The Impact of Smaller Learning Communities on Closing the Achievement Gaps among

Student Population Groups in Texas High Schools

By

Alex Elias Torrez, M.Ed.

William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D., Dissertation Chair

Donald Collins, Ph.D., Committee Member

Carl Gardiner, Ed.D., Committee Member

Douglas Hermond, Ph.D., Committee Member

Solomon Osho, Ph.D., Committee Member

Dissertation Proposal in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the

Doctor of Philosophy Degree

Educational Leadership

Prairie View A&M University

August 2010

Abstract

The Impact of Smaller Learning Communities on Closing the Achievement Gaps Among

Student Population Groups in Texas High Schools

August 2010

Alex Elias Torrez: B.S., Lubbock Christian University

M.Ed., Sul Ross State University

Dissertation Chair: William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D.

Despite a growing body of positive evidence, researchers have not yet determined

whether or not the Smaller Learning Community (SLC) design is a viable vehicle for

transforming schools into the 21st century model necessary to ensure the students of

America can compete in a global economy. The most recent education reform legislation

resulting from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) which mandates academic achievement for

all students regardless of their cultural background, economic status, or race, once again

placing student achievement at the forefront of transformation efforts. Most educators

agreed that closing the gap between student populations requires a unique approach to

guide the conversion of traditional practices to innovative platforms that moves away

from teacher-centered delivery of curriculum to student-centered learning. Although

current practices in education have addressed the achievement and completion gap, these

practices are not addressing it as effectively and efficiently as required to ensure that no

child is left behind. In addition, the reality that the United States and its youth will

require 21st century skills to compete in a global economy is motivating educational

1

leaders to seek new and effective transformation initiatives that will advance their

campuses in meeting or exceeding student performance expectations.

The research questions guiding this study are as follows:

1. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-

themed Smaller Learning Communities (SLCs) and traditional

high schools, as reported on the Academic Excellence

Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas Assessment of Knowledge

and Skills (TAKS) in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for ethnic

subpopulations?

2. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-

themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported on the

AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for

economically disadvantaged subpopulations?

3. Is there a difference in student attendance between career-

themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported in the

AEIS?

4. Is there a difference in student dropout/completion rates

between career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as

reported in the AEIS?

Descriptive statistics will be used to compile demographic information comparing

traditional high schools and non-traditional SLC high schools. For the first two research

questions, a series of Factorial ANOVAs will be calculated to determine if meaningful

differences in the areas of English Language Arts/Reading and Mathematics exist in

2

student achievement between the two different types of high schools. For research

questions three and four, a series of Analysis of Covariant (ANCOVA) will be calculated

to determine if there is a meaningful difference in the areas of attendance and

dropout/completion rates. An analysis of 2009 AEIS data will be conducted to determine

the difference of Smaller Learning Communities and student achievement, economically

disadvantaged, and attendance, dropout/completion rates. The findings are still to be

determined.

3

Table of Contents

Abstract...................................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter I..................................................................................................................................... 6Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................6Background of the Problem..............................................................................................................................9Statement of the Problem...............................................................................................................................10Research Questions........................................................................................................................................... 11Null Hypotheses.................................................................................................................................................. 11Purpose of the Study.........................................................................................................................................12Significance of the Study..................................................................................................................................13Assumptions......................................................................................................................................................... 14Delimitations of the Study..............................................................................................................................14Limitations of the Study...................................................................................................................................15Definitions of Terms..........................................................................................................................................15Organization of the Study...............................................................................................................................19

Chapter II: Review of Literature......................................................................................21To Reform or Transform: A Challenge for American Schools.........................................................21Transformation of Schools.............................................................................................................................22A Historical Perspective and Motivations for Change........................................................................23

1960s: The Sputnik effect..........................................................................................................................231980s: A Nation at Risk..............................................................................................................................241990s: Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)...................................25Goals 2000: Educate America Act..........................................................................................................26No Child Left Behind....................................................................................................................................27A New Administration.................................................................................................................................29Impact of reform efforts.............................................................................................................................30

Smaller Learning Communities....................................................................................................................31Teacher collaboration and smaller learning communities.........................................................33Relationships and smaller learning communities..........................................................................35Academic rigor, relevance, and smaller learning communities................................................38

The Design of Smaller Learning Communities.......................................................................................41Establishing and Developing Successful Smaller Learning Communities.................................45Closing the Achievement Gaps and Smaller Learning Communities...........................................46The Right Steps to Successful Smaller Learning Communities (to be developed)................50Concluding Remarks.........................................................................................................................................50

Chapter III: Methodology................................................................................................... 52Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................52Research Questions........................................................................................................................................... 53Null Hypotheses.................................................................................................................................................. 54Research Method................................................................................................................................................54Research Design..................................................................................................................................................55Population of the Study....................................................................................................................................58Instrumentation..................................................................................................................................................59Procedures.............................................................................................................................................................60Data Analysis........................................................................................................................................................ 61

4

References............................................................................................................................... 64

Appendix A: List of 21st century skills...........................................................................72Core Subjects and 21st Century Themes..................................................................................................72Learning and Innovation Skills.....................................................................................................................72Information, Media and Technology Skills..............................................................................................72Life and Career Skills.........................................................................................................................................73

Appendix B: Leading Organizations Establishing “Standards of Practice” for Career Academies................................................................................................................. 74

Appendix C: National High School Graduation Rates, Class of 2005...................75

5

Chapter I

Introduction

Researchers continue to state the claim that high school students lack adequate

academic preparation and may even be in a decline in preparedness for 21st century

success. Receiving major attention is the widening gap that researchers have determined

exists between the readiness of sub-populations and the growing number of students that

do not graduate. It has been estimated that between 53% and 55% of minority students

nationwide are not completing high school in the four-year format (Bill and Melinda

Gates Foundation, 2003, p. 2). According to Wick (2007), “The world is changing faster

and in more ways than any of us could have imagined even a few years ago. This is the

world our children inherit, yet our public schools have been among the slowest

institutions to change” (p. 1). Most educators would agree that Frederick Taylor’s 19th

century factory model of “one size fits all” is no longer effective in terms of addressing

the student equity gap and the required skills that 21st century graduates need to compete

within a global work force. As Feldman, Lopez, and Simon (2006) point out:

The large comprehensive high school was conceived at the beginning of the twentieth century to fit an industrial society. These schools were originally expected to be sorting mechanisms for an economy that had a place for students who did not graduate. They were not intended to educate all students to the level of college readiness and the system has always done a grave disservice to some children and communities (p. 7).

With student equity concerns, industry, and the global economy, educators are

continuously challenged to find new and innovative ways to change the schoolhouse

DNA. Most educators would agree that this process must start by understanding the new

6

millennium student and the factors that continue to contribute to a lack of success for

many students.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation offer five reasons why large comprehensive

high schools have failed to meet the needs of students:

1. Incoherence: High schools offer a dizzying array of disconnected courses with

little guidance;

2. Isolation: Many teachers see more than 150 students daily. Both teachers and

students have little adult contact;

3. Anonymity: High schools have doubled in size in the last generation, resulting in

overcrowding and reduced student and teacher interaction;

4. Low expectations: Only one of the four to six tracks in most high schools

prepares students for college; and

5. Inertia: High Schools are slow to change due to large and isolated staffs,

restrictive state and district policies and employment agreements, over precise

higher education entrance requirements, and an array of interest groups dictating

much of school policy (Feldman, Lopez, & Simon, 2006, p. 7).

According to these factors outlined by the Gates Foundation, as well as similar

ones from other researchers such as the U.S Department of Education raise the question

of what structure or vehicle will provide the best components needed for change. One

proposed solution is a Smaller Learning Community (SLC) model. An SLC is designed

to provide three major avenues for learning: 1) student groups divided into smaller teams

intended to improve relationships and connect students to both teachers and their school

2) development of teacher teams that provide opportunities for teachers to collaborate on

7

student success and individual needs; and 3) instruction that offers a more relevant and

integrated delivery of curriculum. In addition, Oxley (2006) stated:

The central feature of a high-functioning SLC (Small Learning Community) is an interdisciplinary team (or teams) of teachers who work closely together with a group of students they share in common for instruction. Traditional schools organize teachers around subject areas or departments. SLCs organize teachers across subject areas to create a more student-centered form of schooling (p. 22).

The SLC helps students make horizontal connections among disciplines instead of having

an insulated vertical instructional experience.

The teacher’s role as a leader in this transformation process is critical to the

success of SLCs. As the primary source for student learning and coordinators of the

methodology by which the curriculum is delivered, the teacher serves as an integral part

of the transformation. If the efforts of SLCs are to succeed, dedicated teachers must be

trained and supported in contemporary interdisciplinary teaching strategies and the

required cross-curricula collaboration.

In addition to committed teachers, academic leaders must recognize and embrace

the need for educational transformation. Schools are bound by state and federal

accountability mandates to improve student achievement for all. Academic leaders who

are committed to transforming schools into educational institutions that support rigor,

relevance, and relationships will find that the smaller learning community model provides

many of the requirements that improve student achievement and close the sub-population

gap, thus satisfying political mandates and enhancing 21st century skills required to

succeed in a global economy. This study is designed to determine if the smaller learning

community model indeed holds such promise.

8

Background of the Problem

There are several reports and studies released over the past four decades such as

the “Nation at Risk” that has continued to raise concern regarding the public school

system in America. In addition, the growing gap between populations and the increasing

number of economically disadvantaged students must be part of the equation. High

schools in general have received the majority of negative attention, resulting in many

attempts to address concerns over the past 40 years; as Oxley (2006) explained, in the

1960s, high school reformers first began organizing schools-within-schools, focusing on

career/vocational pathways (p. 1). In the 1970s, reform efforts progressed toward

developing magnet programs, career academies, and mini-schools before introducing

charter schools in the 1980s. All of these attempts to reorganize schools have led to the

evolution of the present-day SLC model (Oxley, 2006).

To maintain the country’s competitive status in a global economy, American

educators must strive to meet the challenge of graduating versatile, adaptable, and highly

skilled students. This challenge encompasses finding the right design to transform

education beyond the traditional classroom that most Americans have experienced. The

challenge also comes with many educators venturing into uncharted territory and having

conversations about the canyons that exist between traditional instruction and meaningful

transformation. Writing about the complexity of transformation, Schlechty (2009)

states:

Make no mistake, transformation is not as simple as installing a new program, a new process or new procedure. Unlike efforts to improve the operation of existing systems, transformation requires more than changes in what people do; it requires changes in what they think and what they feel about what they do. It requires changes in the images people have of the organizations in which they

9

work and live, as well as changes in the way they envision the roles they play in those organizations (p. 210).

As educators continue to have discussions about change, transformation must become

central to these conversations. Change is not superficial reform. It comes from the inside

out. Education cannot be transformed with the same reform efforts used in the past.

Statement of the Problem

Despite a growing body of positive evidence, researchers have not yet determined

whether or not the SLC model is an effective vehicle for transforming schools into a

more effective model for the 21st century. However, academic leaders continue to search

for a design to ensure that American students can compete in a global economy while

successfully closing the achievement gap among sub-populations. The most recent

educational reform legislation resulting from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandates

achievement for all students regardless of their background, economic status or race, once

again placing student success at the forefront of transformation efforts. In addition, the

reality that the United States and its youth will require 21st century skills to compete in a

global economy is motivating educational leaders to seek new and effective transform

initiatives that will allow high school campuses to meet or exceed student performance

expectations.

Selecting the appropriate method for this conversion process will be an important

decision required for the success of educational transformation efforts. Although

research on school improvement is now in its fourth decade, systematic research on what

the change should actually be has been a major source of deliberation as school systems

continue a traditional 19th century model of instructional delivery. Countless

10

improvement initiatives have been deployed that directly influence student learning and

the quality of teaching, but few have had the long-term impact required for true

transformation of the educational system. Although the SLC design, especially one that

involves career themes, has many elements that may meet present educational

transformation efforts, limited research has emerged that compares this model to the

traditional high school and determines if achievement gaps between student populations

are closing.

Research Questions

The following questions will guide the study:

1. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-

themed Smaller Learning Communities (SLCs) and traditional

high schools, as reported on the Academic Excellence

Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas Assessment of Knowledge

and Skills (TAKS) in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for ethnic

subpopulations?

2. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-

themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported on the

AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for

economically disadvantaged subpopulations?

3. Is there a difference in student attendance between career-

themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported in the

AEIS?

11

4. Is there a difference in student dropout/completion rates

between career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as

reported in the AEIS?

Null Hypotheses

H01 - There is no statistically significant difference in student

achievement between career-themed SLCs and traditional high

schools, as reported on the AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA and

Mathematics for ethnic subpopulations?

H02 - There is no statistically significant difference in student

achievement between career-themed SLCs and traditional high

schools, as reported on the AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA and

Mathematics for economically disadvantaged subpopulation?

H03 - There is no statistically significant difference in student attendance

between career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported

in the AEIS?

H04 - There is no statistically significant difference in student

dropout/completion between career-themed SLCs and traditional high

schools, as reported in the AEIS?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this conceptual quantitative study is to determine if a difference

exists between the implementation of the career-themed smaller SLC design and an

12

increase in high school students’ academic achievement, attendance, and high school

completion/dropout rate between populations as reported in the Texas Education Agency

AEIS report. The study will compare 25 career-themed SLCs and 25 demographically

similar traditional non-SLC schools. The study will focus on three areas: first, to

determine whether or not there are statistically significant differences in the achievement

gaps among ethnic sub-population TAKS scores in English language arts and

Mathematics when comparing career-themed Smaller Learning Communities with

traditional programs; second, to identify whether or not there is a statistically significant

difference in the achievement gap between low socioeconomic status (SES) students and

non-low socio-economic status students, based on English language arts and Mathematics

TAKS scores, when comparing career-themed SLCs and traditional programs; and third,

to identify whether or not a statistically significant difference in attendance and

completion/dropout rates exists when comparing career-themed SLC students'

attendance compared to those of traditional high schools. The data

from each of these 3 areas will be drawn from data reported in the

AEIS for sub-populations.

Significance of the Study

Transforming schools into a 21st century model will be required to ensure that

American students can compete in a global economy. In order to meet changing

expectations for post secondary education, as well as close the achievement gap in

student learning and instruction, educational leaders across the nation have been

implementing the SLC design. Results gathered from this study will provide information

13

to educational leaders about student achievement as it relates to the effectiveness of

SLCs.

Another consideration is that the sustainability of educational change

created by the SLC movement remains vulnerable to today's school

district and campus financial constraints and post-grant commitments

that SLCs require. Budget cuts and the financial deficits in most school

districts have resulted in school districts selecting to cut SLCs, leaving

the smaller school design and its components in the archives as just

another failed initiative. This study is an attempt to examine the

difference that Career Academy SLCs have on three areas: academics,

attendance, and completion/dropout rates. The methodological

protocol and the research-based literature developed by this study will

provide school leaders with data to be able to ascertain whether or not SLCs impact

the gaps in student achievement, attendance, and high school completion/dropout.

Educational reform efforts have been attempted for centuries and continue into the 21st

century. It is important to understand how the design change with teachers, students, and

parents may impact the future of schools.

In addition, as schools are transformed and the teacher role changes within a

smaller learning organization, teacher preparatory programs and professional

development may be influenced. Although not the main focus of the study, new ideas

must have the support of all leaders in the district, especially the campus administration,

to successfully achieve the change required to improve student academic success,

attendance, and high school completion. According to Fullan (2002), ”We now must

14

raise our sights and focus on principals as leaders in a culture of change and the

associated conditions that will make this possible on a large scale, sustainable basis

including the transformation of the teaching profession” (p. 14). Most educators would

agree that without strong central administrative and principal support, any sustainable

educational change, much less sustainable transformation, will be more difficult, if not

impossible, to achieve.

Assumptions

1. The schools used as the SLC campuses are organized in the career academy

model.

2. The high schools in this study are similar in demographics.

Delimitations of the Study

The delimitations of this study are:

1. This was a purposeful study. Only schools that were functioning as SLC

career academies were studied.

2. The study focused on public high schools that had implemented career-

themed SLCs.

3. The traditional high school structure was compared to the non-traditional high

school SLC career-themed design for this study.

4. The findings of this study are limited to the state of Texas.

15

Limitations of the Study

The limitations of this study are:

1. It is possible that schools implemented different components of the career-

themed academy SLC design, which were not identifiable in this

investigation.

2. It is possible that schools are on different implementation timelines.

3. There are a limited number of SLC schools in Texas.

Definitions of Terms

For the purposes of this study, the key terms to be used are defined as follows:

Academic Rigor : According to Daggett (2008), academic rigor “refers to

learning in which students demonstrate a thorough in-depth mastery of

challenging tasks to develop cognitive skills through reflective thought,

analysis, problem solving, evaluation, or creativity” ( p. 4).

Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) Report : The AEIS “pulls

together a wide range of information on the performance of students in each

school and district in Texas every year. This information is put into the

annual AEIS reports, which are available each year in the fall” (Texas

Education Agency, 2009).

Achievement Gap : “The achievement gaps exist when groups of students

with relatively equal ability do not achieve in school at the same levels; in

fact, one group often far exceeds the achievement levels of others. Gaps in

achievement exist across the nation and can be found based upon

16

race/ethnicity, income levels, language background, disability status and

gender” (National Education Association, 2006).

Annual Dropouts : “The annual dropout rate is the percentage of students in a

specified grade range who drop out of school during one school year. This

data set includes both the number and rate of annual dropouts for all Grade 7-

12 students and various student groups” (Texas Education Agency, 2009).

Career Academies : A career academy is a school-within-a-school

that focuses on a broad occupational area, such as

engineering, natural resources, or the hospitality industry.

Teachers and students are self-selected. The career academy

curriculum directs students’ attention to the application of

school-based learning by including in its curriculum work-

based learning experiences with businesses in the community

(U.S. Department of Education, (2006).

Educational Transformation : Schlechty (2009) explains it as:

“Transformation by necessity includes altering the beliefs, values, and the

culture in which programs are embedded, as well as changing the current

system of rules, roles, and relationships – social structure – so that the

innovation needed will be supported” (p. 3).

High school completion : “The longitudinal high school completion rate is the

percentage of students in a class of beginning ninth graders who complete

their high school education by their anticipated graduation date. Numbers and

longitudinal rates are provided for all students and various student groups,

17

including graduates, continuers, dropouts, and GED recipients” (Texas

Education Agency, 2009).

Interdisciplinary Lesson : Occurs when teachers from two or more curricular

areas (ideally sharing a common set of students) work together to plan and

implement an instructional unit by identifying and applying authentic

connections that transcend their individual disciplines (TexEd Consulting,

2009).

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) : The NCLB Act is an accountability

system covering all public schools and students based on

challenging State standards in reading and Mathematics,

annual testing for all students in grades 3 to 8, and annual

statewide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of

students reach proficiency within 12 years. Assessment

results and state progress objectives must disaggregated by

poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English

proficiency, to ensure that no group is left behind. School

districts and schools that fail to make Adequate Yearly

Progress (AYP) toward statewide proficiency goals will, over

time, be subject to improvement, corrective action, and

restructuring measures aimed at getting them back on course

to meet state standards. Schools that meet or exceed AYP

objectives or close achievement gaps will be eligible for State

18

Academic Achievement Awards (Texas Education Agency,

2009).

Professional development : Give teachers, principals, and administrators the

knowledge and skills to provide students with the opportunity to meet

challenging State academic content standards and student academic

achievement standards (United States Department of Education, 2004).

Smaller Learning Community (SLC) : Any separated and defined school-

within-a-school or individualized learning unit within a larger school setting.

Students and teachers are scheduled together and frequently have a common

area of school in which to hold most or all of their classes. SLC may or may

not have a career theme or a set sequence of courses for students. The most

comprehensive SLCs include: an administrative structure with a principal,

lead teacher, and guidance counselor; a heterogeneous team of students and

teachers (ranging in size from 350-500, with sub teams of 150); a home base

or specific section of the school; an academic focus or career theme; extra

help for students; data to drive decisions; time used effectively, including

common planning time for teachers; coaching support and focused

professional development for staff; inculcated traditions, practices, and

beliefs; freshman orientation and support; service learning and work-based

learning opportunities; opportunities for student voice; advisory support;

postsecondary planning; and a senior project (Sammon, 2008, p. 13).

19

Relevant Learning : According to Daggett (2008), relevant learning “refers to

learning in which students apply core knowledge, concepts, or skills to solve

real-world problems” (p. 5).

Student Engagement : The extent to which students are motivated and

committed to learning, have a sense of belonging and accomplishment, and

maintain relationships with adults, peers, and parents that support learning

(Daggett, 2009).

Sustainable Educational Change : Sustainability in educational change

consists of five key and interrelated characteristics: (1) improvement that

fosters learning, not merely change that alters schooling; (2) improvement that

endures over time; (3) improvement that can be supported by available or

obtainable resources; (4) improvement that does not negatively affect the

surrounding environment of other schools; and (5) Improvement that

promotes ecological diversity and capacity throughout the educational and

community environment (Hargreaves & Fink, 2003).

Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills : “As mandated by the 76th Texas

Legislature in 1999, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills

(TAKS™) was administered beginning in the 2002-2003 school year. The

TAKS™ measures the statewide curriculum in reading at Grades 3 to 9; in

writing at Grades 4 and 7; in English Language Arts at Grades 10 and 11; in

Mathematics at Grades 3 to 11; in science at Grades 5, 10, and 11; and social

studies at Grades 8, 10, and 11. The Spanish TAKS™ is administered at

20

Grades 3 through 6. Satisfactory performance on the TAKS™ at Grade 11 is

a prerequisite to a high school diploma” (Texas Education Agency, 2009).

Transformation : The transformation of a school “requires several significant

shifts – from unconnected thinking to systems thinking, from an environment

of isolation to one of collegiality, from perceived reality to information-driven

reality, and from individual autonomy to collective autonomy and collective

accountability” (Zmuda, Kuklis, & Kline, 2004).

Twenty-first century skills : Competencies needed to succeed in the current

economy and prepare for the changing world as a wage earner and citizen (see

Appendix A for complete details).

Organization of the Study

This study will consist of five chapters. Chapter 1 contains the introduction,

background of the problem, statement of the problem, research questions, purpose of the

study, significance of this study, assumptions, delimitations and limitations, and

definition of terms. Chapter 2 is a comprehensive review of the literature on the

historical perspective of reform efforts, learning organizations, Smaller Learning

Communities, and the role of the teacher, principal, and district in Smaller Learning

Communities. Chapter 3 describes the study methodology, including the research

questions, hypotheses, design strategy, underlying assumptions and rationale, sampling

design, measures applied for data collection and analysis procedures, and limitations of

the methodology. The expected findings will be briefly discussed. Chapter 4 will offer a

comprehensive review of the data analysis and findings before providing a summary of

21

all findings and a conclusion. Chapter 5 will include a comprehensive discussion of the

implications of the findings and recommendations for future studies.

22

Chapter II: Review of Literature

To Reform or Transform: A Challenge for American Schools

The rapidly changing world has accelerated the discussions of educators, industry

leaders, and politicians regarding the quality of the nation’s schools and whether

graduates are prepared to enter post-secondary education, as well as the work force. The

expectations of America’s graduates have been changing, yet the educational system has

remained largely stagnant since the early 1900s. Grubb (2007) lamented, “The high

school has been extraordinarily averse to change: At least 70 years of criticism have

failed to dent this 19th century institution” (p. 33). Americans continue to be comfortable

with the present platform for delivering instruction; this has resulted in a lack of success

for educational innovations and limited political pressure to motivate systemic change.

Contributing to the lack of political attention is the reality that the populations with most

to benefit are the farthest removed from the circle of influence. Lofstrom (2007) states,

“The majority of Hispanic and African-American students attend schools located in

central cities. Students in these two minority groups also attend schools in district with

lower expenditure per pupil” (p. 8).

Nevertheless, transforming schools continues to be a concern that has produced

federal and state mandates, as well as recommendations, with a focus on closing the sub-

population achievement gap and preparing students for post-secondary and 21st century

opportunities. Current U.S. high school students will experience multiple career changes

and will likely be employed in occupations that do not exist at this time. In a 2006 report,

Answering the Challenge of a Changing World Strengthening Education for the 21st

23

Century, the U.S. Department of Education wrote, “Today, America faces not a streaking

satellite, but a rapidly changing global workforce. The spread of freedom is spurring

technological innovation and global competition at a pace never before seen” (p. 4).

Given the changes in the global economy and the requirements of the 21st century

student, the U.S. educational system cannot continue to provide the same type of

instruction that it has implemented in the past. As Wolfe (2007) explained, "In virtually

any occupation, learning is part of the job. Gone are the days when employees learned to

master a single task and then spent the next 40 years repeating that task” (p. 40).

Consequently, educators must remain flexible and innovative to keep up with the needs

of the new millennium student and close the achievement gaps among student sub-

populations.

Transformation of Schools

As school districts work on the concept of change, they must go beyond the

standard thinking of reforming processes and procedures or introducing the latest

teaching fad. These methods of attempting change have proven to be mostly ineffective

and short-lived. The buffet-style approach has also contributed to a passive resistance in

educators, creating the belief that this initiative too shall pass. Academic leaders must

think about changing the way schooling is delivered and structured if true transformation

is to be accomplished. Schlechty (2009) stated, “Transformation by necessity includes

altering the beliefs, values, and meanings – the culture – in which programs are

embedded, as well as changing the current system of rules, roles, and relationships –

social structure – so that the innovations needed will be supported” (p. 3). In order to gain

the support required to move the process forward, educators must understand several

24

concepts. First, “the 21st century learner is fundamentally different than those of the past.

The instructional strategies and practices used will vary based upon how these students

learn best” (Daggett, 2008, p. 1). Second, “schools must be transformed from platforms

for instruction to platforms for learning, from bureaucracies bent on control to learning

organizations aimed at encouraging disciplined inquiry and creativity” (Schlechty, 2009,

p. 5). Finally, educators must learn from past lessons that resulted in failure or short-lived

successes. A commitment to long-term financial support, professional development, and

the support of a belief system that matches the changing student learning styles and needs

is crucial to any conversation about real transformation.

A Historical Perspective and Motivations for Change

1960s: The Sputnik effect.

The history of public education has been overshadowed by criticisms of not

measuring up to world standards. According to Schramm, Williams, Krasnow,

Grossman, and Walters (2008), “The systems and infrastructure [of education] have not

changed in line with what is now needed to ready U.S. workers to compete in this new

global economy” (p. 6). The criticism of Americans schools in the second half of the

century was again ignited by the launching of the Russian space capsule, Sputnik, in

1957. Surprised and stunned by this event, the American public became more observant

of critics who claimed that U.S. schools lacked the rigor to compete in the race for space

and national security.

The resulting criticisms of U.S. education prompted President Johnson to

authorize the Commissioner of Education to conduct a nationwide survey of U.S. Schools

25

as part of his “war on poverty.” “The resulting report, Equality in Educational

Opportunity, was published in July 1966” (Marzano, 2003, p. 2). Although the report was

developed by seven authors, it was titled “The Coleman Report” (1966), named after its

senior author. The results of the study only intensified findings such as the following:

Taking all these results together, one implication stands above all: that schools bring little to bear on a child’s achievement that is independent of his background and general social context; and that this very lack of an independent effect means that the inequalities imposed on children by their home, neighborhood, and peer environment are carried along to become the inequities with which they confront life at the end of school (p. 325).

The study concluded that there was a strong correlation between student academic

achievement and family background. As a result of The Coleman Report, several

researchers conducted studies to support and dispel the findings in the report.

1980s: A Nation at Risk.

In 1983, with much fanfare, the White House released A Nation at Risk: The

Imperative for Educational Reform to the American public. The report that was prepared

by a prestigious committee steered by Secretary of Education Terrell Bell was fueled by

the fact that President Ronald Reagan endorsed it in one of his speeches. The report

states that both the American society and educational institutions had lost sight of the

basic purposes of schooling and that our educational institutions were accepting mediocre

performance from our students (The National Commission on Excellence in Education,

1983). Findings in the report were centered on curriculum, expectations, time, and

teaching. In addition to the “Nation at Risk” report, Schlechty (2009) states that, “In the

1980s, the apparent ascendance of Japanese over American manufacturers was attributed

to the rising tide of mediocrity that was said to be besetting America’s schools” (p. 4).

26

Five recommendations were outlined as a result of A Nation at Risk. The first was

a minimum graduation curriculum that included the following: “(a) 4 years of English;

(b) 3 years of Mathematics; (c) 3 years of science; (d) 3 years of social studies; and (e)

one-half year of computer science. For the college-bound, two years of foreign language

in high school are strongly recommended in addition to those taken earlier” (National

Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). The second recommendation in the

report suggested raising expectations of students by setting higher graduation

requirements for admission into colleges and universities. The third recommendation

was to make more effective use of a school day as well as lengthen the school day and

school year. The fourth was a seven-part recommendation made in an effort to improve

teaching and make it a more rewarding and respected profession. The fifth and final

recommendation of the commission was the recommendation that citizens elect officials

who would be responsible for leading the reform efforts by creating stability and

providing the fiscal support to reform American schools.

Most of the recommendations were not out of the realm of what education could

consider; however, the following statement was insightful and aligned with the 21st

century student achievement conversations that have been difficult to fully implement:

“We must emphasize that the variety of student aspirations, abilities, and preparation

requires that appropriate content be available to satisfy diverse needs. Attention must be

directed to both the nature of the content available and to the needs of particular learners”

(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983).

27

1990s: Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).

In the 1990s, a study titled Third International Mathematics and Science Study

(TIMSS) again raised questions regarding the proficiency of U.S. schools. “The Third

International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) is the largest and most ambitious

international study of student achievement ever conducted. In 1994–1995, it was

conducted at five grade levels in more than 40 countries (the third, fourth, seventh, and

eighth grades, and the final year of secondary school” (TIMISS 1995 Home Page). The

first report indicated that 4th grade students performed average when compared to

students from other countries, but found a notable drop in the 8th grade students; future

reports found that 12th grade American students preformed much lower than their

counterparts in other countries. During a 1998 press conference on 12th grade TIMSS

results, Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley observed the following, “These results

are entirely unacceptable, and absolutely confirm our need to raise our standards of

achievement, testing, and teaching, especially in our middle and high schools --and to get

more serious about taking math and science courses” (Riley, 1998). Once again, the call

to action was made as Secretary Riley outlined five areas needing to be addressed in an

effort to increase student achievement. The steps included 1) building a foundation in

middle school; 2) raising state assessment standards; 3) recommending four years of math

and science; 4) ensuring more teachers were prepared to teach math and science; and 5)

concluding much like the Nation at Risk report, with a call to arms: “as a nation, we must

make sure that all students – not just the elite or the brightest – understand the importance

of math and science in their lives” (Riley, 1998).

28

Goals 2000: Educate America Act.

The reform efforts that resulted from A Nation at Risk raised awareness, but failed

to accelerate student achievement to the desired level. Consequently, the Goals 2000:

Educate America Act (P.L. 103-227) was signed into law on March 31, 1994. The Act

established eight guiding principles aimed at improving student achievement: first, was

the expectation that all children would start school ready to learn; second, an increase in

the high school graduation rate to at least 90 percent; third, an expectation that students in

grades 4, 8, and 12 would demonstrate competency in the core subjects and that schools

should ensure students use their minds, helping them be more productive employees and

citizens; fourth, set the expectation that the U.S. would lead the world in math and

science achievement; fifth, adult literacy for every American; sixth, drug, weapon, and

violence-free schools; seventh, increase teacher professional development; and finally,

increase parental involvement. Every state and their educational leaders were expected to

reform their schools to achieve all eight national goals by 2000.

No Child Left Behind.

President George W. Bush announced what he called “the cornerstone” of his

administration, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Rajala (2003) emphasizes that, as

a result of NCLB, the role of the federal government has changed by asking schools to

describe success in terms of what each student accomplishes. It is the latest reform effort

in a series of initiatives featuring high-stakes accountability, student achievement,

standards, and parental choice.

29

NCLB has created a higher awareness on what statistics have been illustrating for

decades. Significant gaps do exist between minority and majority students as well as the

economically disadvantaged. Among minority students, the problem is even more severe

with nearly 50 percent of African American and Hispanic students not completing high

school on time (America's Promise Alliance, 2009). The achievement gap is not closing

fast enough to ensure improved living and earning opportunities for these sub-

populations. According to Zhao (2009), “these gaps almost certainly put the minorities at

a disadvantage for securing high-income jobs in the future. Plenty of evidence shows the

close association between amount of education and future earnings” (p.13). As the

United States continues to make progress recovering from the present economic

recession, the academic achievement gaps, as illustrated in Appendix C, show the 2004-

2005 graduation rates as 50.6 percent for Native Americans, 55.3 percent for Blacks, and

57.8 percent for Hispanic students.

Although there are reports that many states are making progress, the significant

academic achievement gaps between student sub-populations continue to draw social and

political attention, which has brought to light the need to transform schools for future

national and individual economic benefits. The Cities in Crisis 2009: Closing the

Graduation Gap report stated: “Notably, earning a high school diploma has increasingly

been described not just as a source of individual economic benefit but also as an essential

foundation for the nation’s competitiveness in a rapidly globalizing world economy”

(Swanson, 2009). Social awareness and concern regarding the need to complete high

school resulted in the call to action from several organizations, including The Bill and

Melinda Gates Foundation and The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation. These

30

organizations launched the Strong American Schools Campaign, which urged presidential

candidates during the 2008 election to continue the dialogue on education. These

conversations resulted in three suggestions, which are closely correlated to many of the

fundamental concepts promoted by the Smaller Learning Community (SLC) model.

As part of its call to action, the Strong American Schools Campaign, the Bill and

Melinda Gates Foundation (2007) urged leaders to address and debate three common-

sense priorities:

1. Strong American education standards. Regardless of where they live, all

students need to acquire knowledge and skills that prepare them for

college, for the workplace, and for life.

2. Effective teachers in every classroom. We need to enable teachers to

improve their skills, measure teachers’ performance in the classroom, and

pay them more if they produce superior results or take on challenging

assignments.

3. More time and support for learning. We need to provide successful and

struggling students alike more time for in-depth learning and greater

personal attention.

A New Administration.

President Obama’s education plan has focused on reestablishing the U.S. as the

world leader in education. In addition, the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act includes $5 billion for early learning programs; $77 billion for elementary and

secondary education; $48.6 billion to stabilize state education budgets; $5 billion for

31

competitive funds to close the achievement gap; and finally $30 billion to address college

affordability.

On July14, 2009, President Barack Obama stated the following: “…but, we also

have to ensure that we're educating and preparing our people for the new jobs of the 21st

century. We've got to prepare our people with the skills they need to compete in this

global economy” (The White House Office Press Secretary, 2009).

The statement was followed by the announcement of The American Graduation

Initiative: Stronger American Skills through Community Colleges. In addition, the

President’s remarks included the following goal: “By 2020, this nation will once again

have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world” (The White House Office

Press Secretary, 2009).

The American Initiative is an effort to strengthen the nation’s community colleges

and provides an affordable education to ensure a stronger 21st century economy. The

plan also calls for: five million additional community college graduates; creating a

community college challenge fund; funding innovative strategies for completion;

modernizing facilities; and creating new online skills laboratories.

In addition, the Obama-Biden College Agenda expands Pell Grants, college

credits, and focuses on reforming the student loan program, expanding the loan agent

participation base beyond banks and other government lenders.

Impact of reform efforts.

For the past four decades, politicians have called for education reform. In the

United States, the education reform movement has: (1) focused increasingly on the

development of new standards for both students and teachers; (2) intensified with a call to

32

go beyond reform; and (3) began a transformation of the educational process. In the

1960s, the space race resulted in a call for more academic rigor. In the 1980s, the White

House released A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. The 1990s

brought the TIMSS reports and Goals 2000, and former President George W. Bush left

schools with the legacy of NCLB. Public school reform has been at the forefront of

political agendas for decades, leaving no American President without the challenge of

addressing education. Now, President Barack Obama has the opportunity to lead our

nation beyond reform and to transform the American education system.

A challenge for transformational efforts will continue to be the inconsistent

history of the many different initiatives that have resulted from past reform efforts. Until

recently, educational transformation was done in a disjointed manner. Legter (1999)

states, “More and more educators are understanding that piecemeal reform too often

produces a confusing and inefficient proliferation of programs that generates resource

battles, reinforces inequity, and ultimately helps only a few students” (p. 23). As the

nation transitions from one President’s educational agenda to a new President’s agenda,

the challenge for educators will be to establish sound research based on ideas and

initiatives that will result in change and by doing so, ensure the academic achievement,

equality among student populations, and 21st century skills required for students to

compete in the 21st century global society.

Smaller Learning Communities

In the context of education, transformation may be defined as moving schools

from 19th century traditional platforms, which are centered on the instructor and

instruction, to learning environments that meet students’ ability and knowledge levels.

33

This type of progressive and aggressive thinking is required to move learning into new

dimensions that increase overall student academic success and close the achievement

gaps among student sub-populations. Schools committed to changing the design of

instructional delivery have the best opportunity to institute an environment, which

identifies student academic needs as the principal focus for success. Educators who want

to lead schools effectively through the 21st century have the task of establishing a

direction for standards and design that ensures rigor, relevance and relationships in order

to benefit students and prepare them for a global economy.

Finding the best vehicle to move a school forward is first and foremost a decision

for innovative school leaders. Many educators have implemented career-themed Smaller

Learning Community (SLC) models as a means to advance the transformation process.

Torrez and Kritsonis (2008) state that “implementing smaller learning communities in

large schools can be argued as the best way to advance student achievement and improve

teacher professional learning” (p. 60).

The benefits associated with dividing schools into SLCs have increased the

interest in this type of school design. “Research has been rapidly accumulating that, as

far as high schools are concerned, size does matter – and smaller is better” (Daniels,

Bizar, and Zemelman, 2001). Student achievement in small schools has been found to be

superior to that in large schools (Bates 1993; Eberts, Kehoe, and Stone 1982; Eicherstein

1994; Fowler and Walberg 1991; Kershaw and Blank 1993; Miller, Ellsworth, and

Howell 1986; Robinson-Lewis 1991; Walberg 1992) (as cited in Cotton, 1996).

Restructuring high schools by creating career-themed SLCs represents

a major step toward personalizing education, creating a different

34

platform for learning, and establishing the right conditions to ensure

21st century student preparedness while closing the achievement gaps

among student sub-populations. SLCs consist of three main concepts that may

prove to be the design required to transform schools. These concepts are as follows:

create a culture of collaboration for students and educators to ensure authentic and

relevant learning; create smaller schools-within-schools to ensure that students benefit

from meaningful relationships with both peers and educators; and, as a result of

collaboration, relevant learning, and relationships, smaller schools support the academic

rigor necessary to ensure competitive 21st century graduates.

Teacher collaboration and smaller learning communities.

The traditional model of education creates a system in which most teachers are

accustomed to being isolated from their peers, and the primary topics of discussion are

content and curriculum instead of shared students and individual academic needs. If

schools are to effectively address important issues such as student achievement,

attendance, and completion/dropout rates, academic leaders must give teachers the time

and place to collaborate. Oxley (2006) states: “Smaller Learning Communities are

maximally effective when interdisciplinary team members share students in common and

are thereby able to pool their knowledge of students, communicate consistent messages,

and create coherent instructional programs” (p. 21). Providing common planning

opportunities without giving up instructional time within the school day continues to be

one of the biggest obstacles to transformation.

Besides creating a schedule that allows common planning, establishing an

environment that supports increased collaboration requires instituting an effective

35

Professional Learning Community (PLC) initiative. The PLC is a foundation for

assisting SLC teams in understanding the benefits resulting from small-school

collaboration opportunities. “The first and most fundamental task of building a

collaborative culture is to bring together those people whose responsibilities create an

inherent mutual interest in exploring the critical question of PLC” (DuFour, DuFour,

Eaker, & Many, 2006). In addition, the SLC model, by its design of grouping teachers

and students, assists the enhancement and support of the PLC initiative.

In a report on 21st century high schools titled Breaking Ranks: Changing an

American Institution, working in communities is supported as a best practice. The report

stated:

The success of a high school depends on its being more than a collection of unconnected individuals. The word “community” implies a commonality of interests and so it should be in any high school. The building of community very much involves the members of the staff. And, on a practical level, the synergy of cooperation ought to end up enabling the educators in a high school to accomplish more for the students than they could by acting on their own. School improvement more readily succeeds in situations in which teachers work in a collegial manner (National Association of Secondary School Principals, (2001 p. 90).

Despite the obstacles that are associated with changing the paradigm of meaningful

collaboration, common benefits include the possibility of enhancing student relationships

with peers and faculty, increased academic achievement, improved attendance, and

decreased dropout rates. These results can help to encourage and support the idea of

innovation.

It is important to note that establishing PLCs to enhance SLC teams may result in

some opposition. Torrez and Kritsonis (2008) state: “the challenge for administrators is

overcoming the established traditional school and familiar structure that creates an

36

environment of isolation for teachers” (p. 64). This disconnect creates a negative cycle of

non-collaboration and produces long-term difficulties for campus teams who are prepared

to move forward with a more collaborative approach to teaching. DuFour (2005) noted:

“Despite compelling evidence indicating that working collaboratively represents best

practice, teachers in many schools continue to work in isolation” (p. 36). Therefore, a

major focus for education leaders is to establish the right framework and purpose for

teachers to have meaningful collaboration, moving away from traditional isolation to a

more personalized learning environment. Miller and Rollnick (2002) found that

“motivation is in many ways an interpersonal process, the product of an interaction

between people" (p. 22). Most educators would agree that bridging the divide between a

structure that has been mostly non-collaborative to one that provides an opportunity for

teachers to work together create new relationships, and focus on individual students is a

critical factor in ensuring the right academic setting for students and teachers. Senge,

Cambron-McCabe, Lucas, Smith, Dutton and Kleiner (2000) state, “A strong professional

community encourages collective endeavor rather than isolated individual efforts” (p.

327). Developing a sense of teamwork and an understanding of the strength of collective

collaboration will be crucial to breaking down institutional isolationism and to transform

schools.

Relationships and smaller learning communities.

Educators and students in large high schools are familiar with the difficulties of

developing meaningful relationships. A benefit associated with SLCs is that teachers are

grouped into smaller schools or teams that work with the same cohort of students

assigned to that community. In addition, the structure provides a teacher, who has

37

limited or no history with a group of students, the support of an existing cohort who has

knowledge of the students’ personalities and academic strengths and weaknesses. This

support system increases the potential to assist struggling learners and improve the grade-

level transition process.

Substantiating studies have established that students need relationships with

adults as part of a healthy learning environment. Adult connections and personalization

improve the school experience. An important component to closing the achievement gap

among student populations is the personalization that occurs as a result of the smaller

learning community model.

Each student needs to know at least one adult in the school is closely concerned with his or her fate…The relationship between the student and the advocate should ensure that no youngster experiences the sense of isolation that frequently engulfs teenagers during this critical period of their lives. Having someone on his or her side can help a young person feel a part of the school community (National Association of Secondary Principals, 2001, p. 31).

A feeling of belonging can begin a process that crosses cultural histories and

economic social barriers, bringing students to a common place so that academic success

can flourish, attendance can improve, and graduation plans can be realized. The sense of

connectedness that comes from belonging to a group helps students have the confidence

to engage in authentic conversations with caring adults about the importance of

continuing to improve academically.

If high achievement for all students is the goal of reform, then personalization and

a rigorous curriculum are two essential ingredients. Although some students might be

able to make it through four years of high school despite the lack of any personal

connections, all students require a supportive environment-some more than others.

38

Creating that environment is essential to bringing learning to fruition. (National

Association of Secondary Principals, 2004, p. 67).

Fundamentally, most educators agree that relationships are a key ingredient to a

rewarding and academically successful student experience. Many students fail to

complete high school due to a lack of connection to adult educators at their schools. The

Grad Nation Guidebook (America’s Promise Alliance, 2009) cited some of the following

as reasons that students fail to complete school:

Life Events : Students drop out because of an event or a need outside of

school. Pregnancy, incarceration or out-of-home placement in the juvenile

justice system, health problems, aging out of foster care, caring for an ill

family member, or needing to work to support themselves or family members

are the most frequent factors.

Fade Outs : Students drop out because they no longer see the point of staying

in school. Often these are students with decent grades and attendance records

who at some point become bored, frustrated, or disillusioned with school and

believe they can make it in life on their own without a high school diploma.

Push Outs : Some students may be viewed as behavioral problems or low

achievers, and/or they seldom attend school. Once these students reach the

legal dropout age, sometimes their schools apply administrative rules —

related to suspensions, inadequate credits earned by a certain age, or chronic

absenteeism — to remove them from school or transfer them to another

school.

39

Failure to Succeed in School : Students drop out of school because they do not

pass enough courses or earn enough credits to be promoted to the next grade.

Many of these dropouts begin to fall off the path to graduation in the middle

grades, where they begin to fail courses, miss a lot of school, or misbehave.

The key point for promotion — or failure — is from 9th to 10th grade. These

students often have to repeat the entire 9th grade and, without any supports,

do no better the second time. At some point after repeated attempts to

succeed (though often with decreasing effort), it seems to them that they will

never succeed in school, so they drop out. (p. 26-7)

As educators struggle to understand the many dynamics that contribute to a

student’s poor attendance, lack of academic achievement, and low completion/dropout

rates, especially among student sub-populations, the personalization of education must be

harnessed more effectively than in previous decades. SLCs may provide an effective way

for students to build more relationships with teachers, thereby enhancing their experience

of school, as well as their academic achievement and related factors.

Academic rigor, relevance, and smaller learning communities.

Future graduates will continue to require increased academic preparation and

skills in order to be successful in the rapidly changing postsecondary landscape. This

reality will require educators to have a clear understanding of how academic rigor and

relevance will be a part of gearing up students. Lopez (2006) states, “The emerging

national consensus argues that all students should have access to the rigor and standards

of a college prep program curriculum, and high school standards must be more firmly

anchored in the skills demanded by colleges and real world employers” (p. 17). The

40

continued emphasis on academic rigor has been driven by the statistics showing that

many students who attend two and four-year colleges need remedial coursework.

Daggett (2008) defines academic rigor as “learning in which students demonstrate a

thorough in-depth mastery of challenging tasks to develop cognitive skills through

reflective thought, analysis, problem solving, evaluation, or creativity” (p. 2). Educators

that understand the shift in demands from both colleges and present day employers know

that rigors curriculum must be balanced by allowing students to apply their real world

knowledge giving them the content relevance required to be creative and innovative.

The application of instructional rigor and relevance to improve the level of

student engagement must be of utmost importance if schools are to address the needs of

students, especially those of who have traditionally been disconnected and, therefore,

academically unsuccessful. Through the SLC design, teachers are provided a structure to

collaborate and build more authentic interdisciplinary and thematic lessons, a major

component of the framework that creates genuine student engagement and elevates

academic achievement. According to Lee (2003), instructional assignments that connect

to real-world problems and offer the opportunity for creativity and problem solving

motivate students and dramatically increase the quality of teaching and learning.

Providing the right structure for teachers to collaborate and connect learning beyond their

own discipline, while creating rigorous and relevant instructional assignments, is at the

core of bridging the sub-population academic gap. Daggett (2005) supports these ideas by

noting:

Studies have shown that students understand and retain knowledge best when they have applied it in a practical, relevant setting. [An educator] who relies on lecturing does not provide students with optimal learning opportunities. Instead, students go to school to watch the teacher work. The International Center’s

41

Rigor/Relevance Framework is a powerful tool that has captured the imagination of teachers to aspire to teach students to high rigor and high relevance. All educators can use the Rigor/Relevance Framework to set their own standards of excellence as well as to plan the objectives they wish to achieve. This versatile Framework applies to standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment. (p. 2).

Figure 1 illustrates Daggett’s (2005, 2009) suggested movement from traditional instructional

assignments to cross-curricular and career-skill relevance. As educators develop and utilize instructional

assignments and strategies that connect learning from A and C quadrants into the B and D quadrants,

students will benefit from their expanded applied learning. According to Daggett (2009), educators who

require utilization and application of 21st century skills (see Appendix A for details) in the D quadrant

increase the likelihood that students learn and are able to apply knowledge in quadrants A, B, and C, as

well as on state assessments.

6 EvaluationC

AssimilationD

Adaptation5 Synthesis

4 Analysis

3 ApplicationA

AcquisitionB

Application2 Comprehension

1 Knowledge

1Knowledge in one discipline

2Apply

knowledge in one discipline

3Apply

knowledge across

disciplines

4Apply

knowledge to real-world, predictable situations

5Apply

knowledge to real-world,

unpredictable situations

Figure 1. Rigor/relevance framework with progression of assignments arrow. Adapted from Achieving Academic Excellence Through Rigor and Relevance, by W. R. Daggett, 2005, http://www.daggett.com/pdf/Academic_Excellence.pdf, and The Solutions to School Improvement, by W. Daggett, 2009, Symposium hosted by the Harris County Department of Education.

As shown by the arrow in Figure 1, educators seeking to provide quality

instructional assignments that connect learning to real-world situations must start by

understanding the basic framework that drives this philosophy. Unfortunately, rigor and

relevance have almost become a cliché in the educational arena. This fact makes it

necessary for educators to understand that rigor does not mean more and harder, but

42

rather the depth of teaching and the clarity of learning for students during a lesson. Davis

(2010) states: “You can use a simple text and still make your lesson rigorous. With the

right kind of questioning and the right kind of activities, you can make students delve

deeper into a text regardless of its length and/or complexity” (p. 14)

Instructional assignments that are interdisciplinary are more likely balanced in

multiple quadrants of the Rigor/Relevance Framework. The most effective instructional

assignments are designed to help students move from quadrant A to quadrant D as their

content knowledge increases. Students who have the strongest quadrant A knowledge

may have the best opportunity to move seamlessly to other quadrants. In addition, it is

likely that students may learn a concept better in quadrant B when application to real-

world situations is connected to the learning. The ultimate goal for educators is to teach

lessons that help students work in quadrants B and D, assisting them in developing skills

that aid in post-secondary education, as well as becoming more competitive in a 21st

century global economy. Educators must provide students with the opportunity to

practice what to do when students do not know what to do (Daggett, 2008).

The Design of Smaller Learning Communities

For the purpose of this study, the Career Academy SLC structure was selected as

the main focus. Although there may be different variations of the career academies, most

are designed in some form with the following areas of career fields:

Communication, Law, and Social Services;

Design, Technology, and Engineering;

Visual and Performing Arts;

Medical and Health Sciences; and

43

Business and Applied Technologies.

The major attribute of the career academy design is the connection to

postsecondary discussions, based on the career choice component. Career academies are

considered to have the potential to reengage high school students in the learning process

because they allow students to exercise a voice in determining the trajectory of their

experiences in high schools. The connection to career choice leads to endless

possibilities for teachers to connect student learning to relevant experiences and support

student discussions regarding potential career interests, along with the skills required to

obtain the career. In addition, the career academy SLC design is conducive to

interdisciplinary instruction, which must be a major element of SLCs so that students

make the connections across disciplines and to real world situations. The Career

Academy Network defines career academies as:

“… a small learning community within a high school, which selects a subset of students and teachers for a two-, three-, or four-year period. Students enter through a voluntary process; they must apply and be accepted, with parental knowledge and support. While academies vary in size, they usually have from one to three sections of students at each grade level, or 100-300 students in all.” This definition was agreed upon in 2005 by leading organizations (see Appendix B for complete details). There are different types of SLCs that may be more suitable for different schools

based on their academic status, culture, or community expectations. The U.S. Department

of Education (2006) describes four mains SLC structures:

Structure I: Academies are subgroups within schools, organized around

particular themes. For example, career academies combine key principles of

the school-to-career movement—integrating academic and vocational

instruction, providing work-based learning opportunities for students, and

44

preparing students for postsecondary education and employment—with the

personalized learning environment of a small, focused learning community.

Teachers and students integrate academic and occupation-related classes as a

way to enhance real-world relevance and maintain high academic standards.

Local employer partnerships provide program planning guidance, mentors,

and work internships. Career academies share with other restructuring

initiatives an emphasis on building relationships between students and adults

(teachers as well as work-site supervisors and other employer representatives).

Structure II: House plans divide students in a large school into groups of

several hundred, either across grade levels or by grade levels. Students take

some or all courses with their house members and from their house teachers.

House arrangements may be yearlong or multiyear arrangements. House

plans personalize the high school experience but usually have limited effect

on curriculum or instruction. Each house usually has its own discipline plan,

student government, social activities, and other extracurricular activities,

although students may also participate in activities of the larger school.

Grouping ninth-graders into a separate house is one way to ease freshman

transition to high school.

Structure III: A school-within-a-school is a small, autonomous program

housed within a larger school building. Schools-within-schools are generally

responsible to the district rather than to the host school’s principal, and are

formally authorized by the superintendent or board of education. Schools-

within-schools have their own culture, program, personnel, students, budget,

45

and school space (negotiating the use of common space with the host school

in the same way office building tenants arrange for use of shared conference

facilities). Like an academy, the school-within-a-school structure supports

constructive relationships between and among students and teachers by

grouping students together each year to take core courses with the same group

of teachers, thus increasing the supports students receive from peers, teachers,

and other adults.

Structure IV: Magnet programs use a specialty core focus (such as math,

science, creative arts, or a career theme or cluster) to attract students from the

entire school district. Some magnet programs have competitive admission

requirements; others are open to any interested student. Students in a magnet

program stay together for their core classes and may take other courses with

non-magnet students.

The following graph shows the number of SLCs using the five major structures:

Percentages of SLC Schools Implementing Each Type of SLC Structure (n=105)

46

Figure 2. (Note: Percentages exceed 100 percent within a school year because schools may implement more than one SLC structure.) Source: Implementation Study of Smaller Learning Communities, Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003. Percentages based on number of respondents completing survey module corresponding to each type of SLC structure.

Closing the Achievement Gaps and Smaller Learning Communities

Closing the achievement gaps will become even more urgent considering the

demographic swing in race, ethnicity, immigration, and growing projections of low SES

K-12 student enrollment. In addition to the demographic shifts and the need for students

with more advanced 21st century skills, educational leaders must continue to focus on

transformation and innovative strategies to support the diversification of the nation’s

schools. The changes in demographics are illustrated in the following chart:

47

Numeric Change in the Projected U.S. Population by Race and

Hispanic Origin: 2000 to 2050 (in millions)

Redesigning high schools by creating SLCs represents a step

toward personalizing education and establishing the right conditions

for improved student achievement and graduation rates. However,

experienced educators recognize that there is no silver bullet for

ensuring student success and that true transformation will be more

complex than previously thought. Cotton (2001) points out that, once the notion

is dispelled that small school size alone is somehow magical, educators, students, parents,

and others are better situated to appreciate the results that well-conceived and well-

operated small schools are producing (p. 6). As a result, communication regarding the

short-term and long-term benefits of SLCs will be critical to sustaining the redesign and

48

7.617.5

23.0

11.6

97.2

156.9

Non-HispanicWhite alone

Non-HispanicBlack alone

Non-HispanicAsian alone

Non-Hispanic allother races

Hispanic (anyrace)

Total

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 National Projections

realizing the desired student academic success that will address the low graduation rates.

The following chart depicts the graduation challenges facing Texas educators:

Figure 4. Texas Graduation Gap. Numbers were calculated prior to rounding. All graduation rates are for the school year 2005–06. Source: Alliance for Excellence in Education (2009).

Addressing the many challenges associated with lower

graduation rates for minority and economically disadvantaged students

continues to be a major obstacle for educators. Addressing school size

may assist in overcoming one of the major barriers to student success.

Howley and Bickel (2000) found that:

1. The larger the school, the greater the negative effect of

poverty on student achievement. The less affluent the

community, the smaller a school should be in order to

maximize performance, as measured by standardized tests.

49

2. The correlation between poverty and low achievement is as

much as 10 times stronger in larger schools than in small

ones.

3. Although the relationship between school size, poverty, and

achievement holds true for all races, minority children are

more likely to be enrolled in large schools. (p. 12)

The complexities resulting from a global economy and an evolving workforce

magnify the importance of not just graduating students but ensuring that they are well

equipped with the 21st century skills they are going to need to succeed. “Since almost 90

percent of the fastest-growing and highest-paying jobs require some postsecondary

education, having a high school diploma and the skills to succeed in college and the

workplace are essential” (Alliance for Excellence in Education, 2009, p. 1). Innovative

educators understand the expectation for improved skills and that a major ingredient will

be a student’s capacity to apply his or her knowledge.

The skills necessary to succeed in both higher education and the workforce,

termed 21st century skills, are gaining extensive attention from researchers, businesses,

and educational institutions. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2004) described

these skills as the following (see Appendix A for complete details):

1. Core subjects and 21st-century themes—global awareness; financial, economic, business, and entrepreneurial literacy; civic literacy; and health literacy.

2. Learning and innovation skills—creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, and communication and collaboration.

3. Information, media, and technology skills—information literacy; media literacy; and information, communications, and technology (ICT) literacy.

50

4. Life and career skills—flexibility and adaptability, initiative and self-direction, social and cross-cultural skills, productivity and accountability, and leadership and responsibility.

Educators can simultaneously prepare students for higher education and the

workforce when they utilize and impart 21st century skills instead of focusing on content

knowledge through the traditional lecture format (Hoachlander, 2008). Unfortunately,

educators continue to be very slow in changing the content, structure, and old-style

pedagogy practiced in U.S. public education institutions. As Gewertz (2007) noted, "A

1991 report by the U.S. Secretary of Labor's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills,

called the SCANS report, called for many of the same competencies that educators and

business leaders have been urging in a flurry of reports during the past year" (p. 26).

The Right Steps to Successful Smaller Learning Communities

Four key elements to successful small learning communities are

a common understanding regarding the need for transformation,

strong SLC practices, professional staff development, and the

understanding that the SLC design cannot be implemented in a few

months or even a few years. The first element consists of a clear

understanding that the re-design is based on the need to improve

student success. Sammon (2008) laments, “yet, almost forty years into

reform, the national data tell us that we are woefully unskilled as an

educational community to meet the ever-demanding needs of a

culturally diverse student population which must be prepared to take

its place in a global economy” (p. 5). Educational leaders who establish

why change is important to their organization are more likely to

51

successfully maneuver past the inherent stages associated with

change. In fact, we are convinced that one of the most common mistakes school

administrators make in the implementation of improvement initiatives is to focus

exclusively on the “how”, while being inattentive to why (Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, &

Many, 2006).

The second element is to establish the right conditions and practices required for a

successful SLC. Due to the complexity of implementing and sustaining SLCs it is

essential that the guiding teams ensure the best practices are at the core of the re-design.

The following have been identified as essential for success. In New Small Learning

Communities, Cotton (2001) identified several conditions and practices that distinguish

successful SLCs:

1. Self-determination—Autonomy in decision making, physical separateness,

self-selection of teachers and students, and flexible scheduling must all be

present to allow SLC members to create and realize their own vision.

2. Identity—SLCs benefit from developing a distinctive program of study that

originates in the vision, interests, and unique characteristics of their members.

3. Personalization—SLC members know each other well. Teachers are able to

identify and respond to students’ particular strengths and needs.

4. Support for Teaching—SLC teachers assume authority as well as

responsibility in educating their students. School leadership does not reside

only in the administrative staff; administrators teach, and teachers lead.

52

5. Functional Accountability—SLC teams use performance assessment systems

that require students to demonstrate their learning and the SLC to demonstrate

its success.

Significantly changing the present culture of a school can be an exceptionally

difficult process. Creating and supporting the right practices and conditions will be

essential for success. Collins (2001) states that “under the right conditions, the problem

of commitment, alignment, motivation, and change largely melt away” (p. 11).

Establishing strong and effective professional learning communities is critical to

the SLC initiative. Too often, unfortunately, little care is taken to provide professional

learning that ensures staff members’ deep understanding of content and development of

skills for using new practices (Hord & Sommers, 2007). There are a wide range of

initiatives and components that are considered necessary for successful SLCs. The

following is a broad list of areas that require professional development prior and during

the conversation to SLCs. Torrez and Kritsonis (2008) identify the following list of topics

that require professional learning during pre-implementation:

What is a professional learning community

Professional learning communities individual and team responsibilities

How to develop interdisciplinary lessons

Interdisciplinary teaching techniques

Use of advisory period

Building support for individual and student groups

Building capacity in the program

Sustained leadership

53

Team stability

Articulation with college/university systems

Building community support

The professional learning communities must maintain a focused and relevant

course of learning opportunities if continued improvement is to occur among all

educators. A deep knowledge and understanding of the SLC design is required to ensure

that it becomes an integral part of today’s educational landscape.

Finally, it is important to understand that change does not happen easy and that

sustainable change will take time. Teams that dispel the idea that an over hall

of the present 19th century design will not happen without the common

elements associated with long term change prepare stake holders for

the required journey. Continued improvement that can only happen

over time resulting in positive student outcome must be maintained as

the focal point of the change.

Concluding Remarks

As described in the previous sections, today’s school districts face many

challenges, including transforming an outdated 19th century model that has been slow to

change and adapt to the 21st century student learning needs. Leaders who view the big

picture and comprehend the complexities and challenges of educating today’s youth have

a greater chance for success. These leaders understand the importance of having the right

vision and courage as they articulate the vision of learning for all students. Schlechty

(2009) emphasizes, “Transformation is intended to make it possible to do things that have

never been done by the organization undergoing the transformation” (p.3).

54

Making it possible to do things that have never been done will take selecting new

innovations in how schools deliver instruction. SLCs are rooted in the belief that rigor

and relevance can be achieved through teacher collaboration. In addition, positive factors

such as opportunities for increased and improved student relationships with peers and

faculty, resulting in improved attendance, decreased dropout rate, and improved

academic success, are the main cornerstones to convincing educators to embrace SLCs as

a way to encourage transformation.

A culmination of an 80-year movement that has been calling for reform has, for

the most part, had minimal impact on educator perceptions of teaching and learning. The

success of the nation’s schools is dependent on a sound plan for transformation that must

include bold actions and a firm resolution to the many innovations it will take to

overcome the barriers required to ensure today’s youth are prepared for their future.

55

Chapter III: Methodology

Introduction

Smaller Learning Communities (SLCs) have been an avenue for improved student

achievement when implemented as a long-term and on-going initiative. When reviewing

the educational literature, a growing body of information on small schools versus large

schools and the change in student culture, teacher collaboration and practices, was

evident. However, finding information on student achievement as a specific result of

SLCs has been more difficult. More recently, one can find literature calling for continued

action beyond restructuring of schools to a movement calling for full transformation to

the 21st century. How leaders create change and sustain change so that it endures over

time has been a major challenge. DuFour and Eaker (1992) believe that “one of the most

difficult problems that school practitioners must overcome in their efforts to bring about

meaningful school improvement is the mistaken notion that school improvement is a

short-term task to be completed rather than a long-term commitment to a new approach”

(p. 138). Teachers often become frustrated with new reform initiatives because of the

history of unsuccessful reform efforts and the frequency with which they have

encountered reform initiatives. Sustainable transformation is more likely to occur as a

result of both teacher and administrative leaders transforming schools into collaborative

smaller communities.

The process of transforming schools into SLCs and addressing student

achievement is positively impacted by ascertaining the commitment and process of

establishing SLCs. Sammon (2008) states, “It is not the design, primarily, that

56

contributes to the effectiveness, but rather engaging in a thoughtful process that requires a

strong focus and commitment to quality implementation of what we refer to as the ‘big

five’ or ‘bins of work’ that transforms high schools” (p. 9). The big five or bins of work

are:

Personalization;

Data-driven management;

A curriculum – and instructional – centric approach;

Community partnerships; and

Creating a climate for success.

Whether or not to implement SLCs is centered on three primary questions directly

related to student performance. The questions are: (1) Does the SLC structure improve

student academic success?; (2) Does the SLC structure contribute to closing the gap

between white and minority students?; and (3) Does the SLC structure affect the gap in

low Socioeconomic status and non low Socioeconomic status student academic

achievement?

Research Questions

The research questions guiding this study are:

1. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-

themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported on the

Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) for Texas

Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in Reading/ELA

and Mathematics for ethnic subpopulations?

57

2. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-

themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported on the

AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for

economically disadvantaged subpopulations?

3. Is there a difference in student attendance between career-

themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported in the

AEIS?

4. Is there a difference in student dropout/completion rates

between career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as

reported in the AEIS?

Null Hypotheses

H01 - There is no statistically significant difference in student

achievement between career-themed SLCs and traditional high

schools, as reported on the AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA and

Mathematics for ethnic subpopulations?

H02 - There is no statistically significant difference in student

achievement between career-themed SLCs and traditional high

schools, as reported on the AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA and

Mathematics for economically disadvantaged subpopulation?

H03 - There is no statistically significant difference in student attendance

between career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported

in the AEIS?

58

H04 - There is no statistically significant difference in student

dropout/completion between career-themed SLCs and traditional high

schools, as reported in the AEIS?

Research Method

A quasi-experimental research design utilizing post hoc data will be used to

determine if a difference exists in student achievement between SLCs and traditional high

schools as reported on the AEIS for TAKS in English Language Arts/Reading and

Mathematics scores for ethnic subpopulations and economically disadvantaged

subpopulations. In addition, a series of Analysis of Covariant (ANCOVA) will be

calculated to determine if there is a meaningful difference in the areas of attendance and

completion/dropout rates. Creswell (2008) explains experimental research as “you first

decide on an idea with which to ‘experiment,’ assign individuals to experience it (and

have some individuals experience something different), and then determine whether those

who experienced the idea (or practice or procedure) performed better on some outcome

than those who did not experience it” (p. 299). A factorial ANOVA analysis will be used

to determine if a degree of difference existed between the two variables. Experimental

research is used when a researcher wants to establish a possible cause and effect between

two variables. Information will be collected and analyzed from the Texas Education

Agency (TEA) website and then quantitatively analyzed using Statistical Package for the

Social Sciences (SPSS) version 12.0.1.

Before the post hoc statistics are calculated, descriptive statistics will be

generated. DeMoulin and Kritsonis (2009) explain that, in descriptive statistics, “by

taking raw data and describing it in a meaningful way (to make sense out of data) we are,

59

in reality, generating a profile of that data set. This branch of Mathematics is referred to

as descriptive statistics, or compiling raw data in terms that are easily and readily

understood by mere humans” (p. 4). For the purposes of this research, schools will be

categorized as non-traditional career-themed SLC high schools and traditional high

schools. Once categorized, student achievement comparisons will be analyzed.

Research Design

Descriptive statistics will be used to compile demographic data comparing non-

traditional SLC high schools and traditional high schools. For the first two research

questions, a series of Factorial ANOVAs will be calculated to determine if meaningful

differences in the areas of English Language Arts/Reading and Mathematics exist in

student achievement between the two different types of high schools. For research

questions three and four, a series of Analysis of Covariant (ANCOVA) will be calculated

to determine if there is a meaningful difference in the areas of attendance and

completion/dropout rates. An analysis of 2008-09 and 2009-10 AEIS data will be

collected to determine the outcome.

The first quantitative variable identified in the study is the cohort of schools

implementing the SLC design, which represents the independent or predictor variable.

According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2006), “independent variables are those that the

researcher chooses to study in order to assess their possible effect(s) on one or more other

variables” (p. 43). The second quantitative variable is the student TAKS scores in the

areas of English Language Arts/Reading and Mathematics; attendance and

completion/dropout rates compared from the data collected will represent the dependent

variable. Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) classify this variable as, “in commonsense terms,

60

the dependent variable ‘depends on’ what the independent variable does to it, how it

affects it” (p. 43).

The schools included in this study will be Texas public high schools

that are identified as having implemented the career-themed SLC design. A database

of schools that received a federal SLC grant was obtained through Education Northwest

(formerly Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory) and the U.S. Department of

Education SLC Program webpage.

After the SLCs and the similar traditional high are selected, the state TAKS score

data for the school years 2008-09 and 2009-10 will be collected, disaggregated, and

analyzed. The TAKS data will be collected from the AEIS on the TEA website. English

Language Arts/Reading and Mathematics scores will be obtained for the 2008-09 and

2009-10 school years. It is important to note that the TAKS passing score standard of 75

percent for all areas in 2008-09 is different from the 2009-10 passing rate of 80 percent

for all areas. Because the 2009-10 standards are more difficult, the 2008-09 reports may

show higher passing rates but the comparison from each year is under the same standard,

thereby showing an accurate comparison of performance across the two years.

The second step will be to calculate the data in English Language Arts/Reading

and Mathematics TAKS scores for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years. TAKS data

will be used to determine if there is a difference in student achievement in English

Language Arts/Reading and Mathematics TAKS scores between high schools

implementing career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools.

Attendance and completion/dropout rate data for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years

will also be collected. AEIS report data will be used to determine if a significant

61

difference exists between high schools implementing career-themed SLCs and

traditional high schools.

The third step will be to create a spreadsheet using Excel. Data obtained from the

AEIS reports will be entered into the spreadsheet. Once all data has been entered into the

Excel spreadsheet, the data will be transferred into SPSS to determine statistical

relevance. TAKS scale scores in English Language Arts/Reading and Mathematics will

be disaggregated by subpopulations, including by ethnicity (African American, Hispanic,

and White) and economically disadvantaged. Attendance and dropout rates will also be

entered into an Excel spreadsheet and transferred into SPSS. Attendance and dropout

rates will be disaggregated by subpopulations of ethnicity (African American, Hispanic,

and White) and economically disadvantaged. All data collected will be analyzed

using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

Population of the Study

The purposive cohort selected for this study will be composed of schools that

have implemented the career-themed SLC design in the state of Texas. Only

comprehensive high schools with grades 9 through 12 and a student population of greater

than 1,500 will be considered for this research. Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) define

purposive sampling as “on occasion, based on previous knowledge of a population and

the specific purpose of the research, investigators use personal judgment to select a

sample” (p. 100). Generalizations regarding the study will be made to the cohort of public

high schools as described above that are attempting transformation to the 21st century

model of education by implementing the career-themed SLC design.

62

The target population of high schools will be identified from several sources.

Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) defined a target population as “all the members of a real or

hypothetical set of people, events, or objects to which researchers wish to generalize the

results of their research” (p. 167). A database of high schools in Texas that received SLC

federal grant monies will be obtained from the U.S. Department of Education Smaller

Learning Communities Program webpage and Texas High School Project. In addition, a

list of the Texas schools that attended the 2010 Smaller Learning Communities: From

Structure to Instruction conference at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas has also

been obtained from Education Northwest. The National Career Academy Coalition

website, which maintains a database of districts and schools that have selected the SLC

design, was also used in the selection. The directory shows schools from across the

United States that participate in career academies. From these 4 sources and an extensive

internet search, 25 high schools will be identified as the population for this research. A

convenience sample of 25 traditional schools will be selected from the TEA assigned

school cohort. Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) explain convenience sampling as “many

times, it is extremely difficult (sometimes even impossible) to select either a random or a

systematic nonrandom sample. At such times, a researcher may use convenience

sampling” (p.100). A database with the assigned cohorts of the traditional public high

schools will be obtained through TEA. The schools will be selected based on the TEA

cohort school that is most similar in size, ethnic subpopulations (African American,

Hispanic, and White) and economically disadvantaged.

63

Instrumentation

This research study will utilize TAKS scores for campuses that are

identified as career-themed SLC schools for school years 2008-09 and

2009-10. Test reliability measures such as the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-

20) indicate the internal consistency rate of the TAKS test for multiple choice and short

answer questions to be approximately .81 to .93. TEA rates the validity of the TAKS test

as extremely high; the agency ensures the validity of the TAKS test with the following

statement, “the staff at TEA, as well as professional test developers from Educational

Testing Service, Pearson Educational Measurement, and Questar, Inc., provide a wealth

of test-building experience, including content expertise. Each internal review of an item

by these experts increases the probability of the item being an accurate measure of the

intended objective” (TEA, 2009, p. 178). TEA (2009) states that the TAKS offers a

“genuine evaluation” of the state curriculum and student performance (p.

178). The level of validity of the TAKS instrument has been measured

as effective for all student sub-populations. TAKS test items are field

tested for validity each year, to check for bias and reliability, and

revisions are made as needed. A committee comprised of educators,

test specialists, and members of TEA establish the validity standard

(Texas Education Agency, 2009).

TAKS scale scores in English Language Arts/Reading and

Mathematics will be disaggregated by subpopulations, including

ethnicity (African American, Hispanic, and White), and economically

64

disadvantaged. Attendance and dropout rates will also be studied. All

collected data will be analyzed using SPSS.

Procedures

The first step in the process will be to identify the schools implementing the

career-themed SLC design that meet the criteria to be included in this study. From

this information, a cohort of 25 career-themed SLC schools will be selected for this

study. A database of high schools in Texas that received SLC federal grant monies will

be obtained from the U.S. Department of Education Smaller Learning Communities

Program webpage and Texas High School Project. In addition, a list of the Texas schools

that attended the 2010 Smaller Learning Communities: From Structure to Instruction

conference at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas has also been obtained from

Education Northwest. The National Career Academy Coalition website, which maintains

a database of districts and schools that have selected the SLC design, was also used in the

selection. The directory shows schools from across the United States that participate in

career academies. This process will also require an extensive internet search to find

schools that are not list as grant recipients or career academy coalition members.

Secondly, each school’s AEIS report will be downloaded from the TEA website.

Based upon the AEIS report of each career-themed SLC School, a comparison school

will be selected from the TEA assigned cohort of 25 traditional high schools. The school

will be selected by reviewing the cohort of 25 and selecting the campus that is most

comparable in total student enrollment, ethnic subpopulations (African American,

Hispanic, and White), and the economically disadvantaged subpopulation. Each school

65

selected will then be placed in a group that will comprise the convenience sample for this

study.

Data Analysis

The research of student performance data from the selected SLC

and traditional high schools, as reported by the AEIS, will be conducted

by the accepted quantitative measures identified by Gall, Gall, and

Borg (2003). SPSS will be utilized to disaggregate and analyze data.

The performance of the selected career-themed SLC school cohort will

be analyzed and compared to the traditional high school cohort to

address the four research questions guiding this study. The research

questions will be answered through a range of statistical procedures

that will include analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine if there is a

statistically significant difference between the student performance

variables. TAKS data will be utilized to answer the first and second

research questions. English Language Arts/Reading and Mathematics

scale scores will be analyzed for these two questions. Definable ethnic

subpopulations, for the purposes of answering questions one and two,

will include African American, Hispanic, White, and economically

disadvantaged students. The descriptive statistics will include mean

scores, standard deviations, and frequencies. These methods will be

used to define subpopulation data in a concise manner. Inferential

statistical data will also be applied to answer research questions one

66

and two. This procedure will be used to evaluate and infer if there is a

statistically significant difference when measuring the student

performance of career-themed SLC schools compared to traditional

high schools. The level of significance for testing the hypotheses of

this research was set at .05 or at a 95% confidence level.

Student attendance and completion/dropout rates will be used

for the purpose of answering research questions three and four. The

descriptive statistics will include mean scores, standard deviations,

and frequencies. These methods will be used to define population data

in a concise manner. An Analysis of Covariant (ANCOVA) test will then be

used to help answer the last two questions of the study. This

procedure will be used to test the association between categorical

variables, and also to evaluate and infer the degree of statistical

significant difference when measuring student attendance and

completion/dropout rates in career-themed SLC and traditional high

schools. The level of statistical significance for testing the hypotheses

of this research will be set at .05 or at a 95% confidence level.

The following questions will guide the study:

1. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-

themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported on the

AEIS for the TAKS in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for ethnic

subpopulations?

67

2. Is there a difference in student achievement between career-

themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported on the

AEIS for TAKS in Reading/ELA and Mathematics for

economically disadvantaged subpopulations?

3. Is there a difference in student attendance rates between

career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as reported

in the AEIS?

4. Is there a difference in student dropout/completion rates

between career-themed SLCs and traditional high schools, as

reported in the AEIS?

In order to answer the first two research questions, data from the

AEIS will be analyzed in English Language Arts/Reading and

Mathematics for each identified ethnic subpopulation. The

demographic breakdown of ethnicity will be presented in detail in

Chapter IV. For research questions three and four, the attendance and

dropout data will be disaggregated using the AEIS information and will

be presented in detail in Chapter IV.

This study will include both descriptive and inferential statistics.

The data will be reported in table format as mean score, standard

deviation, and standard error of the mean. The difference between

SLCs and traditional high schools will be analyzed by applying an

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) statistical test. The comprehensive

disaggregation, analyses, and interpretations of the data, as well as

68

recommendations, will follow the principles identified by Gall, Gall, and

Borg (2003). The findings from this study will be presented in detail

and discussed further in Chapter IV.

69

References

Alliance for Excellence in Education. (2009). Understanding high school graduation rates

in Texas. Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org/files/ Texas _wc.pdf

America’s Promise Alliance (2009). Grad nation: A guidebook to help communities

tackle the dropout crisis. Retrieved from

http://www.civicenterprises.net/pdfs/gradnation.pdf

Balfanz, R., Fox, J., Bridgeland, J., & McNaught, M. (2009). Grad nation: A guide to

help communities tackle the dropout crisis. Retrieved from

http://www.americaspromise.org/Our-Work/Dropout-Prevention/Grad-Nation-

Guidebook.aspx

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2007). Strong American schools campaign launches

to promote education reform in 2008 presidential election. Retrieved from

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/2008-presidential campaign

education

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2003). Closing the graduation gap: Toward high

schools that prepare all students for college, work, and citizenship. Retrieved from

http://www.learndoearn.org/For-Educators/Gates_Foundation.pdf

Career Academy Support Network (CASN). (2005). Retrieved from

http://casn.berkeley.edu

Collins, J., (2001). Good to Great: Why some companies make the leap…and others

don’t. New York: Harper Business.

70

Cotton, K. (1996, May). School size, school climate and student performance. Retrieved

from http://whttpww.nwrel.org

Cotton, K. (2001). New small learning communities: Findings from recent literature

(ERIC Document No. ED459539). Portland, OR: Northwest Regional

Educational Laboratory.

Creswell, K. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River: NJ.

Daggett, W. R. (n.d.). Jobs and the skills gap. Retrieved from

http://www.leadered.com/pdf/JobSkills%20Gap%20White%20PaperPDF.pdf

Daggett, W. R. (2005, September). Achieving academic excellence through rigor and

relevance. Retrieved from http://www.daggett.com/pdf/Academic_Excellence.pdf

Daggett, W. (2007). The education challenge: Preparing students for a changing world.

International Center for Leadership in Education. Retrieved from

http://www.leadered.com/2007%20NV%20Mega/Casehandouts/1Daggettpaper.p

df

Daggett, W. (2008). Rigor/Relevance Framework. Retrieved from

http://www.leadered.com/pdf/R&Rframework.pdf

Daggett, W. (2009, January). Leadership today for tomorrow’s schools: Dr. William

Daggett “the solutions to school improvement.” Symposium hosted by Harris

County Department of Education.

Daniels, H. Bizar, M. & Zemelman, S. (2001). Rethinking High School: Best Practice in

Teaching, Learning, and Leadership. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

71

Davis, K. (2010, June). Kujenga: Stabilizing and sustaining SLCs. Session presented at

the conference From structure to instruction: Sharing best practices and lessons

learned from high school redesign efforts. Conference hosted by Education

Northwest.

Davenport, P. & Anderson, G. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: No excuses.

Houston, TX: American Productivity & Quality Center.

DeMoulin, D. & Kristsonis, W. (2009). A statistical journey: Taming of the Skew!

Murrieta, CA: The Alexis Austin Group.

DuFour, R. (2005). What is a professional learning community. In R. DuFour, R. Eaker,

& R. DuFour (Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional learning

communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook

for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree

(formerly National Educational Service).

DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1992). Creating the new American school: A principal's guide

to school improvement (1st ed.). Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

Feldman, J., Lopez L., & Simon, K. (2006). Choosing small: The essential guide to

successful high school conversion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fraenkel, J. & Wallen, N. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (5th

ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Fullan, M. (2002b). Principals as leaders in a culture of change [Special

issue]. Educational Leadership, May.

72

Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.).

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gewertz, C. (2007, June). “Soft skills” in big demand. Education Week, 26, 25–27.

Goals 2000: Educate America Act.

http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/index.html

Grubb, W. (2007, June 12). Life after high school: Taking the education gospel seriously.

Education Week, 26, 33.

Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2003). Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 693-

700.

Hoachlander, G. (2008, May). Bringing industry to the classroom. Educational

Leadership, 65, 8.

Hord, M. & Sommers, W.A. (2007). Leading professional learning communities: Voices

from research and practice. Thousand Oaks. CA: Corwin Press.

Howley, C., & Bickel, R. (2000). When it comes to schooling… small works: School size,

poverty, and student achievement. Randolph, VT: Rural School

and Community Trust Policy Program.

Lafstrom, L. (2007). Why Are Hispanic and African-American Dropout Rates So High?

University of Dallas and IZA Discussion paper No. 3265, December 2007.

Lee, J. O. (2003). Standards, testing, and urban schools – Implementing high standards in

urban schools: Problems and solutions. Phi Delta Kappan (84)6, p. 449. Retrieved

from http://www.questia.com/read/5000603190?title=

STANDARDS%2c%20TESTING%2c%20AND%20URBAN%20SCHOOLS

%20--%20Implementing%20High%20Standards%20in%20Urban%20Schools

73

%3a%

20Problems%20and%20Solutions

Legter, N. E. (1999). Small learning communities meet school-to-work: Whole-school

restructuring for urban comprehensive high schools. Report no. 31. Washington,

DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Lopez, J. (2006). The impact of demographic changes on United States higher education:

2000-2050. Retrieved from http://www.sheeo.org/pubs/demographics-lopez.pdf

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for

change. New York, NY: The Guliford Press.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2001). Breaking ranks: Changing

an American institution. (5th ed.). Reston, VA: NASSP.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2004). Breaking ranks II:

Strategies for leading high school reform. Reston, VA: Author.

National Education Association. (2006). Closing the achievement gap: An associated

guide. Washington, DC: Author.

Oxley, D. (2006). Small learning communities: Implementing and deepening practice.

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from

http://www.nwrel.org

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2004). Overview. Retrieved from

http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/index.php?

option=com_content&task=view&id=195&Itemid=183#what_21st

74

Rajala, J. (2003). Education Reform. T.H.E. Journal, 30(6), 31.

Riley, R. (1998, February). Remarks as prepared for delivery by U.S. Secretary of

Education Richard W. Riley Press Conference on 12th Grade TIMSS Results.

Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/sec102.html

Sammon, G. (2008). Creating and sustaining smaller learning: Strategies and tools for

transforming high schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Schlechty, P. (2009). Leading for Learning: How to Transform Schools into Learning

Organizations (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publications.

Schramm, J., Williams, S., Krasnow, M., Grossman, B., & Walters, L. (2008). SHRM

2007 symposium on the workforce readiness of the future U.S. labor pool.

(Workforce Readiness Executive Summary). Alexandria, VA: Society for Human

Resource Management. Retrieved from

http://www.shrm.org/trends/08workplacereadiness.pdf

Swanson, S. (2009). Cities in Crisis 2009: Closing the Graduation Gap. Retrieved from

http://www.edweek.org/media/cities_in_crisis_2009.pdf

TEA (2009). 2009 Adequate yearly progress (AYP) guide. TEA

Department of

Assessment, Accountability, and Data Quality. Austin, TX:

Author.

The Coleman Report Coleman, James S. Equality of Educational Opportunity

(COLEMAN) Study (EEOS), 1966 [Computer file]. ICPSR06389-v3. Ann Arbor,

MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor],

2007-04-27. doi:10.3886/ICPSR06389

75

TexEd. Consulting Services. 2009. Retreived from

http://www.texedconsulting.com/texedconsulting/contact.html

The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The

imperative for educational reform. A Report to the Nation and the Secretary of

Education United States Department of Education.

The White House Office Press Secretary. (2009). Remarks by the President on the

American Graduation Initiative. Retrieved from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-the-

American-Graduation-Initiative-in-Warren-MI

Third International Mathematics and Science Study. (1995). 1995 TIMSS 1995 Home

Page. Retrieved from: http://timss.bc.edu/timss1995.html

Torrez, A., Kritsonis, W. A. (2008). Smaller Learning Communities: Pre-Implementation

Planning Critical To Success. National FORUM of Applied Educational Research

Journal, 21(2), 60-66.

Wick, C. (2007). Most likely to succeed: Real-life stories of progress in five redesigned

urban high schools: Every student deserves a legacy. Retrieved from

http://kathleencolan.com/articles/Legacy%2007%20small%20schools

%20final.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). 2008 National Projections. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/

76

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). An Overview of Smaller Learning Communities

in High Schools. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and Office of

Vocational and Adult Education. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Answering the challenge of a changing world:

Strengthening education for the 21st century. Retrieved from

http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/competitiveness/strengthening/strengthening.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Elementary & Secondary Education

Title IX — General Provisions. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg107.html

Wolfe, G. (2007, July). Leveraging the learning space. T+ D, 40.

Zhao, Y. (2009). Catch up or leading the way: American education in the age of

globalization. Alexandria, VA: Association For Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Zmuda, A., Kuklis, R. & Kline, E. (2004). Transforming schools: Creating a culture of

continuous improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

77

Appendix A: List of 21st century skills

Core Subjects and 21st Century Themes

Mastery of core subjects and 21st century themes is essential for students in the

21st century. Core subjects include English, reading or language arts, world languages,

arts, Mathematics, economics, science, geography, history, government and civics. We

believe schools must move beyond a focus on basic competency in core subjects to

promoting understanding of academic content at much higher levels by weaving 21st

century interdisciplinary themes into core subjects: (a) global awareness, (b) financial,

economic, business and entrepreneurial literacy, (c) civic literacy, and (d) health literacy.

Learning and Innovation Skills

Learning and innovation skills are what separate students who are prepared for

increasingly complex life and work environments in the 21st century and those who are

not. They include (a) creativity and innovation, (b) critical thinking and problem solving,

and (c) communication and collaboration.

Information, Media and Technology Skills

People in the 21st century live in a technology and media-driven environment,

marked by access to an abundance of information, rapid changes in technology tools and

the ability to collaborate and make individual contributions on an unprecedented scale.

To be effective in the 21st century, citizens and workers must be able to exhibit a range

78

of functional and critical thinking skills, such as (a) information literacy, (b) media

literacy, and (c) ICT (information, communications, and technology) literacy.

Life and Career Skills

Today’s life and work environments require far more than thinking skills and

content knowledge. The ability to navigate the complex life and work environments in

the globally competitive information age requires students to pay rigorous attention to

developing adequate life and career skills, such as (a) flexibility and adaptability, (b)

initiative and self-direction, (c) social and cross-cultural skills, (d) productivity and

accountability, and (e) leadership and responsibility. (Partnership for 21st Century Skills,

2004).

79

Appendix B: Leading Organizations Establishing “Standards of Practice” for

Career Academies

The California network of academies, called the California Partnership

Academies, in the California Department of Education

The Career Academy Support Network (CASN), based in the Graduate School of

Education, University of California, Berkeley

The Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk

(CRESPAR), sponsors of Talent Development High Schools , a school wide

application of academies, based at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore

The Illinois network of academies, called the Illinois Partnership Academies, in

the Illinois State Board of Education

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC), a leading national

evaluator of academies, based in New York City

The National Academy Foundation (NAF), with the largest network of academies

nationally (over 500), focused in finance, travel & tourism, and information

technology, based in New York City

The National Career Academy Coalition (NCAC), associated with the

Philadelphia Academies, a membership organization that sponsors an annual

national academy conference

The Philadelphia Academies, Inc., now with 29 academies in 12 career fields in

19 high schools, and nearly 7,000 students

The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), sponsor of High Schools That

Work , the largest high school reform effort in the country, with over 1,000 high

schools, based in Atlanta, Georgia

80

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

81