of poverty. Traditionally, achievement was
associated with high parental education and high income, while lower socio-
economic status children, often termed “at-risk,” showed lower test scores
(Payne & Biddle, 1999). Gaps in achievement increased as students became
older. According to a recent study, only 18% of high school freshmen graduated
in four years, went on to college, and earned an associate's or bachelor's degree
(Stansbury, 2007). This percent was smaller for minorities.
Although all 12 objectives provided in the Title I portion of NCLB were
essential to exacting educational reform, this study was focused specifically on
numbers one, two, three, and four: (1) ensuring that high-quality academic
assessments are aligned with challenging state academic standards so that
students, teachers, parents, and administrators can measure progress against
common expectations for student academic achievement, (2) meeting the
educational needs of low-achieving children in our nation’s highest poverty
schools, (3) closing the achievement gap between high- and low-performing
children, especially the achievement gaps between minority and non-minority
students, and between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged
peers, and (4) holding schools, local educational agencies, and states
accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students (U. S.
Department of Education, 2002).

5
Public schools in the United States have experienced major demographic
shifts over the past years, many of which have forced the public school
community to become more attentive to the ever changing needs of the new
student population. Fifty years ago, Hispanic children represented no more that
2% of the school population. Today, a third of all American students are African
American or Latino (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003). With the growth of these
minority groups, coupled with NCLB’s requirements that each subgroup show
academic success, school districts had to address the academic deficiencies of
lower performing African American and Hispanic students.
In his Good to Great™ study (2001), Jim Collins sought the answer to
similar questions regularly pondered by educators: “Are there companies that
defy gravity and convert long-term mediocrity or worse into long-term
superiority? And if so, what are the distinguishing characteristics that cause a
company to go from good to great?” (front cover flap). The same question has
been applied to schools that demonstrate successful patterns of student
learning. Evidence depicted that some schools in these high-poverty and high-
minority areas were indeed able to educate poor and minority students to high
levels of student achievement (Ali & Jerald, 2001). These schools were models
of what great schools look like; unfortunately they were rare.
Statement of the Problem
Although Texas’ accountability system has been a model used by other
states, it has not been able to eliminate the gaps between minority students and

6
other more affluent sub-groups (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003). According to
a Texas Education Agency Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS)
Performance Report (2007), scores for third grade students in each sub group
increased from April 2003 to April 2007. The gap between groups decreased
minimally. In 2007, third grade White students scored 12% higher than Hispanic
students, 21% higher than African American students, and 15% higher than
economically disadvantaged students. These gaps were more extreme in the
subject areas of mathematics and science and in the upper grades. For
example, in 2007 on all TAKS test taken by eighth graders, 77% of White
students met standards, whereas 43% of African American, 49% of Hispanic,
and 46% of economically disadvantaged students met standards. The
achievement gap continued to look dismal for eleventh graders. On all TAKS
taken by eleventh graders in 2007, 83% of White students met standards
compared to 52% of African Americans, 57% of Hispanics, and 54% of
economically disadvantaged students (Texas Education Agency, 2007)
Many school districts resisted the notion that standardized test were the
best way to measure student achievement because they were largely excluded
from how school accountability laws were designed (DeBray, 2005). Districts
supply a great amount of data to guide school reform. Researchers believe
educators should be included in national efforts to close gaps between racial
and socioeconomic groups (Sunderman, Kim, and Orfield, 2005). The
movement to use standards, assessments, and accountability was revisited and

7
revived with the enactment and reauthorization of NCLB. This movement
brought about a system to measure student achievement based on rigid
academic standards and curriculum (Sunderman, Kim, & Orfield, 2005).
Although excellence was the standard for every school, between the
years 2004-2007 there were many economically-challenged minority (ECM)
schools that were performing below the mark in Texas and a few that were
considered successful (Texas Education Agency, 2007). The concept of a low-
performing school was nearly always coupled with the phrase economically-
challenged. School systems were experiencing pressures to fill performance
gaps within this population. The No Child Left Behind Act gave students
attending low-performing schools the option to transfer into higher-performing
ones (U. S. Department of Education, 2002).
According to Lubienski and Weitzel (2008), public schools compete with
private schools for their enrollment. Parents and the public continue to look for
successful schools to heighten the chances of their students experiencing
academic success. In the 39th Annual Phi Delta Kappa Poll of the Public’s
Attitudes towards the Public Schools (Rose & Gallup, 2007), 68% of those polled
believed the law was hurting the performance of schools or making no
difference. The poll indicated that respondents “understand what needs to be
done to close the achievement gap and that the methods identified – including
more time, more assistance, and increased time outside the regular school day
– will require a considerable additional investment in schools.” (p. 42)

8
Craig, Cairo, and Butler (2005) suggested a different view of the
“achievement gap.” They found that it was not simply the difference in average
performance between two groups of students, but an academic discrepancy
across the range of performance. They recommended that to narrow the
achievement gap all students must be the focus.
Researchers that examined successful schools found common factors.
Barr and Parrett (2007) suggested eight universal features found in high-
performing, high poverty schools: effective leadership, community partnerships,
high expectations, student focus, aligned curriculum, data-driven decisions,
instructional capacity, and reorganization of time. Waits (2006) stated that “Beat
the Odd” schools consisted of: focused principals, data utilization to support
individual student needs, streamlined vision aligned with things they could
change, and results oriented staff. Good and successful schools were
academically focused and valued time devoted to instruction.
The percentages of students identified as economically disadvantaged in
Texas schools was fairly consistent between the years 2004-2006. In 2006,
Texas’ number of economically disadvantaged students was at an all-time high
of 2,503,755 students. This number represented 55.6% of the total student
population. This showed an increase from the 52.8% in 2004 (Texas Education
Agency, Department of Performance Reporting, 2007).

9
Purpose of the Study
The education system has the opportunity to significantly improve the
accessibility and quality of education for its entire population in order to enrich
their future. One of the goals of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is “to ensure that
all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality
education” (U. S. Department of Education, 2002, p. 15). There seems to be a
strong correlation that exists between high performing economically-challenged
minority schools and the goals of NCLB, as represented by accountability
measures (Sunderman, Kim, & Orfield, 2005). In reality, the majority of ECM
schools depicted a much weaker relationship. The purpose of this study was to
explore the distinguishing factors that exist among successful ECM schools
compared to similar acceptable performing schools.
The typical school district in Texas had one or more schools that were
considered academically unacceptable and/or not meeting adequate yearly
progress (Texas Education Agency, 2006). According to the Texas Education
Agency Accountability State Summary Report (2006), 7.1% of schools in Texas
were Exemplary, 35.5% Recognized, 45.1% Academically Acceptable, 3.6%
Academically Unacceptable, and 8.7% not rated. These levels of the state
accountability ratings were based predominantly on student scores on the Texas
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, attendance, and graduation. It was clearly
evident in this report that as students move up through grade levels, scores tend
to decrease. Of the 267 schools receiving a rating of academically unacceptable

10
in 2006, 25% were elementary schools, 30% were middle or junior high schools,
39% were high schools, and 6% were multi-level.
Between the years of 2004-2007 in the Texas school system, a number of
ECM schools performed at recognized and exemplary levels (Texas Education
Agency, 2007). Faced with accountability standards, several of these schools
had taken bold steps to ensure high levels of student performance. These bold
steps closed gaps in academic success, in educational excellence, and in
proving that a high quality education is accessible to all. This study explored
the distinguishing factors that exist among successful ECM schools compared to
similar acceptable performing schools.
Research Questions
The research questions that were addressed in this study were consistent
with the findings in Jim Collins’ Good-to-Great™ study. They include:
1. What distinguishing characteristics predict that economically-challenged
minority (ECM) schools will be recognized or exemplary in the state of
Texas?
2. What practices associated with the transition from elementary to middle
schools are predictive of student achievement in high performing
economically-challenged minority (ECM) feeder groups?

11
Conceptual Framework: Good to Great™
Jim Collins’ Good to GreatTM
Framework™ was used in this study. The
researcher explored whether best practices found in the United States greatest
companies were replicated in high performing schools with economically-
challenged-minority (ECM) populations.
In Jim Collins’ (2001) study of 11 highly productive companies that were
considered leaders in their respective markets, consistent emerging concepts
surfaced. His study suggested that each of the 11 companies “defied gravity”
and converted long-term mediocrity into long-term superiority. The universal
distinguishing characteristics that caused these companies to become the
leaders in their markets were captured in the Good to Great™ philosophy.
Collins (2001) uncovered three stages that led to excellence: disciplined
people, disciplined thought, and disciplined action. In each of these broad
categories are two major concepts that explain the process. Disciplined people
include 1) Level 5 Leadership and 2) first who then what factors. The disciplined
thought stage involves 3) confronting the brutal facts and the 4) Hedgehog
concept. Included in the disciplined action stage are 5) a culture of discipline
and 6) technology accelerators.
These concepts were seamlessly integrated throughout the entire route to
greatness. Greatness did not happen overnight; instead it was achieved by a

12
series of actions, events, and thoughts. The following paragraphs briefly explain
the six factors within the three stages that were essential to the effectiveness of
the Good to GreatTM
concept.
Disciplined People
Level 5 Leaders were self-effacing, quiet, reserved, and even shy. These
leaders were an ironic blend of personal humility and professional will. The
great companies made sure to hire the right people for the right positions before
setting a vision or creating the strategy of how to reach the companies’ goal
(Collins, 2001).
Disciplined Thought
Each Good to GreatTM
company maintained unwavering faith that they
would prevail in the end, no matter the difficulties, while always confronting the
brutal facts of its current reality. The Hedgehog Concept reflected a deep
understanding of those things that individuals were deeply passionate about,
what they could be the best in the world at, and what drove their economic
engine (Collins, 2001).
Disciplined Action
In the culture of discipline, disciplined people with discipline thought
combined with an ethic of entrepreneurship yielded great performance.
Technology accelerators were found to have never been a primary role in
achieving excellence, but when carefully selected assisted in transforming
companies (Collins, 2001).

13
Significance of the Study
One of the goals of NCLB was “to ensure that all children have a fair,
equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education” (U. S.
Department of Education, 2002, p. 15). The education system has the distinct
opportunity to significantly improve the accessibility and quality of education for
its entire people and to enrich their future.
This study made a significant attempt to highlight the factors that lead to
academic success in economically-challenged minority schools. This study will
be helpful, to educational leaders, teachers, and parents in ECM schools, with
formulating a consistent and strategic school improvement process. By
understanding the needs of the students that come from ECM environments and
the benefits of a quality education, educators and students can be assured of
successful academic results. Moreover, this research will provide
recommendations for immediate actions that can be implemented by schools
and school districts to improve their educational outcome.
Limitations of the Study
The limitations of the study include:
(1) During the selection process, all schools in Texas were sorted primarily by
the number of students that were economically disadvantaged in the 2006-07
school year, then on their state accountability rating, then on the total number of
minority students. There were few high schools that met the combined
requirements needed for this study: recognized or exemplary rating, size,

14
location, and over 50% economically-challenged minority population. Those that
met the criteria had a small student population; therefore, high schools were not
included in this study.
(2) The selected schools were asked voluntarily to take part in the study through
purposive sampling. Limitations included a small sample size and inherent bias
among the participants.
(3) The leadership team in six of the selected schools experienced
administrative turnover over the past three years.
(4) Feeder groups were similar but not identical in size and demographics due
to the varying populations of the high achieving ECM schools.
(5) A small number of years (2004-2007) of data were used for the study. In
order to maintain the internal consistency of the accountability rating, this study
was based on the years after the inception of the Texas Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in 2004. The TAKS was used as the main
indicator for school accountability ratings.
(6) The sample was selected based on the final accountability rating rather than
specific indicators like attendance, drop-out rate, and subgroup test scores.
(7) The final sample of schools was selected from the same educational Region
in Texas. The critical analysis revealed there were a sufficient number of high-
performing feeder groups in Region 4 to provide ample data to answer the
research questions. The other two regions that were included in the selection
process did not have as many feeder groups from which to choose.

15
(8) The application of all of the components of the Good to GreatTM
corporate
model may not be easily and fully replicated in the school system.
(9) The subjectivity of the researcher as the measurement instrument.
Assumptions
For the purpose of this research, these were the assumptions:
(1) The responses given in interviews were provided freely and honestly.
(2) Selected schools for the study had both a large population of minority and
economically disadvantaged students. Although the Academic Excellence
Indicator System categorized students by subgroups (eg. all students, African
American, Hispanic, White, economically disadvantaged, limited English
proficient, and special education), there was no category for non-economically
disadvantaged students. Therefore, the researcher assumed that each school’s
economically disadvantaged category included a combination of ethnic groups.
(3) Although there were differences between specific minority groups of
students, this study grouped African American and Hispanic students into one
group that was referred to as a minority group.
Definition of Terms
Achievement Gap: A significant disparity in educational achievement and
attainment among groups of students as determined by a standardized measure
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2008). The standardized measure
used by the Texas Education Agency is the Texas Assessment of Knowledge
and Skills (TAKS).

16
Charter school: A government funded school that has been granted a
“charter” exempting it from selected state or local rules and regulations. It may
have been newly created, or it may previously have been a public or private
school. It was typically governed by a group or organization (e.g., a group of
educators, a corporation, or a university) under a contract with the state. In
return for funding and autonomy, the school must meet accountability standards.
A school's charter is reviewed (typically every 3 to 5 years) and can be revoked
if guidelines on curriculum and management are not followed or the standards
are not met (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2008).
Comparison schools: Schools that were similar in demographic data:
percentage of economically disadvantaged and minority populations; school
size; and campus location, but different in academic achievement scores. For
example, “matched pairs” was the terminology used in the Arizona Study –
schools that were alike in most ways, yet different in the performance
measurement that was of interest (Waits et al., 2006).
Economically-challenged student: A student who was eligible for the
National School Lunch Program/free/reduced-price school lunch: (a) eligible for
free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch and Child Nutrition
Program; (b) from a family with annual income at or below the federal poverty
line (e.g. annual income for a family of three is less than $22,880); (c) eligible for

17
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families or other public assistance; and (d)
eligible for benefits under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (McMillion and Roska,
2007).
Economically-challenged Minority School (ECM): A school that serves a
significant proportion of low-income and/or minority students (African American
or Hispanic) students (Education Trust, 2007).
Feeder groups: A student's street address determines the schools that
he or she will attend. Every residential address has a School Feeder Pattern,
which assigns students to an elementary, Intermediate, Middle, and High
School. School feeder patterns designate the schools that students follow as
they graduate from one level to the next. The goal is to keep students together
as they feed from elementary school, to middle school, and finally to high school.
Middle school and high school zones are comprised of the elementary
attendance zones that feed into them (Dallas Independent School District,
2008).
Leadership team: This is the staff that direct and manage the operation
of a particular school, including principals, assistant principals, other assistants;
and those who supervise school operations, assign duties to staff members,
supervise and maintain the records of the school, coordinate school instructional
activities with those of the education agency, including department chairpersons.
(National Center for Education Statistics, School and District Glossary, 2008)

18
Minority group: Students belonging to a racial or ethnic group other than
White (non-Hispanic). This study focuses on African American and Hispanic
students. Racial/ethnic group is indicated by either self-identification, as in data
collected by the Census Bureau or by observer identification, as in data
collected by the Office for Civil Rights.
Black/African American: A person having origins in any of the black
racial groups in Africa. Normally excludes persons of Hispanic
origin except for tabulations produced by the Census Bureau.
Hispanic: A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or
South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of
race. (National Center for Educational Statistics, Digest of
Educational Statistics, 2008)
Minority school status: A measure of the level of historically
disadvantaged minority student groups being served in a school. Low minority
schools have less than 5% disadvantaged minority students. Medium minority
schools have 5 to 50% disadvantaged minority students. High minority schools
have over 50% disadvantaged minority students (Shettle et al., 2005).
No Child Left Behind Act: “The reauthorization in 2001 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. The act contains many education reform-related
measures reflecting an emphasis on accountability, state flexibility and local
control, public school choice, and teaching methods.” (Friedman, 2004, p. 127).

19
Region: In order to serve the large number of individual school districts
and charter schools in Texas, Texas Education Agency is divided into 20
regions, each containing an Educational Service Center (ESC). The ESC’s
serve as a liaison between the districts and TEA headquarters, providing support
to the districts such as conducting workshops and technical assistance (Texas
Education Agency, 2008).
Student Academic Achievement: Refers to the performance of all
students in the Accountability Subset of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge
and Skills or State Developed Alternative Assessment II. This is included in
ratings calculation (Texas Education Agency, Accountability Manual, 2006).
State Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA II): This test assesses
special education students in grades 3-10 who are receiving instruction in the
state's curriculum but for whom the TAKS test is not an appropriate measure of
academic progress. Tests are given in the areas of reading/English language
arts, writing, and mathematics, on the same schedule as TAKS (Texas
Education Agency, 2006).
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS): Standardized
assessment given by the Texas Education Agency. All students are tested in
reading and mathematics from grade 3 to11, annually. Social studies and
science are only tested in designated years (Texas Education Agency,
Accountability Manual, 2006).

20
Texas’ school accountability ratings: There are four ratings:
Exemplary: signifies superior performance by students;
Recognized: signifies solid academic performance by students.
Acceptable: signifies partial mastery of academic standards by students.
Unacceptable: signifies weak academic performance by students. A
major component of the accountability rating is student performance on
the TAKS and SDAA II (Texas Education Agency, 2007).
Organization of the Study
The study was organized into five chapters and appendixes. In Chapter I,
the problem was introduced with an explanation of its background and
relevancy, the purpose of the study, research questions, the conceptual
framework, limitations, assumptions, and the definitions of terms. Chapter II was
a review of the relevant literature. It addressed the three major categories in the
Good-to-Great™ Framework as they relate to student achievement in ECM
schools: disciplined people, disciplined thought, and disciplined action. Chapter
III presented the method used in the study, including the research design;
population and sampling procedure; and the instruments used for the interview
process, together with the information on reliability and validity. Chapter IV
focused attention on presenting the findings and analysis of data for each of the
established research questions. Chapter V was devoted to summarizing the
findings, conclusions, implications for practice, theory, policy, and
recommendations for future research.

21
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview
Literature pertinent to highly economically-challenged, high minority
schools and their relationship to academic performance was given significant
documentation. This review followed the format of Jim Collins’ (2001) Good to
Great™ framework in an effort to give school leaders researched data that
worked toward transforming acceptable schools into recognized and exemplary
school. The framework consisted of three major factors that influence
greatness: disciplined people, disciplined thought, and disciplined action. A
combination of these three factors yielded results of superior performance,
distinctive impact on communities, and lasting endurance.
Figure 1. Good to GreatTM
Framework.
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

22
The literature review was organized through a thorough search of several
professional databases. The types of sources used include books, articles,
dissertations, Internet resources, government and organizational reports.
Although Collins’ findings dealt specifically with companies that made the leap to
greatness, this literature review outlined and summarized the literature that
related to the transformation of schools from merely “economically-challenged”
to “exemplary.”
Similar to Collins’ (2001) findings that there was no single defining action,
innovation, or miracle that elevated companies to greatness, Reeves (2007)
found that school improvement in high performing ECM schools “was not the
result of a short burst of energy by a few people who soon burned out, but rather
the result of steady, sustained efforts” (p. 87). Likewise, Waits et al. (2006)
found, there were no easy answers or “magic bullets,” instead the answer came
after personnel selected the most appropriate programs and actions for their
population and persisted with it. “What performance requires is hard, focused,
purposeful work. If diligence, persistence and commitment are lacking, ingenuity
and a good program are wasted. It is focus and hard work that matter most”
(Waits et al., 2006, p. 36).
The following literary syntheses along with the findings in this study
should lead to a greater understanding of critical strategies and best practices

23
for educational leaders, individual educators, schools, and districts toward
reforming weak and economically-challenged minority schools into exemplary
performers.
Makeup of the Nation’s Schools
Before going in depth into the synthesis of literature, it was important to
understand the makeup of the nation’s high-poverty, high-minority schools that
have high student performance. In a national analysis of public schools
conducted in 2000, Jerald (2001) identified a total of 4,577 schools where
students were performing in the top third among all schools in the U. S. at the
same grade level in reading and/or mathematics; and had either a 50% makeup
of low-income students and/or a 50% makeup of African American or Latino
students. He referred to this group of schools as “high flying” (p. 1). “Altogether,
these schools educate approximately 2,070,000 public school students,
including: about 1,280,000 low-income students; about 564,000 African
American students; and about 660,000 Latino students” (p. 1).
Jerald (2001) shared that nearly 50% of high-performing, high poverty
schools were located in rural areas. This statistic was quite different from the
location of high-performing, high-poverty, high minority schools. Fifty-three
percent of the schools that included a high minority population were found in
urban areas. Of the 2,305 high-performing, high-minority schools identified in
the Dispelling the Myth Revisited study by Jerald (2001), 720 were found in

24
Texas, with California coming in second with 236 schools. When poverty was
considered in the equation, Texas had 454 schools with 112 located in
California.
To progress in closing achievement gaps, it was necessary to understand
the severity of the inequity that exists. The Education Trust’s (2001) statistics
claim: For every 100 Asian kindergartners, 94 will graduate from high school, 80
will complete some college, and 49 will obtain at least a bachelor’s degree. Of
every 100 Black kindergartners, 87 will graduate from high school, 54 will
complete some college, and 16 will earn a bachelor’s degree. Of every 100
Latino kindergartners, 62 will graduate from high school, 29 will complete some
college, and six will obtain a bachelor’s degree. Of every 100 White
kindergartners, 91 will graduate from high school, 62 will complete at least some
college, and 30 will obtain at least a bachelor’s degree. It appears there are two
public school systems – one for the poor and minority students and the other for
the rest of the students (Bracey, 2002).
Research done by the National Center for Education Statistics (2001),
reveals that over 50% of all minority high school students exhibit some forms of
deficiencies: Only one percent of Black 17-year-olds can comprehend
information from a specialized text, such as the science section of a daily
newspaper. This compares with just over 8% of White youth of the same age.
In elementary algebra, which is considered a gateway course for college
preparation, only 1% of Black students can successfully solve a problem

25
involving more than one basic step in its solution; 10% of White students can
solve such a problem. Although 70% of White high school students have
mastered computations with fractions, only 3% of Black students have done so.
Some high poverty public schools were referred to as “break-the-mold”
schools. In these schools, students were achieving well on standardized tests.
Even though there were a few in number, their record of success suggests that
radical educational innovations could make a significant difference in the lives of
inner-city students (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003).
The findings of a study conducted in Baltimore and Boston proved the
necessity to provide a high quality of education to all students at all schools.
The results showed initial benefits for moving students from high poverty
neighborhood schools to schools located in low poverty areas. Long-term data
showed that these students did no better academically than those students who
remained in the high poverty schools (Ferryman, Briggs, & Popkin, 2008).
Population changes sweeping the state require creative solutions to
address old educational challenges. The population projections of the state
forecast the greatest growth to occur in urban areas and along the Texas border.
According to a Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Report (2007), by
2008, Texas will become a minority-majority state. “Hispanics will account for
more than 40% of the state’s population. Blacks will represent 11%. Whites will
be 45%. Other groups, including Asian-Americans, will represent 4%” (p. 9).
The trend was for the state’s Hispanic and Black populations to enroll in higher

26
education at rates well below that of the White population. Texas’ overall
educational enrollment and success rates will have to rise more rapidly than
ever to avoid a decline in educational levels and to continue competing in the
global marketplace (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2007).
The makeup of the nation’s schools suggests an urgent need for the
public school system to address educational gaps and learning disparities that
exist between economically-challenged minority students and other student
groups. The remainder of this chapter will categorize the research findings that
address this growing educational concern. The following categories will include
the disciplined people, disciplined thought, and disciplined action that have
proven successful in economically-challenged minority schools.
Disciplined People
Collins (2001) groups together two major concepts under the category of
disciplined people – “Level 5 Leaders” and “First Who then What.” He
describes the leadership in the good-to-great companies as being modest and
reserved. These leaders were individuals who apportioned the reward for their
companies’ greatness to others. Collins found that great companies were sure
to hire the right people for the right positions before setting a vision or creating
the strategy of how to reach the company goal.
Level 5 Leadership
In the area of disciplined people, each of the Good to GreatTM
organizations had “level 5 leadership” and a “first who then what” philosophy.

27
“Level 5 Leadership was described as being self-effacing, quiet, reserved, and
even shy – these leaders were a paradoxical blend of personal humility and
professional will” (Collins, 2001, p. 12-13). Similar to the strong leadership
found in these corporate organizations, the literature reveals the contributions
and necessity of effective leadership in schools.
Williams (2003) clearly makes a connection between having strong and
effective leadership in schools that need to focus on eliminating achievement
gaps. An effective principal was able to design a “strategic framework to
improve curriculum and instruction while fulfilling other responsibilities” (p. 40).
Quite obvious was the long list of duties and responsibilities that any school
leader holds. This list of tasks and obligations increased in depth and urgency
when the leader was accountable for an underachieving school. Certain
characteristics have surfaced to reveal what leaders looked like in these types of
schools. Williams (2003) proposed that a strong leader delegates and
distributes formal decision-making authority to other school personnel.
Williams’ (2005) study of high performing California elementary schools
revealed that principal and district leadership played a significant role in the
achievement of students. In general, the principal role had been redefined to
focus on the effective management of the school improvement plan. The
findings also pointed to the district’s leadership, accountability, and support.

28
District leadership set high expectations for schools including growth targets.
They provided achievement data to schools. Principal and teacher performance
evaluations depended on student data.
“The research evidence consistently demonstrates that the quality of
leadership determines the motivation of teachers and the quality of teaching in
the classroom” (Harris, James, Gunraj, Clarke & Harris, 2006, p. 121). The
school leader was considered to be a major contributing factor in schools that
were improving in challenging circumstances. The OCTET project that began in
2000 involved eight schools with student populations that consisted of 40% or
more eligible for free or reduced lunch, 39% or more with special education
needs, and assessed as having good management. The purpose of the project
was to create “an intensive program of intervention and improvement that could
potentially be replicated in other schools facing ‘extreme challenges’” (Harris, et
al., 2006, p. 19). Throughout the rigorous and effective school improvement
process several leadership themes emerged. The overarching conclusion was
that effective leaders demonstrate an indirect but powerful influence on the
effective and efficient operations of the school and on the achievement of
students (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000).
Other crucial leadership findings in the OCTET study included:
cooperation and alignment of others (inside and outside the school) to the vision
and values – all students could learn and the school had the potential to offset
any challenges or disadvantages that were brought to the table; people-centered

29
leadership that involved respect for all, fairness and equality, caring for the well-
being of the students and staff, integrity, and honesty; distribution of leadership
by involving others in decision-making and giving professional autonomy;
prioritization of building the capacity for improved teaching and learning which
negated the notion of a cultural deficit; continuous professional development of
all including non-teaching staff; communicated and modeled high standards for
teaching and teaching performance; development and maintenance of
relationships with members of the school community (Harris, et. al, 2006).
Similar to the leaders of the good-to-great companies, leaders in the
OCTET schools illuminated a commitment to others through their openness and
honesty. They often engaged in self-reflection and criticism and apportioned
their due responsibility or blame in situations where the expected goal was not
attained. They regularly celebrated the hard work of others daily.
According to Bell (2001), leadership -- at both district and school levels --
seemed to make the difference in HP2 (high performing-high poverty) schools.
“Described by one principal as ‘moral leadership,’ it was a vision that what adults
do in schools plays a major role in shaping children's lives and preparing them
for lifelong success.” (¶15) In successful schools, district and campus leaders
played an instrumental role in setting the tone for shared goals of high standards
and high expectations.
Leadership in the HP2 schools was characterized by: Using flexibility in
hiring staff and setting the budget to implement the instructional program;

30
serving as a force for creating a safe and orderly environment conducive to adult
and student learning; obtaining and making available the many resources
needed to ensure that the school’s stakeholders were successful; articulating
and modeling the vision of what a successful school ought to look like and
communicating that vision to staff, students and parents, and finally, sharing
decision making responsibilities with staff (Bell, 2001).
In the report from the Prichard Committee of Academic Excellence,
Kannapel and Clements (2005) found that the eight high-performing schools in
their study had principals with different leadership styles. Some of the common
elements among the campus leaders included collaborative approaches to
decision-making, absence of big egos, and a focus on student academic
success.
Principal preparedness programs and human resource departments
frequently articulate a list of characteristics of a good principal. Principals need
to be able to manage people and budgets, evaluate and coach teachers,
develop curriculum, be knowledgeable in child psychology and child
development, lead a team, have strong public speaking and writing skills, help
resolve conflicts, communicate with parents, discipline and encourage students,
had integrity and were up to date on school law and regulations (Barr and
Parrett, 2007).
According to the synthesis of research compiled by Barr and Parrett in
2007, topping the list of practices found in successful high-performing, high-

31
poverty schools was the capacity to ensure effective district and school
leadership. In the Louisiana School Effectiveness Study (LSES), Schools Make
a Difference, leadership was referenced as a crucial component of successful
high poverty schools. More specifically, these schools had principals who
engaged parents and communities, built and sustained instructional capacity,
aligned, monitored and managed the curriculum, and understood and held high
expectations for students (Barr and Parrett, 2007).
Michael Fullan (2006) described “Turnaround Leadership” as the
leadership activities that initiated positive and productive change that improved
student performance in previously underperforming schools. These schools had
challenging circumstances, sometimes not meeting adequate yearly progress
(AYP). Ansell (2004) summarized key factors of leadership that affect
improvement in situations of turnaround success. Turnaround leaders seek
advice from experts in the area of school improvement from schools in similar
challenging situations; appoint school leaders that have experience with similar
school improvement; demonstrate strong intrapersonal and interpersonal skills;
were willing to seek external support and team solutions; conduct a needs
assessment and create corrective strategies; consistently monitor, evaluate, and
improve the plan; create and articulate clearly expected behaviors, tasks, and
targets for everyone; and involve external services, if needed.
An ethical approach to schooling was often modeled and shared by
principals, district leaders and faculty. Respect, high expectations, support, hard

32
work and empowerment were key words that apply to both faculty and students.
According to a study conducted by the Center for the Future of Arizona, it was
noted that principals help schools succeed not when they were flashy
superstars, but when they stay focused on the things that truly improve schools
and keep pushing ahead, no matter what the roadblocks (Waits, et al., 2006).
Finally, on the topic of leadership, the Arizona study suggests embedding
a teacher leadership component in the decision making process. In this
process, teachers were involved in analyzing the data, finding good creative
solutions, aligning resources, and creating an on-going process for change.
Barr and Parrett (2007) point out that “effective leadership was the anchor for
each of the other essential elements in the pattern of improvement” (p. 75).
First Who…Then What
According to Collins (2001), organizations that made the leap to
superiority, implemented the “first who…then what” philosophy. This particular
action builds the backbone for the rest of the framework. “They first got the
right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the
right seats – and then they figured out where to drive it.” (p. 13) Hiring the most
effective and qualified people and moving them to the right positions was the
primary goal of great companies. Creating a vision was secondary.
In “Schools that Learn,” Peter Senge (2000) stated that every
organization was shaped by the way its members think and interact. “If you

33
want to improve a school system, before you change the rules, look first to the
ways that people think and interact together” (p. 19).
In a recent Time magazine article, Wallis (2008) reports that “between a
quarter and a third of new teachers quit within their first three years on the job,
and as many as 50% leave poor, urban schools within five years” (p. 31). Many
believe that hiring in an economically-challenged school was like filling a bucket
with a huge hole in the bottom. Wallis (2008) shares that in poor districts the
attrition rates were so high, that schools usually were forced to take anybody just
to have an adult in the classroom.
The good-to-great leaders did not hire for the sake of hiring. Instead,
their method was “Let’s take the time to make rigorous A+ selections right up
front. If we get it right, we’ll do everything we can to try to keep them on board
for a long time.” (Collins, 2001, p. 57) “When in doubt, don’t hire-keep looking.”
(Collins, 2001, p. 63) This practice seems to be very similar to the hiring
strategies of several award winning secondary school principals. Many think
that selecting staff was one of the most important of their responsibilities.
According to Harris’ (2006) research on best practices of successful principals,
“Effective hiring goes beyond selecting teachers: Savvy principals will employ
secretaries, custodians, food service personnel, para-educators, and teacher
aides who embrace the overall mission of the school.” (p. 10) Another principal
suggested, “Hire wisely. Use an interview team, and don’t second-guess your
gut. Keep looking until you are satisfied.” (p.3)

34
With that in mind, what should principals look for in getting teachers “on
and off the bus”? Research suggests that hiring and retaining good teachers
was the single most important factor in boosting achievement, more important
than class size, the dollars spent per student or the quality of textbooks and
materials (Wallis, 2008).
Ingersoll (2004) reported that recruiting more teachers will not solve
staffing shortages if teachers continue to leave the profession in large numbers.
In order to keep the right teachers in the right positions, Ingersoll’s (2004)
findings suggest that schools must turn their attention to retention rather than
recruitment. According to his study on high poverty urban schools, over one fifth
of the faculty leave each year for reasons such as compensation, inadequate
support for school administrators, too many instructional interruptions, student
discipline problems, and limited faculty input into school decision-making. These
areas may serve as starting points for school leaders.
In a Tennessee study, the best teachers were those whose students
learned the most over the course of the year, and the worst teachers were those
whose students learned the least (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003). That
seems to be a good measure to determine whether teachers remain “on the
bus,” but it becomes a bit more difficult to hire new teachers, which seems to be
an ever present challenge in high economically-challenged minority schools.
The Education Trust argues that “disproportionately large numbers of our

35
weakest teachers” have been “systematically assigned” to minority and poor
children (Haycock, 2000, p. 10).
It was easier to accomplish the “getting the right people on the bus-and
wrong people off the bus” strategy when a school was starting from scratch, but
a much harder challenge when schools were already in existence and infected
with a poor climate and culture. Collins’ (2001) suggests that “the best people
don’t need to be managed. Guided, taught, led-yes. But not tightly managed.”
(p. 56)
The OCTET study has served as a good example of making the
development of staff a major step in the school improvement process. The
majority of the funding used in the project was allocated for professional
development of teachers including the opportunity to increase leadership
capacity among the staff.
According to Collins (2001), a key principle in making practical decisions
about people was that “when you know you need to make a change, act.” (p. 63)
He found a sense of obligation to the right people in the attitude of the good-to-
great leaders. “Letting the wrong people hang around is unfair to all the right
people, as they inevitably find themselves compensating for the inadequacies of
the wrong people. Worse, it can drive away the best people.” (p. 56)
Principals and other administrators deal with difficult situations
surrounding inappropriate actions or work habits of their staff. Effective
principals meet the truth head-on, not allowing unethical activities to hinder

36
student and overall school progress. They collect facts, listen, care, discover the
truth, seek input regarding the most effective resolution, document, expect
change, monitor, and express hope. Often, it was necessary to move beyond
hope to reprimand, suspension or dismissal of an employee (Harris, 2006).
Evidenced in many of the studies included in this synthesis was the
power of people who provide an environment of high expectations and a sense
of no-excuses. Poplin and Soto-Hinman (2005) found that students' high
scores on California Standards Test were related to teacher behaviors such as
being demanding, fast paced, using questioning strategies and direction
instruction.
In Wilson and Corbett’s (2001) study of Philadelphia schools,
Teachers’ refusal to accept any excuses for failure separated the
classrooms in which students succeeded from those in which they
did not…The teacher, according to students, acted out of a
determination to promote success…(Teachers) ‘stayed on students’
until they got it (pp. 120-121).
When the teachers at Philadelphia’s Mastery Charter School at
Shoemaker decided that they would take charge of their low performing school
in order to turn it around, two significant changes were implemented: high
expectations and consistency. For example, teachers decided to extend the
school day for those students who failed to do their homework. On the second
day of school, 75% of the 225 seventh and eighth graders remained an hour

37
after school. After a full week of enforcing the homework rule, students began
taking homework seriously (USA Today, 2008).
In many of the turnaround schools, teachers that showed the greatest
gains in student achievement could be described as having the ability to:
engage the whole child, individualize instruction, motivate, provide student
centered lessons, and steadily raise expectations.
Fullan (2006) answers the question of how to get teachers motivated for
change. The answer has to be deep engagement with other colleagues
and with mentors in exploring, refining, and improving their practice as
well as setting up an environment in which this not only can happen but is
encouraged, rewarded, and pressed to happen (p. 57).
Districts often tried other methods of getting teachers to buy-in to the idea
of change – teacher incentives and higher salaries. Higher pay was always a
benefit, but it does not play a significant role in school improvement. Even
though the federal government mandates stricter accountability standards,
“cultures do not change by mandate; they change by the specific displacement
of existing norms, structures, and processes by others; the process of cultural
change depends fundamentally on modeling the new values and behavior that
you expect to displace the existing ones” (Elmore, 2004, p. 11).
Although Collins’ study showed that compensation did not play a major
role in the good-to-great transformations, it does, however, play into the
equation of keeping the right people “on the bus.” For example, KIPP Academy,

38
uses budgetary creativeness to pay its teachers 20% more than teachers in
other schools (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003, p. 47). Hanushek, Kain and
Rivkin (2004) found little or no evidence that the teachers who move to schools
with higher salaries were of systematically higher quality as measured by value
added to student achievement.
Despite what some research says, Texas has started a program to
provide incentive pay for teachers in high-performing, high poverty schools in an
effort to link compensation to student achievement (McNeil, 2006). Although
over 50 schools in Texas have turned down money from the state's incentive-
pay plan for teachers, the majority of schools agreed that it was a benefit and
chose to receive the incentive grants (Tonn, 2006).
Another study showed that “only 3% of the contributions teachers made
to student learning were easily correlated with experience or degrees earned”
(Rosenberg, 1991, p. 50). Leaders become responsible for each child when he
or she selects, develops, and assigns staff based on student needs.
The dismal reality was that schools have an overwhelming and difficult
task to guarantee a staff of disciplined people in an economically-challenged
school. High poverty schools have significantly fewer highly qualified teachers
and lose them at a greater rate over time. According to a research team at Duke
University, high poverty schools not only had teachers who were less
experienced, but they have more teachers teaching out-of their licensure area
(Ladd, Clotfelter, & Vigdor, 2006). More experienced, highly trained teachers

39
often choose to work in more affluent schools. In some schools with a large
population of minority students, many of the math and science teachers do not
meet their state’s minimum requirements for certification (Fenwick, 2001).
In “Good to GreatTM
,” Collins’ (2001) advises organizations to “put your
best people on your biggest opportunities, not your biggest problems” (p. 58). In
many of the high performing economically-challenged schools, successful
mentoring programs have been in place where veteran teachers and/or
principals mentor new teachers. These types of supportive programs have
proven valuable in retaining teachers on economically-challenged campuses.
According to Patton and Kritsonis (2006), beyond mentor support, teachers must
feel as though they are being supported by their principal and other staff on
campus.
This reiterates Collins’ idea of the best people working on the biggest
opportunities. In this case that involves supporting new teachers in an effort to
retain them and to increase their effectiveness. Barr and Parrett (2007) found
the school culture to impact underachieving students, but also impacted the new
teacher and caused her to remain on the campus or leave the school, and
oftentimes the career.
In the case of Mead Valley Elementary, Reeves (2007) found professional
accountability. Ineffective teaching was not tolerated. It was very clear that
effective instructional leadership and professional excellence was rewarded and
recognized, but, if necessary, ineffective teachers were fired.

40
Disciplined Thought
Each Good to GreatTM
company maintained unwavering faith that they
would prevail in the end, no matter the difficulties, while always confronting the
brutal facts of its current reality. The Hedgehog Concept reflects a deep
understanding of those things that individuals were deeply passionate about, at
which they can excel, and what drives their economic engine.
Confront the Brutal Facts
If the purpose of our schools is to prepare drones to keep the
U. S. economy going, then the prevailing curricula and instructional
methods are probably adequate. If, however, we want to help
students become thoughtful, caring citizens who might be creative
enough to figure out how to change the status quo rather than
maintain it, we need to rethink schooling entirely (Wolk, 2007, p.
648).
There was no question that minority children as a group were
performing well below their potential. According to Hilliard (2003), the first
step in increasing the performance of minority students was to take a
second look at where the learning gap truly lies. “It should be thought of
as the gap between the current performance of African students and
levels of excellence. When we choose excellent performance as the goal,
academically and socially, we change the teaching and learning paradigm
in fundamental ways” (Hilliard, Perry, Steele, 2003, p. 138). With this

41
type of thinking high levels of performance were articulated throughout the
school and community. The gap that was unacceptable was the
underperformance of students who have the potential to excel no matter
what the circumstances.
According to a case study conducted by Reeves (2007), “sustained
excellence is possible even in the face of profound demographic challenges” (p.
86). He looked in depth into Mead Valley Elementary School that is located in
Riverside County, California. Although the demographics of the school includes
a population of students with 95% eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and
more than 70% learning to speak the English language, the school maintained a
level of excellent academic performance.
Every good-to-great company believed in the importance of retaining
“absolute faith that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the
difficulties, AND at the same time confront the most brutal facts of your current
reality” (Collins, 2001, p. 88).
Gibson (2002) defined “realness” as a key determinant of the academic
and behavioral success of at-risk students. The juveniles in her study of two
schools in Bronx, New York referred to good teachers as those who were “real.”
Teachers that had the greatest impact were both competent instructionally and
concerned about the best interest of the student. Gibson stated that “real”
teachers shared information about life and upward mobility with students. They
did not engage in silencing, instead they allowed discussion on topics involving

42
people who were different from them. Each of these items builds a culture of
trust and confidence between teachers and students as they embrace the
challenges of their situation.
Schools that consistently showed improvement took an in-depth look at
the data, disaggregated it into understandable chunks of facts and statistics, and
then created a plan of action. According to Collins (2001), “It is impossible to
make good decisions without infusing the entire process with an honest
confrontation of the brutal facts” (p. 88). Many of the schools that sustain
greatness over time understand the clear bottom line. They focus on the needs
of the individual child as they look at achievement per classroom, per teacher,
per student. This approach unmasks poor performance and forces everyone at
the school to take responsibility for student performance (Waits, et al., 2006, p.
6).
Williams (2005) cited the use of assessment data to improve student
achievement and instruction was one of the activities more commonly found at
high-performing schools in California. These schools often used data from
various sources to evaluate teacher’s practices, identify teachers who need
instructional improvement, and to develop strategies to follow up on the progress
of selected students and help them reach their goals.
Some states have created electronic means for gathering data easily.
For example, California’s Just for Kids school improvement system is a

43
user-friendly technology tool that provides performance data on all of its public
schools. More importantly, it provides best practices that work in high-
performing, high-poverty school (Lanich, 2005).
In Oberman’s (2005) study in California’s high-performing, high-poverty
secondary schools (Springboard Schools), findings suggest that the neediest
students were more successful when there was a frequent use of data to adjust
instruction. The study revealed that the school was the best source of data.
Schools that used consistent curricula coupled with frequent diagnostic tests
showed greater improvements. The data obtained on the campus was utilized
immediately to inform instruction.
High performing, high poverty schools identify the utilization of data as a
major building block for their success. Many school districts provide campuses
with user-friendly software that assists with analyzing the data in large or small
chunks. The schools that were moving in the right direction know the intricate
details of the data. In the most effective programs, teachers in any given
department were able to review each other’s student performance. High
performing teachers were able to share strategies that work in improving student
achievement. Highly effective schools do not just rely on beginning and end of
the year data. They provide many opportunities throughout the school year to
update and create new data. In order to get the most benefit out of any of piece

44
of data, it should be clearly understood as student sub-groups, but more
importantly to answer the needs of individual students (Barr & Parrett, 2007).
In the case study conducted by Reeves (2007), he found a culture of
commitment at Mead Valley Elementary School. This culture contributed to a
a continuous high level of educational excellence no matter the reality of its
situation including: the false beliefs about the student demographics, transitions
in teaching staff, and changes in school leadership. Similar to great companies,
the success of Mead Elementary was the result of a number of practices and
committed people including the teaching staff, administrators, custodians, bus
drivers, and cafeteria workers. Each member of the school community
questions, challenges, and encourages all students regularly even the lowest
performing ones. No child was ignored or neglected in order to get to a bottom
line.
In many highly performing, high poverty schools was the sense of
collegiality and shared decision making. A sense of family: community,
collaboration and inclusion. “Staff was trusted with responsibility to help
accomplish the school's academic and nonacademic goals. They made
instructional decisions such as the selection of curriculum materials,
identification of benchmarks and selection of effective interventions to meet
students' needs” (Bell, 2001, ¶ 26).
Included in the eight strategies uncovered by Barr and Parrett (2007)
were: maintaining high expectations; targeting low-performing students and

45
schools, particularly in reading; and aligning, monitoring, and managing the
curriculum for poor and culturally diverse students.
In the realm of disciplined thought, schools that were making the biggest
difference in providing a quality education for economically-challenged minority
students spend a great deal of time on regular assessments that were aligned
directly with curriculum. These schools do not assess just for the sake of
assessment. They do it regularly in order to identify problems early, in groups
and in individual students. Data resulting from assessments normally drive
future instruction and the response to students’ greatest areas of needs.
Principals and teachers were digging deeper and considering data from many
different angles in order to unmask areas of concern. According to Waits et al.
(2006), the use of an integrated assessment process, causes individual
student’s and teacher’s areas of concern to surface. This process allows
immediate attention to be given to these areas.
The Arizona study reiterates the need for ongoing assessments. Instead
of waiting on the summative scores at the end of each year, schools that make a
difference with ECM populations track student performance often. The resulting
data were used by teachers and leaders to constantly adjust instruction to meet
the varying needs of students. The data gathered from regular teacher and
principal assessments of student and teacher achievement were used to drive
improvement rather than to assign blame (Waits et al., 2006).

46
Many charter schools have stepped up to the challenge and have a
grounded belief that no matter the background of the child, all students will
achieve academically. The KIPP academies have made this a reality for inner
city school children for several years. They typically serve students from low-
income and single parent families. In order to close the achievement gap
between the populations served at KIPP and their more advantaged peers,
students receive more instructional time. Students at KIPP participate in an
extended day, half-day Saturday classes, and three weeks during the summer
(Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003).
Although the study was done pre-NCLB, “Lessons from High-Performing
Hispanic Schools”, revealed many of the same principles found in post-NCLB
high-performing minority schools. Each school was successful in creating
classroom and school climates that were indicative of the culture and mission of
the individual school and conducive for learning. In many of the successful
schools, there was a duplication of effective curriculum strategies: emphasis
was placed on meaning and understanding; mathematics skills were embedded
in context, and connections were made between subject areas and between
school and life (Reyes, Scribner & Paredes-Scribner, 1999). Being able to
consistently repeat these productive strategies throughout the curriculum
showed a disciplined thought process.

47
Hedgehog Concept
Jim Collins (2001) revealed that in order for an organization to become
the best at what it does, “there must be a deep understanding of three major
ideas: 1) what you can be the best in the world at, and what you cannot be the
best at; 2) what drives your economic engine; and 3) what you are deeply
passionate about” (p. 95-96). He referred to the three points as the Hedgehog
concept.
Many schools and their staffs were inundated with a host of activities,
paperwork, and trivial daily duties, most of which have absolutely nothing to do
with educating students. When annual accountability scores were reported,
schools grapple for new programs to fix the problems that exists. Peter Senge
(2000) suggested that schools focus on one or two priorities. “They don’t need a
new initiative; they need an approach that consolidates existing initiatives,
eliminates turf battles, and makes it easier for people to work together toward
common ends.” (p. 25) Trimble (2002) found that high performing, high poverty
schools had built-in criteria for making decisions. These procedures were
crucial when numerous issues attempt to cause distractions that could take the
campus off track from their goals.
Fullan (2006) reinforced the belief that “purposeful action is the route to
new breakthroughs” (p. 58). In a nutshell, the emphasis should be on doing
rather than just planning to do. Interestingly enough, Doug Reeves (2006) found
that the size of the planning document was inversely related to the quality and

48
amount of improvement. He sampled 280,000 students and 300 schools on
several indicators related to meeting the requirements in their state or district’s
requirements for a school improvement plan. The results were correlated to
student achievement. “The stunning finding is that the ‘prettiness’ of the plan is
inversely (or should we say perversely?) related to student achievement” (p. 64).
Of the schools that closely followed the requirements, 25.6% of the students
scored proficient or higher on standardized assessments, whereas 46.3 % met
this same standard for schools with low conformity to the requirements set by
the state or district. Again this simply means that the document itself was not as
important as the action taken to effectively sustain school improvement.
Craig et al. (2005) found that in an analysis of audits completed on
successful and low-performing schools, in Kentucky, revealed that there was no
significant difference between the two groups of schools on measuring how well
they followed the recommended process for creating Comprehensive School
Improvement Plans. What was different was that high performing schools
engaged more in collaborative decision making, connected professional
development to achievement, and used their time and resources more
efficiently.
In Bell’s (2001) research on high performing, high poverty schools, he
credited the campus leader with being able to “reduce requirements that might
detract from the school's focus on academic excellence and meeting students'
individual needs.” (¶ 22) Many of the HP2 schools worked behind the scenes to

49
eliminate barriers to high-quality teaching and learning. Bell (2001) found that
successful schools were located in districts that reduced barriers or distractions
from teaching and learning. One example was the elimination of bureaucratic
paperwork requirements that was not necessary.
Continuous efforts on the part of educational leaders to allow teachers
creativity and flexibility in their teaching lend itself well to valuing the findings of
many studies which boils down to exposing children to good teaching. Hilliard
(2003) described characteristics of teachers and classrooms in the Project
SEED program in Dallas, Texas where minority students were performing
exceptionally well in mathematics, and have high levels of self-esteem,
communication, and social skills.
His description of the what goes on in a high-performing minority
classroom included: students who were encouraged to take a position, popular
or not, that assists with building confidence and willingness; students who were
active and engaged; teachers who were interested in discovering the rationale
behind students answers rather than if they were correct; teachers who were
more like conductors than lecturers; teachers who were constantly on the move;
students who were motivated by their exposure to high level content; teachers
who had deep knowledge of their content area; classrooms that have a relaxed
atmosphere; students who were intensely engaged in thinking; and an
environment where the student-teacher relationship was socially supportive and
reinforcing and discipline problems were a rarity.

50
Williams (2003) emphasized the power of a teacher. Along similar lines
as Hilliard’s descriptions, Williams illustrates “turnaround teachers” (p. 118) as
those who ensure that every child knows that they were an important part of the
world. They build caring and non-judgmental relationships with students. The
“turnaround teacher” learns students’ strengths and builds on them. They see
the possibilities and potentials in each child and illuminate the highest
expectations for each.
The Center for the Future of Arizona (2006) found that leaps in
performance in the “beat-the-odds” schools, comprised of mostly poor Latino
children, were the results of clear direction and hard work. Successful schools
focused on improving the things they actually could control that made the
biggest difference in student achievement. Blaming external factors,
demographics, or economic status of students was not a part of the culture of
beat-the-odds schools.
Teachers in high achieving, high poverty classrooms were both confident
in their practices and collaborate with each other and their students. Teachers
who become assessment literate commit to improvement. They have the ability
to question established theory and practice; and they have high expectations for
every student. Underachieving children of poverty will experience an increase
in their achievement scores when given the opportunity to learn in an
environment focused on assessment for learning (Barr & Parrett, 2007).

51
The school improvement process of John Williams Elementary in
Rochester, N. Y. proved that with certain consistent curriculum strategies,
isolation becomes collaboration and excellence is attainable. Those strategies
included more attention to language and mathematics skills, increased teacher
training, use of research-based practices to help struggling students, inclusion of
writing every day, increased classroom conversations, and the use of hands-on
manipulatives for mathematics (Hancock and Lamendola, 2005).
Stiggins et al. (2004) found that clear purposes and clear targets were
essential principles in a sound learning environment that was focused on student
learning supported by assessment. In essence, the learning environment was
shaped by the notion of assessment for learning rather than assessment of
learning.
In 2006, ABT Associates conducted a study in several Title I Schools.
Their population under investigation included teachers in high-performing
classrooms. The group looked specifically at teachers of reading and math
whose test scores were above the national average. Their findings included the
following: low-income students with little structure at home benefit from highly
structured learning environments at school; teachers in high-performing, high-
poverty schools had a strong commitment to their work and respect for their
students; teachers had high expectations for students; teachers were
knowledgeable about curriculum and assessment; and teachers assessed their
students constantly and used assessment as an instructional tool.

52
Collins’ (2001) suggested that in order to become great, an organization
must do more than create a plan or strategy to be the best, it must have a deep
understanding of exactly what areas it can attain superior performance.
Resources must be focused on getting to the “bottom line.” Susan Trimble
(2002) stated that the most effective schools were able to acquire outside funds
in order to reach goals. Resources were based exclusively on data. Campus
decisions on high performing, high poverty schools were based on data. Each
of the successful schools was able to creatively maneuver and manage funds.
One crucial area that many high-performing economically-challenged
minority schools rank high on the list of priorities was creating a multicultural
community. Schools that were successful go beyond the customary celebration
of cultural holidays and food. They assume the role of closing cultural divides.
In these schools the multicultural curriculum was oftentimes seamlessly
integrated into instruction and campus activities. According to Wolk (2007), the
integrated curriculum allows students the opportunity to study cultural
differences along with prejudices in all its forms – at the individual, systemic,
national, and global levels. It explicitly teaches to end intolerance.
Williams (2003) documented a streamlined approach of how turnaround
schools have prioritized making learning meaningful to students. They have
accomplished this by eliminating ineffective activities, programs, and practices
and focusing on proven programs that assist minority students in academic
performance. Small learning communities, school-based mentoring, and career

53
exploration top the list. More specifically, turnaround schools make effective use
of programs such as tech prep, AVID, I-Have-A-Dream, Sponsor a Scholar, and
Upward Bound programs. The purposes of each of these programs were to
promote economically-challenged populations of students to attend and
graduate from college.
Evidenced throughout the data was the fact that for an ECM school to
become effective and successful there must be urgency to streamlining and
prioritizing the steps needed to attain mastery in learning. The findings of
several studies suggest that changing educators’ mindsets to look deep into
what the data define as the greatest areas of strengths and needs was an
important first step in school improvement. Confronting these counterproductive
areas and reducing distractions has allowed some schools to focus on what was
important and in turn propel them to excellence (Barr and Parrett, 2007).
Disciplined Action
Collins (2001) coupled two important features into the category of
disciplined action – a culture of discipline and technology accelerators. In a
culture of discipline, disciplined people with discipline thought combined with an
ethic of entrepreneurship yield great performance. Technology accelerators did
not play a primary role in achieving excellence, but when carefully selected
assisted in transforming companies.

Patton dissertationmarch

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Patton dissertationmarch

Similar to Patton dissertationmarch (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Patton dissertationmarch