EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ADDRESSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP …ch689zj1589/wentworth_dissertation_sm2...the widest achievement gap when comparing its district average with scores of its lowest

EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ADDRESSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP

CASE STUDIES AND CROSS CASE ANALYSIS OF THREE SCHOOLS IN SAN FRANCISCO

A DISSERTATON

SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF

EDUCATION AND THE COMMITTEE ON

GRADUATE STUDIES

OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILIOSOPHY

Laura Wentworth May 2010

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/

This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/ch689zj1589

© 2010 by Laura Peel Wentworth. All Rights Reserved.

Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

ii



http://purl.stanford.edu/ch689zj1589

I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequatein scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Linda Darling-Hammond, Primary Adviser


Kenji Hakuta


Denise Pope

Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies.

Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost Graduate Education

This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file inUniversity Archives.

iii

EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ADDRESSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP iv

Abstract

In 2008, San Francisco Unified School District had the highest average scores on

state standardized achievement tests of all the large urban districts in California, but had

the widest achievement gap when comparing its district average with scores of its lowest

performing students. Using case study methodology, this study examines the

characteristics of three elementary schools in San Francisco with larger increases in

“academic productivity” (a measure of how much value a school adds beyond students

initial achievement) than other schools. These schools also show signs of accelerating the

outcomes for traditionally underserved students in San Francisco like African Americans,

Latinos, and English Learners. The study compares the characteristics of these three

effective schools in San Francisco in a cross case analysis that summarizes the prominent

characteristics among these schools. In the end, this study presents suggestions for

further research and hypotheses about the practices, structures, and policies that help

schools in San Francisco close the achievement gap.

EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ADDRESSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP v

Table of Contents Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 Conceptual Framework....................................................................................................... 3 Literature Review ............................................................................................................... 9

Historical Context for San Francisco Schools .............................................................. 21 Methodology..................................................................................................................... 28 Case 1: John Smith Elementary School............................................................................ 39

Local School Community Context ............................................................................... 41 Leadership Acting as a Catalyst for Change................................................................. 44 Parent-Community Ties ................................................................................................ 59 Professional Capacity ................................................................................................... 66 Student Centered Learning Climate.............................................................................. 76 Ambitious Instruction ................................................................................................... 83 Relational Trust across a School Community............................................................... 96

Case 2: Xavier Academy ................................................................................................ 104 Local School Community Context ............................................................................. 105 Leadership Acting as a Catalyst for Change............................................................... 108 Parent-Community Ties .............................................................................................. 118 Professional Capacity ................................................................................................. 125 Student Centered Learning Climate............................................................................ 132 Ambitious Instruction ................................................................................................. 140 Relational Trust across a School Community............................................................. 150

Case 3: The NEW School ............................................................................................... 157 Local School Community Context ............................................................................. 159 Leadership Acting as a Catalyst for Change............................................................... 162 Parent-Community Ties .............................................................................................. 173 Professional Capacity ................................................................................................. 179 Student Centered Learning Climate............................................................................ 191 Ambitious Instruction ................................................................................................. 202 Relational Trust across a School Community............................................................. 212

Cross Case Analysis ....................................................................................................... 220 Leadership as a Foundation ........................................................................................ 220 Relational Trust Across a School Community ........................................................... 225 Dynamic Instruction and Curriculum ......................................................................... 235 Alignment of Practices, Personnel, and Resources Around a Shared Vision............. 244

Implications for Future Research.................................................................................... 255 Tables.............................................................................................................................. 259

Table 1: Characteristics of Effective Schools Studies with Sebring Framework ....... 259 Table 2: Timeline, Data, and Methods of Studies related to Effective Schools ......... 260 Table 3: Timeline in San Francisco of Superintendent’s Tenure and Policies ........... 261 Table 4: Alignment between SFUSD Policies and Sebring Framework .................... 262 Table 5: Profile of Three Effective Schools Closing the Achievement Gap .............. 263 Table 6: Three Effective Schools in San Francisco API School-wide and by Subgroup.................................................................................................................................... 263 Table 7: Alignment of Data, Research Questions, and Conceptual Framework ........ 264 Table 8: SFUSD’s Goals and Objectives with Sebring framework............................ 264

EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ADDRESSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP vi

Table 9: Top 10 Most Frequent Codes during Data Analysis for Each Effective School.................................................................................................................................... 265 Table 10: Components of Smith’s After School Programs supported by Organizations.................................................................................................................................... 266 Table 11: NEW Committees....................................................................................... 267 Table 12: NEW Virtues .............................................................................................. 268 Table 13: NEW Powerful Ways of Thinking ............................................................. 269 Table 14: NEW Discretionary Funding Sources and Grants, 2008-2009................... 269 Table 15: “Leadership as a Foundation” at Three SF Schools across Sebring Framework .................................................................................................................. 270 Table 16: Relational Trust at Three SF Schools across the Sebring Framework ....... 270 Table 17: Dynamic Instruction, Curriculum at Three SF Schools across Sebring Framework .................................................................................................................. 271 Table 18: Alignment around Shared Vision at Three SF Schools across Sebring Framework .................................................................................................................. 271

Figures ............................................................................................................................ 272 Figure 1: Sebring’s Framework for Effective Schools ............................................... 272 Figure 2: The Equation Used to Measure Academic Productivity ............................. 272 Figure 3: Smith Student Ethnicities, 2001-2008......................................................... 273 Figure 4: Smith Student Demographics, 2001-2008 .................................................. 273 Figure 5: API score growth for Smith from 2003-2008 ............................................. 274 Figure 6: Smith’s Governance Structure in 2008-2009 .............................................. 274 Figure 7: Smith’s Structures Enabling Parent and Community Ties.......................... 275 Figure 8: Smith’s Structures Enabling Professional Capacity.................................... 275 Figure 9: The Steps in Smith’s Cycle of Inquiry ........................................................ 276 Figure 10: Map of Smith Library, Organized for a day of Professional Development.................................................................................................................................... 276 Figure 11: Smith’s Structures Building a Student-Centered Learning Climate ......... 277 Figure 12: Map of a Smith Classroom........................................................................ 277 Figure 13: Smith Structures Facilitating Ambitious Instruction................................. 278 Figure 14: Xavier Student Ethnicities, 2001-2008 ..................................................... 278 Figure 15: Xavier Student Demographics, 2001-2008 ............................................... 279 Figure 16: Xavier API Growth Score 2002-2008....................................................... 279 Figure 17: Xavier’s Governance Structure in 2008-2009........................................... 280 Figure 18: Xavier’s Structures Enabling Parent-Community Ties ............................. 281 Figure 19: Xavier’s Structures Enabling Professional Capacity ................................ 281 Figure 20: Xavier’s Structures Building a Student-Centered Learning Climate ........ 282 Figure 21: Xavier’s Structures Facilitating Ambitious Instruction ............................ 282 Figure 22: Map of Xavier Third Grade Classroom..................................................... 283 Figure 23: NEW Student Ethnicities, 2001-2008 ....................................................... 283 Figure 24: NEW Student Demographics, 2001-2008................................................. 284 Figure 25: API score growth for NEW from 2002-2008............................................ 284 Figure 26: NEW’s Governance Structure in 2008-2009 ............................................ 285 Figure 27: NEW’s Structures Enabling Parent-Community Ties............................... 285 Figure 28: One of Two pages from the NEW School Persuasive Writing Rubric ..... 286 Figure 29: NEW Structures Building Professional Capacity...................................... 287

EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ADDRESSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP vii

Figure 30: NEW Structures Building a Student Centered Learning Climate ............. 288 Figure 31: Map of an NEW Fourth and Fifth Grade Classroom ................................ 288 Figure 32: NEW Structures Facilitating Ambitious Instruction ................................. 289 Figure 33: Four Shared Themes in the Three Cases with Leadership as the Foundation.................................................................................................................................... 289

Appendix......................................................................................................................... 290 Appendix A: General Interview Protocol ................................................................... 290 Appendix B: Codes uses during analysis of effective school data and code definition.................................................................................................................................... 292 Appendix C: Smith’s Grade Level Meeting Log........................................................ 294 Appendix D: Smith’s Reporting Form for Data Used during the Classroom SST..... 295 Appendix E: Curriculum Used at Most Elementary Schools in San Francisco.......... 296 Appendix F: Curriculum, Instructional Strategies at Three Effective SF Schools ..... 297

References....................................................................................................................... 300

EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ADDRESSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP 1

Introduction

In May 2008, the school board of San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD)

adopted a new strategic plan to address a number of inconsistencies in their student

outcomes. At the time, San Francisco had the highest average test scores of all the large

urban districts in California on state standardized achievement tests, but had the widest

gap in achievement between students with average achievement and its lowest

performing students. Many of San Francisco’s lowest performing students come from

sub-populations of students traditionally underserved by the way our school systems are

structured. These include African American students, Hispanic students, English

Learners, and students from poor backgrounds. The district wanted to maintain their high

level of achievement, but reduce the achievement gap associated with what the district

referred to as the “predictive power of demographics” (San Francisco Unified School

District, June 2008, p. 5). While the district crafted a strong vision in their new strategic

plan, they did not outline the specific practices, structures, and policies that help schools

close the achievement gap. Many SFUSD schools wondered what improvements they

could make to overcome this gap.

This study helps San Francisco’s district leadership look closely at a set of

effective schools in their city in hopes of learning from their efforts. While numerous

research studies describe the characteristics of effective schools, none of those studies

examine schools in San Francisco. This study broadens the body of research by studying

San Francisco schools seen as effective at closing the achievement gap.

Sometimes research on effective schools is questioned whether it is valid and

reliable, and whether researchers are able to generalize the findings. This study attempts


to address these issues by using a mixed methods approach that includes quantitative

research, which informs the selection of schools and qualitative research, which describes

the schools. For example, to increase validity, I selected schools for this study using a

value-added model of student achievement that assesses students’ levels of “academic

productivity,” a measure of how much value schools add beyond students’ initial

achievement. To build reliability, one researches collected data with the lens on that

framework, and uses case study methods to unearth a broad picture of the essential

characteristics, while paying close attention to the influences of the local context. The

policy content of San Francisco limits generalization of these findings. However, this

study develops hypotheses that further the body of effective schools research.

By studying the characteristics of these schools, this research will attempt to

answer two questions:

− What are the practices, structures, and policies of schools in San Francisco effective at increasing “academic productivity” and closing the achievement gap?

− What characteristics do these effective schools have in common, which could inform other San Francisco schools as well as district policies?

This study addresses what makes these schools in San Francisco effective at closing the

achievement gap, and unearths school characteristics that accelerate the achievement of

traditionally underserved students.


Conceptual Framework

Many researchers have addressed the question “What makes an effective school?”

In the past, some researchers judged the effectiveness of schools by looking at inputs, or

whether schools had enough books, desks, and other resources (Lezotte and Bancroft,

1985). Over the past fifty years, researchers shifted their approach to judging the

effectiveness of schools by their outputs. For example, in 1966, James Coleman and

associates’ federally-commissioned study titled “Equality of Educational Opportunity,”

judged the effectiveness of schools just this way, in this case by students’ achievement on

a test (Coleman, et al, 1966). Follow-up studies on effective schools such as Edmonds

(1979) study of schools in Detroit also used test score data from the Stanford

Achievement Test and Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). This emphasis on outputs as a

measure of school effectiveness, namely student achievement on tests, influenced this

study of effective schools in San Francisco.

Once researchers establish school effectiveness based on its achievement on tests,

they then describe the characteristics of the school. Usually, researchers study more than

one school deemed effective, and look at the common characteristics across multiple

schools. They also study differences between more effective and less effective schools.

Studies of these schools tend to be inductive in nature and develop theories that may be

tested rather than producing conclusive findings. Many times, context highly influences

schools’ outputs, making it challenging to generalize the findings of these studies. (Please

see the literature review for a more detailed look at these studies.)

This study of effective schools in San Francisco uses a similar framework to the

previous research on effective schools. This study addresses the question, “What makes


an effective school in San Francisco?” by going through two sets of processes. First, the

study looks at the findings from a value-added analysis that measures school’s levels of

academic productivity. (The methodology section will explain this analysis in more

detail.) Then, the study outlines the characteristics of three schools deemed effective

using case study methodology and then studies the common characteristics of these

schools hopes of developing hypotheses about what makes an effective school.

To provide a structure for these case studies and cross-case analysis of common

characteristics, this study uses a conceptual framework for effective schools from

Sebring, Allensworth, Bryk, Easton, and Luppescu’s (2006) study of elementary schools

in Chicago. Sebring, et al. included a robust level of analysis similar to the value added

model I use to select schools for this study in San Francisco. The Chicago study looked at

trends in ITBS (or Iowa Test of Basic Skills) scores in reading and math, with schools

showing varied levels of improvement in student test scores. Instead of just labeling the

schools most improved as more effective schools, Sebring, et al. created a more robust,

valued-added measure to judge the effectiveness of each school. With multiple variables,

they created a measure for academic productivity defined as the amount students learned

each year and whether these learning gains increased over time, while controlling for

factors like race/ethnicity and socio-economic status. Consequently, Sebring, et al.

defines an effective school as showing larger increases in academic productivity than

other schools in both reading and math scores.

The validity and reliability of their findings are increased by a number of the

study’s characteristics. The data is longitudinal in nature in that it looks at student

outcomes over a six-year period and analyzes the data for over 10 years. The study


included both qualitative data such as interviews and quantitative data from surveys, as

well as some census data. Sebring backed up their findings with other research on

effective schools and specific elements of education like parent involvement and

instruction, and cited studies that support the elements of their framework.

After examining all of the elementary schools in Chicago (over 200 schools),

exploring with prior research and consulting with experts from the field, Sebring, et al.

found five essential supports and two structural supports common to effective elements

schools in Chicago. This framework is seen in Figure 1 and will be referred to from now

on as the Sebring framework. Sebring found that schools with high academic productivity

were ten times more likely to show strong displays of the Sebring framework verses

schools weak in the essential supports. Sebring, et al. (2006) described the first essential

support, “leadership acting as a catalyst for change,” as leadership inclusive of all

stakeholders like faculty, parents, and community members. Schools needed principals

that share the vision and responsibilities of making their schools’ mission a reality.

Principals also needed to function as instructional leaders and encourage teachers and

parents to do the same. The leadership must spur improvements that have one coherent

message integrated throughout all the structures, policies, and practices of the school.

The second essential support is “parent-community ties.” Sebring, et al. cites the

extensive literature highlighting the benefits of parent involvement. Strong relations with

students’ parents and the community offer ways for teachers and principals to learn more

about the students’ culture and backgrounds. Parent-community ties also allows schools

to help parents and community members support student learning by developing more

after school programming or training parents to read with their children.


The next essential support Sebring et al. recognizes is a “student-centered learning

climate.” School leaders must create a safe and secure environment for student learning

to take place. All stakeholders must set high standards for student achievement. These

high expectations must be coupled with social and emotional support and a general social

network that instills a strong ethic for high achievement.

School leaders must “improve professional capacity” as another essential support.

Sebring describes this characteristic as teachers’ competencies around content knowledge

and pedagogical skills. Principals must deliberately work to hire engaging, capable

teachers. For current teachers, principals need to provide appropriate professional

development based on the schools approach to improvement. Teachers must also accept

more responsibility as teacher leaders and take initiative around new teaching innovations

and curriculum. Schools must also engage their teachers in a professional learning

community where teachers work collaboratively together to provide the best instruction

to their students.

Lastly, school leaders must encourage ambitious instruction among their teachers

that improves overall student achievement. Ambitious instruction not only develops

knowledge and skills, but also intellectual capacity. The instruction should deliver work

with a high level of rigor and authenticity that both challenges and engages students.

Ambitious instruction needs standards and curriculum aligned from one grade level to the

next, so students do not experience gaps in their knowledge and skills. The instruction

must be intellectually challenging to students rather than focusing on the basic skills.

Sebring, et al. described how these five essential supports need two structural

factors to produce the improved student outcomes. First, members of the school


community need a sense of trust that everyone is working together. The school

community needs relationships they may rely on as they participate in the school

improvement process and sustain those improvements over time. Second, the local school

community context plays a key role in the success of any improvement plan. Here, the

community context means the support from families attending the school as well as the

general support from neighbors and local organizations. Challenges to community

context may include poverty or infighting, which may undermine a school’s plans for

improvement. The more supportive the community context, the less resistance a school

will feel to pending improvements.

This study will use the Sebring framework to examine the characteristics of three

effective schools in San Francisco. Some researchers have studied San Francisco Unified

School District and its schools (i.e., Childress and Peterkin, 2007; Fraga, et. al., 1998),

but most of those studies address district or policy reform. They have not examined the

structures, policies, and practices in San Francisco schools effective at increasing

productivity and closing the achievement gap. To make sure, this study captures all the

important aspects of effective schools, it will collect, analyze, and discuss the

characteristics of three schools in San Francisco using the larger themes of the Sebring

framework: leadership, parent and community ties, professional capacity, ambitious

instruction, and student centered learning. It will also pay close attention to the structural

factors of local school community context and relational trust across a school community.

The Sebring framework allows this study to examine a broad snapshot of the practices,

structures, and policies across the three effective schools in San Francisco. I also make

efforts to capture elements of data that sit outside of this framework, which are detailed in


the methodology section. However, I do rely on the Sebring framework to filter the data

collected at each school. By using the Sebring framework, I hope to build upon the body

of effective school’s research and posit some hypotheses about effective schools in San

Francisco as seen through the lens of the Sebring framework.


Literature Review

Researchers grapple with whether their findings from effective schools studies are

valid, reliable, and generalizable. Even in the face of these issues, similar themes appear

in numerous studies of effective schools, including the Sebring framework. The research

of effective schools has a lengthy history and attempts to address important questions

like, “What factors in schools positively influence student achievement, what makes a

school effective, and what are the characteristics of effective schools?” Yet, the effective

schools research faces the challenge of making large-scale generalizations based on data

related closely to the context of the schools (i.e. policies specific to the state, district, or

school community). Using the Sebring framework as a lens, this review of literature takes

a look back at the history of the findings from effective schools studies, examines the

questions addressed by this research, describes the methods of these studies, and analyzes

how the research attempts to generalize its findings. While it touches on the historically

significant studies, this review of literature emphasizes studies of effective schools after

the No Child Left Behind Act went into affect in 2001 due to the sweeping effects of the

reform. In general, this literature review shows a common set of themes existing across

the studies of effective schools, but also highlights the challenges of complex

methodology, limited data, and the strong influence of school context, which limits

researchers’ ability to generalize their findings.

A lot of the research on effective schools started in response to the 1964 Civil

Rights Act with a report commissioned by the United States Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare. Authored my James Coleman, the report addressesed the

research question, “What influences students’ educational opportunities?” in hopes of


finding characteristics of schools that support students’ achievement. Instead of finding a

list of effective school characteristics that positively influence students’ educational

opportunities (also known as school-level effects), the “Coleman Report” suggested that

students’ family life and schools’ socio-economic make-up most influence students’

academic success (Coleman, et al. 1966). The Coleman report produced many findings,

including policy recommendations related to the desegregation of schools. Yet, the

finding most pertinent to the study of effective schools is the notion that student

characteristics rather than the characteristics of schools most influence student

achievement.

Researchers reacted to the Coleman report with mixed reviews. Some researchers

critiqued Coleman’s research methodology, but built upon and expanded Coleman’s

attempt to use quantitative statistics to estimate school effects on student achievement

(Heckman and Neal, 1996). Economists like Hanushek and Kain (1972), Bowles and

Levin (1968), and Cain and Watts (1970) claim that Coleman’s findings lacked proper

statistical modeling to justify his conclusions that family life determines students’

achievement in school. To make such causal claims, Hanushek and Kain suggest a

different model for analyzing Coleman’s data that utilizes value added modeling rather

than Coleman’s use of regression analysis. These economists thought Coleman’s model

did not account for the variance produced in each variable because Coleman overlooked

steps like paying attention to the order the variables are placed in the model and properly

weighting the importance of different variables like student background. Some of these

researchers also argued that Coleman’s estimates of variance for each variable could be

off because he did not account for peer effects like more affluent parents choosing to


send their children to schools with higher levels of achievement or district policies that

put more resources into underperforming schools (Heckman and Neal, 1996). Even in the

face of this criticism, researchers heralded Coleman’s efforts for his attempt at estimating

the effects on student achievement and some researchers replicated Coleman’s findings in

other studies (for example Jencks, et al., 1972). However, the Coleman Report sparked

questions about the methods for capturing what characteristics influence student

achievement.

Researchers also reacted by using different sets of data and research methods to

examine the same question, “What factors positively influence student achievement?”

Researchers like Edmonds (1979) and Rutters, et al. (1979) refuted Coleman’s findings

by conducting additional research on characteristics of school-level effects using different

data and sometimes different methods from Coleman’s study. In general, their research

finds school-level effects like a teacher’s expectations of students, or how many years a

principal has been at a school positively influence student achievement. However, the

data used for Edmonds and Rutters’ studies differed from Coleman’s study. Coleman

used data from a national sample of schools in the United States and included test scores

and survey data from about 60,000 teachers in over 4,000 schools and over 640,000

students. Many of the subsequent studies examining school-level effects look at smaller

data sets, but at the same time attempt to generalize their findings to broader discussions

on effective schools. For example, Edmonds used matched pairs of 20 inter-city schools

in Detroit with similar student characteristics and randomized samples of student test

score data to show the importance of school behavior in increasing student achievement,

independent of students’ background (Edmonds and Frederiksen, 1979). Rutters, et al.


(1979) looked at high school students in 12 London high schools over a period of six

years, collecting data on student attributes like parental education and reading

achievement as well as data on the schools they attended. Rutters, et al. then used

matched pair correlations to develop his findings that school-level effects like

management of student behavior and teacher expectations of students have a positive

affect on student achievement. In response to the Coleman Report, these studies highlight

the influence of school characteristics by analyzing smaller data sets and using different

types of quantitative analyses like correlation and matched pairs of schools.

Edmond’s study of the Detroit schools with high levels of achievement produced five

characteristics of effective schools often cited by subsequent research, and interestingly, has

some similarities with the Sebring framework. According to Edmonds, effective schools have

principals that are instructional leaders, a broadly understood focus on instruction, teachers with

high expectations for all students, a safe, orderly climate conducive to teaching and learning, and

teachers that study data on a regular basis and change their instruction based on that data. Table

1 shows the alignment of Sebring’s findings with all the findings from studies of effective

schools profiled in this review. Edmonds’ findings reflect the Sebring finding, excluding the

essential support, “Parent-Community Ties.” Edmonds may have overlooked this essential

support because studies emphasizing the importance of parent and community involvement only

started to receive attention in the 1980’s and 1990’s (Clark, 1983; Lareau, 1989; Epstein and

Dauber, 1991; Muller, 1993). Also, the Sebring study uses quantitative and qualitative research

methods for collecting data, whereas Edmonds just looked at data collected through surveys.

The Coleman report and Edmonds studies inspired a trend in research that contributed to

the current body of “effective schools” research, but challenges related to the validity, reliability


and generalizability of the findings exist. Researchers started to pay more attention to school-

level effects associated with high levels of student achievement, which were coined effective

schools research. Marzano’s (2000) review describes the resulting structure of the effective

schools research movement by categorizing these effective school studies into four types:

1) Outlier studies – studies of schools with higher than expected levels of student achievement based on student backgrounds using quantitative analyses such as regression (i.e. Brookover and Sneider, 1975; Reeves, 2000)

2) Case studies – studies of schools organized into high, medium or low achieving categories using both quantitative measures to organize these groups and qualitative methods to study the school characteristics (i.e., Weber, 1971; Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; Rutter, et al., 1979; Institute for Student Achievement and the National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching, 2007)

3) Implementation studies – studies of schools that receive a certain intervention also referred to as program evaluation (i.e. McCormack-Larking and Kritek, 1983)

4) Synthesis studies – While these studies are loosely linked to the effective schools movement, Marzono argues that these studies summarize important findings from various studies and meta-analyses to explore the student, teacher, and school level effects (i.e. Purkey and Smith, 1983; Wang, Haertel, and Walberg, 1993; Cotton, 1995)

These four types of studies highlight the different ways effective schools research has been

addressed over the last 40 years. Table 2 shows the set of research explored at an in-depth level

in this review, the year it took place, the sample of data it utilized, and the method used to

analyze that data based on Marzano’s four types of effective schools research. Some researchers

criticize this growing body of research for its lack of proper experimental design, too much focus

on outliers, the failure within some studies to control for confounding variables, and the

disconnection between describing the characteristics, but not the steps schools taken to achieve

those characteristics (Cuban, 1983; Purkey and Smith, 1983; Rosenholtz, 1985). I would also

argue that the influence of school context presents a challenge for researchers with specific

policies and politics influencing student outcomes. Coleman and Edmonds may have inspired

studies of effective schools, but the research field still has room to improve its research design,

methodology, and the ability to generalize and operationalize their findings.


These discussions of methodology and findings of effective schools research influenced

the choice of studies examined by this literature review. This review started with a historical look

at the effective schools studies (Coleman, Edmonds, and Rutter, et al.) and now will turn to an

examination of more recent effective schools studies that took place under the enactment of the

2001 No Child Left Behind law (Calkins, et al.; Williams et al., and Vasudeva, et al.). Now

honing in on the three more current studies reviewed, Table 2 shows that this review includes

one synthesis study and two case studies. I chose to emphasize the two case studies considering

first their focus on higher standards for inferential statistics that help explain the variance in

student-level vs. school-level effects while controlling for influences like students’ backgrounds

(as seen in Bryk and Raudenbush, 1992 and Marzano, 2000) and secondly their studies on

elementary schools in California.

To begin, the recent synthesis study by Calkins, Guehther, Belfiore & Lash

(2007) captures research on high performing, high poverty schools. The study provides a

narrative review of 300 research studies, with 13 of those studies focusing specifically on

effective schools. Calkins, et al. found these schools start with the premise that all

students can learn at a high standard and they do everything they can to help students

overcome any obstacles and provide additional pathways for students to achieve.

According to this analysis, these high performing, high poverty schools have systems that

allow them to 1) “acknowledge and foster students’ readiness to learn,” 2) “elevate and

focus staff’s readiness to teach,” and 3) “exercise more readiness to act” in ways not

typical of most public schools. As seen in Table 1, Calkins findings align closely with the

Sebring framework.


To pursue a “readiness to learn,” these high performing, high poverty schools in

Calkins, et al.’s study developed three characteristics. First, they create an environment

where students feel secure and ready to learn. These schools do this by promoting safety,

discipline and engagement. Second, the schools address poverty affects by handling

students physical, economic, and social/emotional needs. They use strategies like

offering breakfast, eye exams, and parenting classes to buffer the adversities of poverty.

Third, these schools cultivate close student-adult relationships with practices like looping

with their students and advisory programs. Students feel more supported by staff.

Therefore, these effective schools solidified students’ readiness to learn by providing a

safe environment, addressing the whole child from physical to emotional well-being, and

cultivating relationships with students, so students feel supported.

“Readiness to teach” at these high performing, high poverty schools also looks at

three characteristics. It starts with a shared responsibility for achievement where all

students and adults feel ownership over student achievement. It also includes a

personalized roadmap for each student’s pathway to academic achievement. Data-driven

instruction and differentiated instruction support a focus on personalization. The schools

use formative assessments, which provide automatic feedback and quick adaptations to

instruction based on that feedback. To accomplish these structures, schools develop a

professional teaching culture that provides teachers with the time to accomplish these

high standards as well as time to collaborate and improve their practice.

Calkins, et al. also found that these schools had a “readiness to act.” For example,

these schools have authority over core resources like people, time, money, and

programming and spend those resources wisely. These schools also use resource


ingenuity as when their principals find hidden and untapped resources at their schools.

These schools also have agility in the face of challenges and what Calkins, et al. refers to

as “turbulence,” which means the unpredictable nature of public schools and especially

schools serving high poverty students.

The synthesis study by Calkins, et al. views effective schools from a nation-wide

lens. Yet, Calkins’ analysis does not take into account the policy context that schools

experience in a state such as California. Each school district and state has very specific

policies governing its schools, and therefore, my literature review will account for the

state-specific constraints by looking at studies of effective schools in California.

The Williams, Kirst, Haertel, et al. (2005) study of effective schools in California

addressed the state perspective using case study methods. The study attempted to answer

the question, “Why do schools serving similarly challenged student populations vary in

their performance on the [state accountability system] by as many as 250 points?” The

study examined 257 schools across 145 districts throughout California with high levels of

low-income students using 2004 survey data from principals and teachers with high

response rates. The Williams, et al. study increases their validity by examining a large

amount of schools in California. Their analysis then controlled the variance in student

demographics by only looking at schools serving students in the 25th to 35th percentile of

schools that account for low-income students. The study also emphasized the “norming”

affects of the California context, which set uniform standards, curriculum, and

accountability measures in all California K-5 schools during the standards movement in

the early 1990’s.


To summarize, the Williams, et al. study found that these effective schools in

California shared four characteristics. First, they prioritize student achievement by having

higher expectations for students. School personnel report having well defined plans for

instructional improvement and meeting standardized test score growth targets. These

schools also set specific goals for meeting the standardized test score subgroup growth

targets.

Second, these effective schools also implement a coherent standards-based

curriculum and instruction program. This program includes instructional consistency

within grades, curricular alignment from grade to grade, instruction guided by state

standards with language arts and mathematics curriculum aligned with state standards, as

well as a district that addresses the instructional needs of English Learners. Also, the

district expectations align with the district’s adopted curriculum.

Third, Williams, et al. found that these effective California schools use

assessment data to improve student achievement. These schools use assessment data from

multiple sources to evaluate teacher practice and identify teachers in need of support. To

promote equity and access, principals from these schools use the assessment data to

follow up on the progress of selected students and help them reach their goals. Districts

also provide support for site-level planning related to this assessment data and improving

instruction.

Fourth, these effective schools in California also ensured the availability of high

quality personnel. For example, these schools have teachers with more regular or

standard state teaching certifications, teachers with at least five years of teaching

experience, and principals with higher levels of experience. These schools also had


principals reporting that their district provided support for sufficient instructional

materials, supplementary instruction for struggling students and facilities maintenance.

As seen in Table 1, the Williams, et al. study shares similar findings to the

Sebring framework, but also has some differences. This highlights how differences in the

location of a sample and research methodology might impact findings in effective schools

studies. One hypothesis for this difference in finding might be that the Williams, et al.

study does not use any ethnographic methods for examining their set of schools where as

the Sebring study developed its framework based on both qualitative case studies and

quantitative analysis. Also, the Sebring study examines schools within one district, albeit

a large number of schools, which allows the study to pick up more local, context-based

structures pervasive across one city – Chicago. Where as the Williams study looks at

schools across a state, and therefore describes more high-level structures. Consequently,

the Williams study may not capture the details of school efforts with the parent-

community ties in the same way as Sebring, making their findings slightly different. The

differences between these studies emphasizes the strong influence of the local school

context whether it be one district or a variety across the state, and possible differences in

outcomes based on methodology with mixed method approaches picking up different

findings other than purely quantitative analysis.

In addition a study of effective schools from the state perspective, the study of

effective schools in Oakland, California, by Vasudeva, Darling-Hammond, Newton, and

Montgomery (2009), addresses the school district perspective. Vasudeva, et al. looked at

45 new small schools in operation during the 2007-2008 school year, compared them to

approximately 100 schools already operating in Oakland using a value added measure of


productivity at the school-level, and qualitatively analyzed seven new small schools seen

as effective. Vasudeva, et al. (2009) has similar findings to the Williams, et al., study,

although their findings more closely matched the Sebring findings, possibly because the

Vasudeva study had similar methodology to the Sebring study.

Looking across the seven effective schools in Oakland, the study outlined six key

characteristics that may contribute to school productivity. First, the schools had principals

driven by a mission that were actively recruited and mentored in order to serve at their

school. These schools had succession plans for when more experienced principals retire

and mentor programs in place to support newer principals. Second, the schools had a

mixture of new and experienced teachers committed to their schools’ mission. This

mixture of staff allowed for important collaboration. Third, the Oakland schools use

personalization strategies to engage students in school. These strategies vary at grade

level with elementary schools using looping and home visits and high schools using

advisory. Fourth, these effective small schools in Oakland have a coherent instructional

program that stems from the district and state standards. For the most part, these schools

implement these programs using authentic, hands-on instruction that uses real-world

problems to engage students and project-based learning approaches. The fifth

characteristic of these effective schools is analysis of students learning through student

work and assessment data to promote an academic culture, as well as inform instruction

and teacher professional development. Finally, these schools also make a commitment to

parent and community outreach. They work hard to engage parents either through the

initial design of the school or through on-going family resource centers that provide

services to families.


Similar to Williams and Vasudeva studies, this study of San Francisco schools

will also judge the effectiveness of schools by taking into account performance by

subgroups. In San Francisco, a school’s ability to close the achievement gap plays an

important role in assessing the effectiveness of a school. The National Center for

Educational Statistics released a report in 2009 titled Achievement Gaps that shows the

gap between White and Black students narrowed in 2007, but White students on average

still have higher scores than Black students on all assessments (Vannemann, et al., 2009).

Even before NCLB, Jencks and Phillips (1998) highlighted the reality of the achievement

gap in their book, The Black-White Test Score Gap. Jencks and Phillips’ compilation of

research still hedges towards Coleman’s findings, suggesting that a child’s up bringing by

his or her parents is one of the most important factors in the reality of the achievement

gap. Yet, even Jencks and Phillips acknowledge that advancements in social science

research allow studies to look more closely at the school-based factors influencing the

achievement gap like teacher quality and class size. Consequently, similar to the

Williams and Vasudeva studies, San Francisco takes into consideration student

characteristics when judging a school’s effectiveness.

Building off of a long history of research of effective schools, this study in San

Francisco benefits from advancements in statistics when selecting schools associated with

closing the achievement gap in a more valid and reliable way. The larger themes of the

effective schools research supports the Sebring framework, but also brings forth

questions of whether the source of the data and the research methods influence the

validity in the findings. Also, this review suggests that this study of effective schools in


San Francisco will need to pay close attention to the local school community context as a

factor possibly limiting the generalizability of the study findings.

Historical Context for San Francisco Schools Considering the literature review showed some variation in findings, which might

be associated with the context of the data sources, this study takes into consideration the

local context experienced by these effective schools in San Francisco. The San Francisco

Unified School District’s context stems largely from its Superintendents’ strategic plans

and a number of key court rulings. Table 3 presents a timeline of these major policies in

conjunction with the tenure of Superintendents in the district. For the purposes of this

study, this review will examine the policies most prominently impacting San Francisco’s

schools during the time of data college: the Lau Plan, Consent Decree, Superintendent

Akerman’s strategic plan, and Superintendent Garcia’s current strategic plan. These

reforms’ continue to influence the landscape of all San Francisco schools both through

their historical impact and as existing policies influencing principals’ management of

their schools.

The Lau Plan In the 1970’s, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of over 1,800 Chinese-

speaking students enrolled in San Francisco schools against the San Francisco Unified

School District for discrimination and failing to provide equal educational access to

children with limited English also know as English Learners (ELs). In 1974, the Supreme

Court of the United States ruled in the Lau v. Nichols case that the law required schools

throughout the United States to provide limited English speaking children access to

education.


Now referred to as the “Lau Decision,” San Francisco and the rest of the districts

across the country had to adjust their policies to meet the needs of English Learner

students. San Francisco created a Lau Action Plan describing the district policies for

English Learners. When San Francisco made a more recent annual report to the courts

about their action plan, the court determined that district policies still limited EL

students’ educational opportunities. With Carlos Garcia hired as the new San Francisco

Superintendent in 2008, his new Associate Superintendent, Francisca Sanchez, set to

work creating a revised Lau Action Plan based on the feedback of the court, research, and

a series of reviews by experts and organizations committed to English Learner rights.

This revised Lau Plan addresses the following components of education received

by the over 15,000 English Learners in San Francisco schools: proper identification of

English Learner students; appropriate placement of English Learners; access to effective

programs; access to specialized programs & services; instruction of English Learners;

parent outreach and involvement; monitoring, evaluation, and reporting. In general, the

Lau Plan puts an emphasis on the subgroup of English Learners, and makes schools pay

close attention to their approach of serving students with special needs (San Francisco

Unified School District, Sept. 2008).

Consent Decree The Consent Decree in San Francisco is the hybrid of two separate lawsuits. In

1978 the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) sued

San Francisco alleging unlawful racial discrimination by the district and the State in the

operation of San Francisco’s public schools. In 1983, NAACP and the SFUSD reached

an agreement. Under the ensuing consent decree, no racial group could constitute more


than 40 or 45 percent of the enrollment at any given school, and at least four of the nine

designated racial/ethnic groups had to be represented at every school in the district.

The Consent Decree, approved by the federal district court, has two major goals.

First, the Consent Decree aims to eliminate the segregation from SFUSD schools,

programs and classrooms. Second, the Consent Decree recognizes that successful

desegregation requires educational change and improved education for all students as a

partial remedy for a history of discrimination and segregation.

The Consent Decree allowed desegregation by voluntary busing and enforced

racial and ethnic diversity in San Francisco schools for the first time - but it also limited

who could attend the city's top-performing schools. In 1994, a group of Chinese

American families, known as the Ho plaintiffs, sued the District when they discovered

that there was no more room for their children at San Francisco’s top-ranked Lowell High

School. They argued that the implementation of certain provisions of the NAACP

Consent Decree constituted racial discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ho plaintiffs won and in 1999 the court

ordered the District to stop using race and ethnicity in admission and school assignment

decisions.

As a result, the District now has a controversial assignment system that takes into

account factors like a student’s socioeconomic background, but not race. The race-neutral

"diversity index" intends to desegregate schools based on socioeconomic factors like

parent education or free-and-reduced lunch applications. Court ordered monitor Stuart

Biegel documented the re-segregation and subsequent inequities within the school system

after the change of the student assignment to the “diversity index” (Biegel, 2010).


In 2005, a federal judge ended the Consent Decree on San Francisco claiming the

legal system’s involvement may contribute to the on-going re-segregation of San

Francisco’s schools. Consequently, the district oversees the assignment of students to its

schools. The district will review the student assignment process in this upcoming year

and will most likely make changes considering the current system continues to keep San

Francisco schools quite segregated.

Superintendent Akerman’s “Excellence for All” In 2001, San Francisco’s new superintendent, Dr. Arlene Ackerman, aligned her

new strategic plan for the district with the Consent Decree’s requirements, calling the

five-year plan “Excellence for All.” The three elements of “Excellence for All” includes:

1) a focus on achievement for all students, 2) the equitable allocation of district resources,

and 3) accountability for results. To accomplish these goals Ackerman made policy

changes that still affect San Francisco schools to this day (Childress and Peterkin, 2007).

Ackerman focused on achievement for all students by including professional

development for teachers and principals. She concentrated this professional development

on instruction and data analysis. The professional learning also emphasized literacy in all

grades and an understanding that expectations for all learners would increase.

Ackerman also instituted a Weighted Student Formula (WSF) to make resource

allocation more equitable. WSF worked by connecting resource allocation to academic

and school-based issues, in hopes of providing a more equitable allocation of district

resources. Schools with students requiring more resources like English Learners or

students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, would receive higher weights in their

budgeting formulas.


Schools also received more funding using WSF if the district designated them as a

STAR school. (STAR stands for Students and Teachers Achieving Results.) Akerman

designed the STAR schools program to get struggling schools more resources. Schools

used STAR school funds for additional personnel and instructional resources. Each

STAR school received an Instructional Reform Facilitator (IRF) who acted as the school

leader for instruction and curriculum, reducing the expectations of instructional

leadership from principals. STAR schools also received long term substitutes to avoid

loss of instructional time and parent liaisons to increase and support parent involvement

in schools.

The plan also called for increasing capacity of school leaders around reading data

and developing goals and objectives based on that data. The Department of Research,

Planning, and Evaluation helped schools learn how to analyze their own school data,

develop their own goals addressing the performance gap between students as seen in the

data, and monitor the implementation of those goals by collecting and analyzing data.

The district provided on-going professional development around school leader data

analysis.

Superintendent Garcia’s “Beyond the Talk” The School Board of San Francisco adopted the district’s current strategic plan on

May 28th, 2008 titled “Beyond the Talk.” The plan supports three overall goals: 1)

Access and Equity: Make social justice a reality, 2) Student Achievement: Make high

achieving and joyful learners, 3) Accountability: Keep our promises to students and

families. Data collected through interviews and observations for this study took place

during the district’s first phases of implementation of “Beyond the Talk” at school cites.

The case studies especially felt the impact of the plan in two ways: 1) the implementation


of the new tool for alignment of practices and site planning: The Balanced Score Card (or

BSC), 2) the schools were discussing the Beyond the Talk goals while creating the

content for their BSCs (San Francisco Unified School District, June 2008).

To begin with, during 2008-2009, San Francisco schools worked on a new

approach to site planning called the Balanced Score Card (BSC). San Francisco’s

mechanism used to accomplish goal three borrows the structure of the BSC from the

business sector. Kapan and Norton (1996) describe the BSC as a framework for

organizing said goals with objectives and measures that will help an organization reach

their goals. Balanced Score Cards translate the vision of an organization into specific

actions that will help operationalize their vision. It helps communicate the vision at

every level of the organization by tying specific measures to objectives and action.

Finally, it encourages on-going reflection through out the organization, so personnel may

learn better ways to accomplish the goals and reflect on their efforts. San Francisco

adopted a district wide BSC as part of its strategic plan in May 2008 and will expect

schools to have a version of their own BSC by spring 2009.

Second, I collected data at these schools from December 2008 to May 2009

during which time the schools were at the height of developing their BSCs.

Consequently, many of the observations of staff meetings, leadership meetings, and

teacher professional development focused on creating school wide definitions for the

terms outlined by the three goals of the strategic plan and actions related to these goals.

Schools initiated conversations about topics like equity and access, which may not have

happened without the advent of the implementation of this new strategic plan.


The four larger policy contexts in San Francisco do not always support the tenets

of the Sebring framework. (See Table 4 to see where the policies and framework

overlap.) This lack of support may have implications for how the policy context could be

emphasizing or detracting from some of the characteristics of effective schools in San

Francisco. For example, the Consent Decree does not feature professional capacity in its

policies. Also, Superintendent Akerman’s strategic plan, Excellence for All, did not

emphasize a focus on parent and community ties. Superintendent Garcia’s strategic plan,

Beyond the Talk, seems to address all the areas of the Sebring framework, but it is in its

first year of implementation and may not have very strong influence over school

characteristics and outcomes.


Methodology

This research comes from a project initiated by the district leadership at San

Francisco Unified School district. At the time, San Francisco’s Deputy Superintendent

Tony Smith originally wanted Stanford University’s School Redesign Network to study

the practices, structures, and policies of six schools. Three of these schools would be seen

as effective at “reducing the predictive power of demographics,” or closing the

achievement gap, and three of these schools would be seen as ineffective at closing the

achievement gap. Smith hoped to capture the characteristics of these schools so the

district could learn from schools addressing the achievement gap and develops ways to

support schools that were ineffective at closing the gap.

Ash Vasudeva, the Co-Director of Stanford University’s School Redesign

Network and I worked with teammates Stephen Newton, Elle Rustique-Forrester, and

Julie Kessler to design the study with the input from my advisor and founder of the

School Redesign Nework, Linda Darling-Hammond. This section outlines the research

methodology used during this study of three effective schools in San Francisco by

describing the roots of the case study methodology, the many steps taken in the selection

of the six schools (and how I narrowed my selection down to three schools), the

collection of data, and the analysis of the data. It also highlights the probable influences

of subjectivity, and how the research methods address areas of data collection most

vulnerable to subjectivity. Overall, this study uses a quantitative analysis to help select

the schools as a means for increasing validity. Data was collected by one researcher to

increase reliability and produce case studies that examine the three schools’ practices,

structures, and policies.


Case Study Methods: To document the practices, structures, and policies of these three schools, I used

case studies to provide what Merriam (2002) calls “an intensive description and analysis

of a phenomenon or social unit such as an individual, group, institution or community”

(p.8). I concentrated on three schools as my unit of analysis. These case studies are

ethnographic in nature considering they capture the school culture and in general show a

board set of detailed descriptions of the different elements of each school.

In general, these case studies cast a wide net in an attempt to capture as many

details about the school as possible and provided a substantial snapshot of each school.

The cross case analysis looked at the larger themes and used those themes to develop

hypotheses about effective schools in San Francisco. Becker (1996) advocates for

“breadth” in ethnography, but I also combined some “thick description” as described by

Geertz (1973) and attempted to use my eye as a camera to capture certain practices and

structure in depth, in real time as they happen. In each case, I described data related to

each element of the Sebring framework, and started with a description of that element

using a detailed vignette describing a practice or structure at the school. These case

studies provide a broad lens, but the cross case analysis focuses in on the themes that

appear frequently across the three case studies and highlight the similarities and

differences that have surfaced as robust data points in the case studies. I used the cross

case analysis to hypothesize about the practices, structures, and policies that support

effective schools in San Francisco.

Case Selection: This study included a number of steps in the selection of these San Francisco

schools that increase validity and reduce bias. The selection process started with a


quantitative analysis that looked at San Francisco schools’ levels of academic

productivity. Stephen Newton and Linda Darling-Hammond in the School Redesign

Network at Stanford University designed a value added model to measure schools’ level

of “academic productivity.” Using student achievement data from 2002-2003 to 2007-

2008, the model measured how much value a school adds to a students’ initial level

achievement while controlling for other characteristics like students’ socio-economic

status or ethnicity that influence. Newton and Darling-Hammond used the equation in

Figure 2 for this analysis. The model’s equation used student achievement in a subject

presented as the dependent variable and student prior year of achievement, student

demographics, grade of the test, number of students retained and a measure of school

fixed effect in the independent variable. For statistical purposes, the fixed effect measure

allowed the research team to compare the schools levels of productivity by capturing how

much of the schools effect influences the students’ achievement. More generally, the

value added model evaluated a school’s productivity by looking at how students’

achievement on the California Standards Test (CST) at one school compared to the

achievement of students with similar characteristics.

Schools with a productivity rating representing above average achievement were

considered for the study. The value added model computes productivity ratings into a

standardized score or “z-score” with positive values reflecting above average

achievement gains, and negative values reflecting below average achievement gains.

These standard deviations were not simply converted to assessment score differences.

According to Newton and Darling-Hammond (not yet published) a rough approximation

may be made between the z-score and percentile ranks with a difference of 0.2 standard


deviations translating to about 8 percentile ranks for students in the middle range (i.e.

from 50th percentile to 58th percentile). However, this study only paid attention to whether

schools had above average achievement gains over a five-year period, from 2002-2003 to

2007-2008. It did not take into account variations in high productivity during the

collection of data at the case study schools. For example, if one school had a slightly

higher productivity score for English language arts rather than math, the data collection

plan did not pay attention to the variation. Instead, data was collected with a broader lens

so as not to overlook relevant details. For comparison sake, we also looked at a school’s

productivity score in the year prior to the study (2007-2008). However, this study paid

most attention to the z-score based on five years of data when selecting schools because

average productivity for schools fluctuated from year to year. Also, the study wanted to

avoid capturing any statistical aberrations from contextual factors that took place for just

one year, for example changes in leadership or shifts in policies.

The team of researchers at the School Design Network used two criteria to pick an

initial list of schools:

1. Schools should serve high percentages of traditionally underserved populations (e.g., African-American, Hispanic, English learners, and/or free and reduced lunch).

2. Schools should be productive in some way (i.e, overall, with traditionally underserved student populations, trending upward in certain subject areas etc.)

Based on the initial contract with the district, the SRN team intended to pick three

schools deemed effective at closing the achievement gap and three schools deemed less

effective at closing the achievement gap. Our research team also intended to pick two

elementary, two middle, and two high schools. When we examined the output from the

productivity analysis, we found San Francisco had almost no middle schools with high


productivity ratings and high amounts of traditionally underserved students. However,

San Francisco had a large amount of elementary schools with high productivity ratings

and high amounts of traditionally underserved students. Although, some of San

Francisco’s high schools showed signs of increases in their productivity ratings with high

amounts of traditionally underserved students, the productivity scores of the high schools

were in general average. During the selection process, San Francisco district leaders

decided to only focus on “effective” schools because they were concerned about less

effective schools being too fragile to manage the data collection during the same period

San Francisco was implementing their new strategic plan. Consequently, our research

team landed on four elementary schools and two high schools that met the criteria for the

study.

San Francisco district leaders vetted the choices of schools to be studied and used

three criteria to influence their changes to our school selection. The criteria for their

choices include:

1. SFUSD did not want to include schools going through new leadership or transition in leadership;

2. SFUSD avoided picking high schools that reinforce certain reputations already established in the community like small schools or charter schools.

The district leaders made changes to the list of schools to meet these two criteria. For

example, one of the elementary schools the SRN researchers selected had just started the

year with a new principal after having a principal with a long tenure. They replaced it

with a school serving a large number of English learners. The high schools originally

chosen by the SRN researchers had special policies supporting them or other special

circumstances, and the district wanted the researchers instead to highlight some of the

high schools with initial signs of increasing productivity without special policies


supporting them like the district’s small schools policy.

From those six schools, this study focused on three of these schools: John Smith

Elementary School (Smith), The New School (NEW), and Xavier Academy (Xavier). I

selected these three schools from the six schools originally chosen for these reasons.

First, I wanted to choose one grade level to control for student age and developmental

stages. Therefore, I decided to study only elementary schools because these schools

overall were generally more productive than the middle and high schools in San

Francisco. Second, this study only looked at three of the four elementary schools because

I wanted to have variation in size with Smith being one of the largest elementary schools

in San Francisco and NEW and Xavier being two of the smaller ones. The fourth school

that was excluded had a very comparable population to the NEW school in terms of

demographics.

Table 5 and 6 shows a profile of the three schools according to these different

measures: the standardized scores from the measure of academic productivity, the

California’s measure of student achievement, the Academic Productivity Index or API,

the number of students, the school grade level, and the demographics for different

subgroups. As seen in Table 5, for a five-year time period, all schools outperformed

similar SFUSD schools as a whole in English and math. Both Smith and NEW had less

productive scores in English Language Arts when you just look at 2008, and Xavier had

an average level of productivity for math in 2008. Both NEW and Xavier have over 50%

(or over 100) of their students either African American or Latino students. All three

schools have over 50% of students receiving free and reduced lunch and both Smith and

NEW have substantial amounts of English learners. Additionally 7% of Smith’s students


are Reclassified English learners. The school API, and subgroup API when provided are

listed in Table 6. Smith had an 84-point increase in its school-wide API growth score

with comparable increases for its Free and Reduced Lunch and English learner

subgroups, but had almost double that amount of increase in API for its Hispanic

students. The NEW School had comparable increases school wide with its Hispanic

subgroup and Free and Reduced Lunch subgroup. NEW’s subgroup of English Learners

is too small to register an API. Xavier had comparable increases for its school-wide API

growth score and its Free and Reduced Lunch subgroup API growth score. Xavier had

the only subgroup of the three school registering a decrease in any subgroup API, with a

decrease by 21 points for its English learners between 2006 and 2008. Xavier did not

have enough Hispanic students to register for a subgroup. In general, these schools

showed trends of high levels of academic productivity and increasing API scores with

substantial amounts of traditional underserved students in San Francisco schools.

Data Collection Data was collected over a six-month period in the winter and spring of 2009, with

the majority of research taking place in the first three months and with follow-up visits to

schools in the last three months. Only the author of this study collected the data for the

three case studies profiled to help control for researcher bias and increase reliability. At

each school, interviews and observations were conducted according to the data collection

plan. The data includes interviews with the principal, teachers, support staff, parents and

community members, as well as observations of classrooms, teacher planning meetings,

and other meetings and events related to the school. Table 7 shows these different types

of data in more detail and how they relate to the research questions and themes from the

conceptual framework. Additional interviews were conducted with district administrators


to help triangulate the data, and also make sure that these were characteristics at the

schools that needed to be addressed. Such characteristics might not surface because I was

using the Sebring framework as a lens or because schools would not recognize certain

elements on their own. In general, data collected included recorded interview data, typed

interview notes, typed observation notes, documents collected from the school, and

school and district website content. Some researchers might call this research method

analytic induction, as defined by Taylor and Bogdan (1998) where I formulated a

hypothesis based on prior research (the Sebring framework) and I studied the three cases

of the schools to see if there was a fit between the cases and the hypothesis. I then used

my findings to either support the framework or reformulate the framework and develop a

new hypothesis based on the case study findings.

A number of elements influenced the data collection tools. First, and foremost, the

Sebring framework acted as the lens with which I viewed these schools. In order to make

sure the Sebring framework did not make me overlook other important elements at each

school not captured by that framework, I started my interviews to subjects like school

personnel and parents by asking questions that were open-ended like, “What is the reason

for this school’s success?” or “What changes have you seen at this school while working

here?” I also presented a less structured set of interview questions asking about the

success and challenges of each school when I interviewed district officials. The content

of the district official interviews where used to help guide the choices of observations and

questions during the data collection process as well as triangulate data. For example, one

district administrator pointed out the challenge at Xavier of having opinionated staff, so I

attended meetings such as the leadership team and staff meetings where teachers had


opportunities to share their opinions and examined how those opinions influence the

elements at each school. Also, the goals of San Francisco’s strategic plan, Beyond the

Talk, influenced data collection tools because of the nature of the funding for this study.

The San Francisco Alliance, a non-profit philanthropic organization that funds district

reform efforts in San Francisco, commissioned the School Redesign Network to produce

six case studies on San Francisco schools and wanted the data collected to be oriented

towards San Francisco’s three goals of the new strategic plan, Beyond the Talk. (See

Appendix A for a copy of the interview protocol.) Prior to developing this interview

protocol, I mapped San Francisco’s goals and objectives onto the characteristics of the

Sebring framework (see Table 8) to make sure I covered the goals of Beyond the Talk. In

general, the Sebring framework guided the general categories of characteristics I

examined under each of San Francisco’s goals. For example, under Goal 1 on the

interview protocol, there is a focus on “leadership” with school vision, governance and

“student centered learning climate,” with supports provided to underserved students. The

influence of the strategic plan also helped the data collection tools look beyond the

Sebring framework because some of the goals of the strategic plan were access and

equity, which are two elements not directly addressed by the Sebring framework, but

which I emphasized in the interview protocol. In summary, data collection utilized the

Sebring framework, but made sure to address other areas through open-ended interview

questions, data from district officials interviews, and by adding elements of equity and

access not represented by that framework, but discussed in the district’s strategic plan.

Data Analysis


I analyzed the data using what Merriam (2002) refers to as an inductive or

hypothesis generating approach as a mean to build hypotheses or theories, looking for

larger themes. I took these steps for developing codes for the analysis:

1. I developed a list of codes for my analysis based on the Sebring framework, which directly aligned with my interview questions.

2. I read through a small subset of data that included the first principal interview from each school, and coded this subset with my initial codes.

3. After my initial coding, I deduced which codes needed to be developed in addition to the codes stemming from the Sebring framework.

4. After I coded the principal data a second time, I created additional codes I needed to reveal important details in the data about the sub-set of elements within the themes of the Sebring framework.

5. While I started coding data for each school, I also added more codes that I used to break apart and delineate the themes within the larger Sebring framework.

The codes were organized originally according to the goals of the strategic plan because

the first drafts of the cases written for the district aligned to those goals.

I used this initial list of almost 40 codes to analyze the rest of the data, using

HyperResearch software to organize my analysis. (See Appendix B for a list of the codes

and their meaning.) I coded data from interviews, observations, focus groups, and the

documents using this list of codes. I had approximately 1,000 uses of the codes for the

data from each school, for a total of 3000 codes for the study. Table 9 shows a list of the

different frequency for the codes in each school which I will refer to during the cross case

analysis especially because it shows the differences between the schools as well as their

similarities and which themes in the data are more robust than others.

Subjectivity My prior experiences, what Peshkin (1991) calls my “Subjective I,” have the

potential to influence the data I collect. To put these influences into perspective, I will

give you a snapshot of my background that would most likely relate to the data collected

for this research project. You should know I taught elementary school as a classroom


teacher in first through fifth grades in Arizona, California, and Colorado from 1997 to

2005. There were public schools, one of which was a charter school. I taught in both

suburban and inner-city settings. I even taught as a writing teacher in San Francisco to

fourth and fifth grade students, but not at one of my three case study schools. I did not

work for the district, but worked for a non-profit organization supporting an after school

program. I have my Masters in education from the University of Colorado and a Masters

in the social sciences of education from Stanford University. For the last four years, I

have been a doctoral student at Stanford University. I participated in this research as part

of my fellowship. The research study was lead by my advisor Linda Darling-Hammond,

and the Co-Director of the School Redesign Network, Ash Vasudeva. Also, as race,

ethnicity and native language play an important role in the findings from these studies I

will share that I am a white female with English as my native language. I also come from

an upper middle class background and attended both public and private school in both

southern and northern California.


Case 1: John Smith Elementary School1

School starts at John Smith Elementary on a sunny day in February, and the sound

of over 600 students reading, writing, and working together hums through the hallways.

In one of Smith’s English language development classes, 5th grade students discuss the

order of operations in a math activity using vocabulary like “exponent” and “negative.”

In a Spanish bilingual class, 4th grade students work individually or in pairs, using both

English and Spanish, to compare two Cinderella stories using a Venn diagram. In another

wing of the school, a Chinese bilingual kindergarten teacher makes the sound, “Boom!”

to describe thunder to her students. In a first grade Spanish bilingual class, students

discuss in Spanish the greater than or less than symbols along a classroom number line.

While students work in their classes, Smith’s principal Connie Lightheart, a

second grade classroom teacher, a social worker, and a Reading Recovery teacher

convene around the principal’s desk for a Classroom Student Support Team meeting, also

known as a Classroom SST. Principal Lightheart’s office is small, but has a window

overlooking the playground and colorful bulletin boards that welcome you to Smith. The

office has just enough room for a set of tall metal files housing school-related documents,

a large desk covered with piles of materials including a box of candy for visitors to

sample, a phone that rings often, three or four chairs mostly sized for children, and a

large bookcase filled with binders of student data, curriculum resources, and materials

from past trainings.

As the meeting starts, Principal Lightheart hands each person a worksheet with

the names of four focal students selected by the classroom teacher to represent the

different skill levels in the teacher’s classroom. These worksheets outline goals and 1 Pseudonyms are used instead of real names to maintain confidentiality in all three cases.


assessment data for these students from a set of benchmark assessments like Reading

Results and the SCOE, a test based on Houghton Mifflin’s unit themes. The group studies

the assessment data about the students to help with the classroom teacher’s instruction

and curriculum for her whole class and allocate resources to support the instruction of the

focal students that need to accelerate their progress.

Principal Lightheart initiates discussion about one focal student, Hannah2, and

reminds the group that Hannah’s goal was fluency, referencing the worksheet with the

assessment data. The classroom teacher describes her focus on fluency in class mini-

lessons and shares anecdotal evidence of Hannah showing signs of increased fluency in

small group work. Lightheart reports that Hannah jumped four levels on her fluency

score. The social worker checks her records to see if they tested Hannah for a learning

disability and then describes what they learned during a past meeting with Hannah’s

parents. The group discusses changing Hannah’s goal to a writing focus considering her

advances in fluency. The Reading Recovery teacher talks of shifting her work with

Hannah to writing and word blends during her small group lessons.

Smith’s principal uses the unique structure of Classroom SSTs to align instruction

and equitably distribute resources around students’ needs. Principal Lightheart conducts

Classroom SST meetings for 30 classrooms, twice a year. This presents a major time

commitment on the part of the principal and staff for improving instruction in the

classroom and increasing student achievement. With funding from their general budget,

Smith’s principal provides substitutes to release classroom teachers for these meetings.

Teachers compile the assessment data of all of the students and the social worker

2 This case study uses pseudonyms for students’ names to protect their privacy.


manages other paperwork such as notes from the student support teams. The principal

provides forms and an expectation for complete forms.

The Classroom SST meetings represent one of many important structures,

practices, and policies that make Smith an effective school. In general, the efforts of

Smith’s staff are organized for improving student academic achievement while taking

into account the students’ social and emotional well-being. This case study of Smith

Elementary School uses the Sebring framework to highlight the structures, practices, and

policies that make Smith a school effective at closing the achievement gap.

Local School Community Context Smith’s evolution as an effective school is filled with a mixture of uncertainty and

stability. Smith has over 600 Kindergarten through fifth grade students. Smith also

houses a pre-school program and has one self-contained classroom filled with students

with emotional disabilities. Currently, Smith’s student population is composed of

students from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds, with Asian students forming the

largest group. As seen in Figure 3, Asian students make up 56% of the student body at

Smith. The proportions of other students in descending order include: Hispanics (27%);

Other (11%); Black (5%); and White (1%). From 2001 to 2008, the proportion of Asians

increased from 46% to 56%, the proportion of students from other ethnicity decreased

from 17% to 11%, and the proportion of Black students decreased from 9% to 5%.

As seen in Figure 4, 71% of Smith students were eligible for free or reduced price

lunch in Fall 2008 and 61% were English Learners. Much smaller proportions of Smith

students were identified as eligible for special education services (9%), or as gifted (8%).

Between 2001 and 2008, the percentages of students eligible for free or reduced lunch

increased substantially, growing from 51% in 2001 to 71% in 2008. Also increasing


were the proportions of English learners (51% to 61%), and gifted students (3% to 8%).

The proportion of students receiving special education services changed little (10% to

9%).

Lingering Question: Is Smith closing the achievement gap? Some people might

question whether Smith represents a school closing the achievement gap considering

Smith has many Asian students. Yet, over one fourth of Smith students are Hispanic,

which amounts to over 150 students and many of the Asian students come from poor

backgrounds and are English Learners. Smith is one of the schools in a mostly poor area

of the city that accelerated the outcomes of subgroups of traditionally underserved

students.

Lingering Question: Is selection bias playing a role in Smith’s success? Selection

bias may be playing a role in Smith’s local school-community context. Changes in the

enrollment process have shifted the demographics of Smith. The school resides near a

neighborhood called Bayview that traditionally has one of the higher crime rates in the

city and mostly low to middle income residents. When the city changed their policy to

open enrollment to promote desegregation, parents from the Bayview neighborhood were

attracted to Smith because they thought Smith performed better than other local schools.

Here are two Smith staff describing the parents that enroll their children in Smith:

Many Asian families live over on the other side closer to Third Street. So their zip code is 94124. They have an elementary school over there. They always want to have their kids come to Smith, so Smith is 94134. I think [94124] is Silver Terrace and Bayview district… Academically, teachers, the principal, they play an important role [in Asian parents’ decision]. They think that Smith does better, much better. They prefer for their kids to come to this school… Once they come to [Smith] they feel safe and welcome. Teachers [at Smith] have more homework. For example, I spoke with one parent. She has a kid usually go to [another public elementary school near by], and she was complaining that teachers do not


give homework every day. And then she heard that kids from Smith have homework everyday. So, she is dying to send her child to Smith. She finally made it this year, and her kid is third grade. [Latino families] come and say this is a good school and I think part of it is the bilingual aspect, too. It is really just word of mouth. They hear from other friends or families that this is a good school. Most of the Latino families live near by, but there is definitely some families that live near Third Street or beyond Third Street, but a lot of them live within walking distance.

In this case, Third Street is considered a low-income neighborhood adjacent to the

neighborhood surrounding Smith. Some staff at Smith and district administrators

speculate that parents from the Third Street area choose a school based on academics and

reputation rather than convenience. With a focus on students being college bound

(described later in the case), many Smith parents become more aware of the importance

of academics (even if they did not start that way when they first enrolled at Smith), and

consequently, they go on to look for middle schools with high academic reputations.

The shift in demographics may also be associated with other factors. The

demographics of the neighborhood surrounding Smith changed over time, leading to

influxes of different groups of students. At one point, more African American families

lived in the neighborhood, and many more African American students attended Smith.

Currently, mostly lower to middle class Asian and Latino families live in the

neighborhood. Many of the families walk their children to Smith in the morning. While

80-100 students take the bus to Smith on a daily basis, most of them come from

surrounding neighborhoods.

Smith gets recognized at the state and national level for its academic achievement

with minority subgroups like Hispanic students, English Learners, and students receiving


free and reduced lunch. Achievement on state standardized tests shows the progress of

Smith’s students. From 2003 to 2008, Smith’s API score has grown from 769 to 853. As

seen in Figure 5, Smith principal and staff accomplished this jump in its scores by closing

the achievement gap between its Asian and Hispanic students. Hispanic students API

score moved from 609 in 2002 to 768 in 2008.

Even in the face of this growth in subgroup achievement, a lingering questions is

whether Smith would have the same outcomes and high levels of productivity with more

traditionally underserved students if San Francisco had a different type of enrollment

policy. With many parents selecting Smith over other schools, there may be a

“creaming” affect where Smith receives students with different characteristics than other

schools. That said Smith principal and teachers do serve a substantial amount of

traditionally underserved students.

Leadership Acting as a Catalyst for Change At the end of school on a busy Monday, teachers and staff slowly gather in the

Smith Library for a staff meeting. Principal Lightheart scurries around the six or seven

large, round tables and places lists of teacher teams with representatives from different

grade levels. Lightheart asks teachers to find their name at the lists on the tables. A few

teachers set up some bulletin boards showing the results of the school-wide Reading

Olympics with pictures and a poster showing which classes won the contest.

Principal Lightheart asks teachers to take their seats and begins the meeting by

pointing out that the teachers and staff should sit in cross grade level teams. She tells the

group that the meeting will start with some general announcements and then will discuss

some elements of the district’s new strategic plan. One teacher announces that she is

helping to create a new website for Smith. Lightheart asks teachers to talk to parents at


their parent-teacher conferences about what parents want in a website. Another teacher

announces she started an after school hiking club and invited other teachers to join and

bring their students. Lightheart asks two teachers on the PTA fundraising committee to

share the outcomes of the Reading Olympics. One staff member who manages the

playground reminds teachers to only have third graders play kickball on the lower yard

and Principal Lightheart chimes in that the school must have the lower grade and upper

grade students switch yards by mid-quarter to avoid these issues.

The meeting then focuses on the new strategic plan, and Lightheart walks the

teachers through the steps she and the teachers will take to share the new plan with

parents and students. She then describes how she wants the teachers to start the work on

coming up with definitions and action plans related to the three goals of the strategic

plan: goal 1: equity and access, goal 2: achievement, and goal 3: accountability. She

assigns different goals for each table to discuss and hands out work sheets with guiding

questions. Lightheart also introduces a representative from the district office that helps

explains the strategic plan and the support the school will receive from the district in

achieving this plan.

As each team works on their definition and action plans, Lightheart goes from

group to group listening to the conversation at each table and contributing to the

conversation when appropriate. She asks guiding questions like, “What do you think we

have control over in terms of resources?” and joins in the conversation with one group

attempting to define equity by saying, “Equity makes each culture feel valued in school.”

After 30 minutes, Lightheart asks for groups to briefly share out the definition and action

plan they drafted so far. After hearing each grouping, Lightheart encourages them by


often nodding her head, making reaffirming statements like, “As you said, we are going

to develop a multi-cultural classroom library,” and asking questions like “Does that feel

comfortable for everyone?” after hearing a definition about equity.

This vignette highlights the dynamic leadership of Smith’s principal Connie

Lightheart. In this staff meeting, Lightheart takes initiative to plan for her staff meetings,

forming groups beforehand and inviting district leaders to be involved in their

conversations. She asks questions and makes comments that encourage participants in the

staff meeting to want to share their opinions. She organizes her staff meetings so they

spend more time on professional development than on administrative tasks.

A number of structures, practices, and policies help Principal Lightheart’s

leadership act as a catalyst for change at Smith. While principal Lightheart sits at the

head of Smith’s governance structure, she also distributes leadership by utilizing her vice

principal, leadership team of teachers and staff, the Classroom SST (referenced in the

opening vignette), and the leadership from parents through her School Site Council.

Principal Lightheart acts as a visionary leader that create a shared vision with her staff of

a school that serves the “Whole Child.” Lightheart also excels in the area of instructional

leadership by leading bi-annual Classroom SST for over 30 classrooms, and monthly

grade-level planning. In addition, Principal Lightheart strategically cultivates additional

resources for her school that help realize the important changes at Smith and she also

manages those resources to maximize the potential for supporting students.

During her tenure as a principal, Lightheart organizes the structure of governance

at Smith around her leadership, but also distributes leadership to other individuals, teams,

and committees. See Figure 6 for a depiction of the way Lightheart organizes Smith’s


governance structure. The governance structure at Smith influences practices, structures,

and policies throughout the entire school. The principal acts as the conduit that connects

the other layers of governance including Vice Principal’s Positive Management Team,

the Leadership Team, the SSC/ELAC, Classroom SST, and the School Site Council and

English Learner Action Committee. Principal Lightheart attends and organizes most of

the meetings related to these governance structures, but also relies on her vice principal to

attend and facilitate these meeting as well.

The Positive Management Team governs the interventions on student behavior

school wide as well as supporting classrooms and students on an individual basis. The

Vice Principal leads this team with any member of the faculty that directly support

student behavior including the Elementary Advisor, a position unique to San Francisco

schools (described in the section on Student Centered Learning Climate). Lightheart

describes the students supported by the Positive Management Team as the 2-5% of

students that have trouble with their behavior. This team will be described in greater

detail in the section on Student Centered Learning Climate).

The Leadership Team or “Lead Team” makes decisions about items related to

academics such as changes in the curriculum used school wide. According to one Smith

administrator:

The Leadership Team has grade level representatives from each grade. I see leadership at every grade level even whether or not they are the grade level rep. You can always see a strong teacher who is good at coordinating and getting people together. And also the fact that they are veteran really helps…

The Leadership Team influences the content of staff meetings and professional

development. The principal chooses the members of the Leadership Team including


classroom teachers from a span of grade levels, specialists like a Reading Recovery

teacher and Special Education teacher, and representatives from the Healthy Start Room

(which houses Smith’s counselors, parent liaisons and other support staff). In one

Leadership Team meeting, the Principal, Vice Principal, and ten staff members sit around

a group of desks in a classroom. The team members plan the content of the professional

development for the teachers on the district’s new strategic plan. They also discuss how

to present the plan’s concepts to parents and students to gain their input. The meeting

centers on Principal Lightheart’s ideas, but the Leadership Team members offer ideas

like video taping the students discussing issues of equity and access or having all teachers

give homework around watching President Obama’s inauguration. In general, the

Leadership Team provides guidance and support to Principal Lightheart around school-

wide decisions concerning academics and learning.

The Classroom SST happens on a bi-annual basis and governs a number of

structures. For example, the Classroom SST governs which focal students are discussed

in the Grade-Level Team Planning. When Principal Lightheart meets with each teacher

during the Classroom SST, the principal, teacher, and support staff attending the meeting

decides what services offered by the Healthy Start Room could be utilized by the

students. During the Coordinated Services Team (to be explained in the section on

Student-Centered Learning Climate), Principal Lightheart and the other Smith staff

decide which students are most in need of intervention.

The School Site Council (SSC) and English Language Advisory Committee

(ELAC) function as one body at Smith. The SSC/ELAC make budgetary related

decisions on whether they should continue to fund certain programs and usually base


their decisions on advice from the principal and other members of the Leadership Team.

Members of this council and committee are nominated and voted into their positions by

prior members are required of the SSC and ELAC. School Site Councils are mandated by

the California state education code as part of the school improvement process and

requires members to be voted into their positions. Members include parents, teachers

from English Language Development (ELD) and bilingual classrooms, and specialists

like a social worker and special education resource teacher. At one meeting, Principal

Lightheart provides members of the SSC/ELAC with an update on the general budget.

The social worker from the Healthy Start Room describes a grant proposal she wrote to

support a program for drop out prevention. Later in the meeting, the SSC/ELAC vote on

two budget transfers: one transfer allocates funds for substitutes for 5th grade teachers

needing additional conferences with parents and the other transfer was to fulfill a grant.

Lightheart calls a vote on the transfers and all say, “Yes.” The SSC/ELAC provide a

check on Lightheart’s governance of budget decisions and overall goals for the school.

While Lightheart’s leadership from the outside seems like a commanding

presence at Smith, persistent undertones of distributed leadership exist within the

backbone of the school. The positive outcomes produced by Lightheart’s leadership style

rely heavily on her relational leadership, especially the relationship she has to the second

layer of decision-making bodies in the organization of the school. Lightheart makes sure

input from all staff is respected and highly regarded when considering decisions. Here is

a teacher on the Leadership Team describing the trust she has for Principal Lightheart and

how she developed that trust:

[Principal Lightheart] really listens when teachers go to her when things are uncomfortable. For example, we have a math program that we just


started up in a separate workshop that not a lot of people are happy with. And she listens to us. Instead of saying, “I can’t really do anything.” I know she has gone to the people above her, the district, and said, “Teachers have said this is uncomfortable, what can we do?” And even though the result wasn’t exactly what we wanted, we know that she went and tried. With other principals, I don’t know if I would have complete trust that they tried. It makes it easier to do it knowing that she tried. She has gone to bat for us many other times, it is easier for us [because] we owe her one, and she can say, “I’m sorry you guys, you just have to do this.” And teachers are more willing to do this because she has been very receptive at other points… [For example], ELD (English Language Development) is a hard subject to teach, and the curriculum is not very good at all. It is especially hard when we get to the older grades. She has gone to bat in helping us figure out how we can work other parts of the curriculum into ELD. She helped us out with that and understood our problems, and listened and agreed with us. [In the monthly planning], we will say [to Principal Lightheart], “We are having a lot of difficulty with this, we thought we could put this [ELD] curriculum into here. Do you think it will work?” And then she’ll say, “I think it might, let me check,” and it comes out OK.

While the Leadership Team and the SSC make more general, school-wide decisions, they

also seemed highly influenced from the input of Principal Lightheart. In the second layer

of decision-making structures like Classroom SSTs and monthly grade level meetings,

Lightheart helps the levers work together, and provides all the teachers with respect when

they give their input to decisions. In meetings, you can see Lightheart valuing teacher’s

input by nodding her head, taking active notes, and asking probing questions about the

content of what the teacher or other staff share. As seen in Figure 6 in the organizational

chart, teachers are high up on the organization chart for Smith because Lightheart highly

regards their insight and expertise, often making decisions about students with teacher’s

anecdotal evidence as her primary rationale, backed up by data from achievement tests.

Teachers embrace Lightheart’s leadership and wind up staying for many years teaching at

Smith.


Lightheart also played the role of the visionary leader, by helping define and

articulate the school vision and cultivating vision that all staff share. Lightheart started

carrying the torch of Smith’s vision of the “whole child” while working as a resource

teacher in early 1990’s. The principal prior to Lightheart described how in the 1990’s

Smith principal and teachers had trouble with the behavior management and students’

poor behavior and emotional needs got in the way of instruction. Therefore, the school

leadership decided to focus their resources on looking at the “whole child.” In other

words, they wanted to provide enough resources to address students and families social

and emotional needs so that teachers could focus on academics in their classroom. Here,

Lightheart describes the benefits of the whole child approach as one of the essential

strategies for Smith’s success.

If the kid is a mess, and the parents are divorcing, they are not going to achieve. Unless you deal with the emotional and social issues, then the distractions come in. It is setting that foundation so they can take advantage of the academic program that is being given to them… All those social services to kids and families are clear on how important it is.

Even as the principal, Lightheart continues to play the role of a resource teacher as well

as school leader by asking questions about students’ social and emotional well-being and

well as their academic achievement. Lightheart weighs teacher’s anecdotal evidence

about students’ family life just as much as students’ achievement on standardized test

scores. When discussing students, Lightheart studies a binder filled with pictures of

students to associate students’ names with the anecdotal and statistical data she hears

about them. As principal, Lightheart views the social and emotional services as an

integral part of Smith’s success and integral to fulfilling the school’s vision of focusing

on he whole child.


A key strategy for enabling this vision of the whole child is the services provided

by the Healthy Start Room. Smith’s leadership sought and received a Healthy Start Grant

in 1992 that gave the school $400,000 over 3 years. This provided families at the school

with a health clinic, a counselor, and legal aid. When the funding for this grant ran out in

1995, a local business owner became Smith’s benefactor and provided financial support

to sustain and eventually expand the programs started with the Healthy Start grant.

Referred to as the “Room A” or the Healthy Start Room, the program houses multiple

personnel who are for the most part fully or partially funded by the benefactor that

include two parent liaisons (one who speaks Spanish and the other who speaks Cantonese

that assist with translation), one full time and one part time social worker who are also

counselors (one of which speaks Spanish), a nurse for 2-days a week, a therapist for 3-

days a week, a full time after school coordinator and a nutritionist 2 and a half days a

week. When students become distracted or act out in class because of social or emotional

issues affecting their work, the Healthy Start Room staff provides support for these

students. Here, a teacher describes how the Healthy Start Room helps teachers support

students.

I know that if I have a student that is having a lot of problems, like it’s a chronic situation, that I have people I can talk to about it. I don’t have to be a teacher and a therapist. I can refer students and those students are actually receiving support, which makes me feel supported as a teacher because that whole aspect of the whole child is something I really care about.

Smith’s leadership relies on the on-going donation of up to $160,000 a year from a local

benefactor for these support services from the Healthy Start Room.

Lingering Question: Could Smith’s principal and teachers accomplish their

student outcomes without the help of this benefactor? Many skeptics might argue that


some of Smith’s success comes from its staff’s ability to secure funds through grants and

their benefactor. In fact, this case argues that one important aspect of Smith’s practices

and structures in securing these funds comes from the school leadership’s careful

management of the funds they already have. However, the question still remains if Smith

could accomplish its same vision of serving the whole child without the funding of the

Healthy Start Program by their benefactor.

In addition to her visionary leadership, Principal Lightheart’s instructional

leadership acts as the glue holding all of the structures, policies, and practices at Smith

together related to academic achievement. Lightheart, and many times Smith’s vice

principal, attends all meetings supporting instructional planning including the monthly

staff meetings that focus on a mix of business and professional development, Classroom

SSTs described in the opening vignette and monthly planning sessions with grade level

teams. In her office, Lightheart houses numerous binders filled with data on each of the

students. She refers to the students by name when describing data and recalls specific

details from previous meetings and SSTs she has attended about many of the students.

Lightheart may be heard asking teachers about the instructional strategies they use to

address students struggling with comprehension or critical thinking skills. She will then

bring up those same issues with teachers during their grade level planning meetings.

According to Lightheart, “The teachers may decide what the topics are [in these

meetings], but we structure the meetings,” said Lightheart. However, Lightheart also

emphasizes the value of working together as a team and promotes the importance of

growing professional expertise among her teaching staff. With a long history of

instructional reform at Smith, working with reform organizations like Partners In School


Innovation and the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative (BASRC), Lightheart brings

professional development opportunities to her school on a regular basis, often funded by

grants. In general, Lightheart’s leadership in the instructional practices plays a pivotal

role in making these structures, policies, and practices at Smith effective at raising

student achievement.

Lightheart also shows her instructional leadership by taking initiative to apply for

additional funding to support instructional reform and professional development for

Smith teachers. The school became part of the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative

(BASRC) from 1995-2002. Funded by the Annenberg Foundation, BASRC supported 8-

9 schools with $100,000 grants for up to 4 years, and an additional $50,000 for up to

three years. Smith’s leadership used the BASRC grant to organize its professional

programs like learning school-wide instructional strategies centered on developing

academic achievement. Lightheart also helps the school receive any additional

opportunities for their teachers through the school district, such as working with outside

reform organizations like Partners in School Innovation (described later in the case).

Lightheart’s leadership also relates to her strategic management of resources. For

example, Lightheart organizes the budget to meet the needs of Smith’s students rather

than letting the constraints of the budget, like categorical funding, dictate the resources

students receive. Lightheart talks about her approach to budgeting and maintaining

resources often underfunded by most school budgets:

It varies how we use the budget. The biggest pot of money is Weighted Student Formula and sometimes one of them is [from the] Consent Decree. But, I look at the money as one big pot. You eventually have to split it up because you have to cover the different budgets. When we go to the teachers [and say], “OK, we have $3,022,000, and by the time we take out the teachers and the principals, now we have $400,000 left. Here are


the things we paid for last year. And what we had last year is $600,000. Now, we have $400,000 left and what are we going to prioritize?”

In general, Lightheart and her staff put the majority of resources into students

traditionally underserved by most school systems like African American, Hispanic, and

English learner students. According to Principal Lightheart:

Any support services we have been able to put together have been targeted on our Latino and African American [students]. For example, we had to make big budget cuts years ago, and we kept two para-professionals… [that] focused on the fourth and fifth graders who are struggling… It is only for kids who really need extra help. We focus on first Latino and African American kids…

By focusing these para-professionals on students most in need Hispanic, Smith’s

leadership targets resources towards student traditionally underserved by schools.

Lightheart also makes it a priority to encourage teachers to have African American and

Hispanic students as the focal students during their classroom. To help inform their

budgetary choices, Smith’s leadership uses knowledge from assessment data to focus

resources on the students that need it most. Here Lightheart describes how examining

data helped Smith’s leadership realize where they need to target their resources.

When it looked like only 17% of our Latino kids were proficient, we really said we’ve got to do something. Picking those target kids, that was one big piece of it, for the teachers to really be aware of their kids. We certainly put [in] a lot of extra resources [in the] after school [program], extra [para-professional] support the last three years…

When it seemed like many of their Hispanic students were not reaching proficiency on

the California Standards Test, Smith’s principal shifted its resources to support these

students. For example, instead of using two para-professionals funded by the district to

cover 30 classes, Lightheart used those funds to have fourth and fifth grade struggling

students including English Learners work with two para-professions trained in a reading


intervention program called Read Naturally. The school also use some money from the

Consent Decree funds to keep no more than 28 students in their fifth grade classes, so

teachers could utilize small group work and one-on-one instruction to support English

Learners. Overall, Smith’s principal strategically places resources in support of students

that need them most.

Lightheart also strategically manages additional resources for Smith by

cultivating relationships with outside community members and granting agencies to

access additional resources for Smith. Principal Lightheart and the two principals before

her have developed relationships with funding sources over time by yearly writing grants

and inviting funders to see Smith’s growth in achievement. For example, a local business

owner that acts as the long-term benefactor to Smith describes why he saw potential in

the work of the Healthy Start Room.3

I had been interested over the years in developing ways to effectively give back to the community, in ways that would truly make a difference. Over the years I supported United Way and some of the other traditional organizations. I became kind of disenchanted with how that worked… My impression was a lot of the money did not get to the level to do any good or make a difference… I think the thing that most encouraged me was you can hear about programs, but this program [at Smith] had metrics… So one metric was how many kids were getting written up [for poor behavior]. [The Smith principal at the time] gave me stats of a three year period to where [these write-ups for poor behavior] dropped from 150 in a years’ period in time down to almost nothing as a direct results of what the Healthy Start Room was doing.

The Benefactor expanded his financial commitment to Smith over the last 10 years. He

partly attributes his increasing donations to Smith to the tangible evidence of increases in

student achievement and the specific data Smith’s staff tracks related to the Healthy Start

Room, the main resource funded by the benefactor. Here is Principal Lightheart 3 This local business owner will be referred to as the benefactor throughout the paper to maintain his anonymity.


describing how the benefactor’s increasing donations also stem from the development of

meaningful relationships.

We have built [this financial support]. [The benefactor] started giving us $10,000, [but] it’s what you do with it… [Outside resources] want to come here… because we welcome them, we make it available. We figure out how to bring them into the program… There is a whole support network that we work really hard to [cultivate], and then more resources come to you.

Donors and granting agencies like working with Smith because of the school leadership’s

(namely Principal Lightheart’s) ability to maintain these relationships and keep the

community invested in the work at Smith. The benefactor funding the Healthy Start

Room may often be seen chatting with Smith staff from the Healthy Start Room in the

school hallway. The Healthy Start Room staff and other Smith teachers and staff meet

with this benefactor on a regular basis to discuss the progress made with student

achievement. The principal and the benefactor decided to the make these meetings more

consistent and formal once the benefactor’s donations started to increase and the

benefactor expressed interest in hearing about the data describing the impact of his

investment. The combination of Smith students’’ increase in student achievement,

documentation of data tracking those increases, capacity to develop relationships with the

broader school community, and building leadership that supports the process of

relationship building, makes organizations and individuals want to invest in Smith.

Smith’s dynamic leader, Principal Connie Lightheart, acts as the catalyst for

school wide improvement. Part of the impact of her leadership comes from Smith’s

governance structure where Lightheart distributes leadership among the Smith staff,

teachers, and parents. Lightheart is a visionary leader that advocates for a school-wide

vision focused on the whole child. She clearly defines the vision and the Smith staff share


this vision and articulate the focus on the whole child to all people involved with Smith.

For example, one teacher says she looks at every interaction with a student from a “whole

child perspective.” Principal’s Lightheart’s instructional leadership moves planning

related to instruction forward, and allows Lightheart to motivate her staff to participate in

meaningful improvements in their work. Lightheart also strategically manages the

resources provided to her school by the district, making sure students most in need

receive the help they need and allocating resources in the most effective way possible.

Lightheart also uses her leadership to cultivate additional resources for Smith by

developing a relationship with a benefactor and writing high leverage grants focused on

instruction and services helping students’ social/emotional development. In general,

leadership at Smith pervades the school’s structures, practices, and policies, and moves

school improvement forward.

Lingering Question: What will Smith’s leadership need to do to prepare for the

transition in leadership when Principal Lightheart leaves? Principal Lightheart provides

incredible expertise that bolsters the policies, structures, and practices at Smith. Her

leadership plays an essential role in the management of planning and alignment of

instruction and curriculum as well as the development of relationships. Other than the

leadership team, Smith’s teacher could use more opportunities for them to take leadership

roles to promote growing future leaders within their school. It seems these structures

must exist considering Lightheart herself first taught at the school. It would be helpful to

provide more opportunities for teacher leadership to bolster the incredible structures

already in place at Smith. While Lightheart does have a vice principal, the vice principal

does not seem to carry the same social capital that Lightheart does.


Parent-Community Ties A crisp air whips through the courtyard at Smith where over 600 students line up

by class with their teacher at the front of the line. As many as 50-75 parents, both

mothers and fathers, stand near the sides of the courtyard or in line with their children,

but both the parents and children face the top of the courtyard where Principal Connie

Lightheart and two translators start the morning in-take meeting. The principal says good

morning over the loud speaker to the crowd and the crowd replies, “Good morning Mrs.

Lightheart.” There is a pause for translation, which happens after each announcement.

Lightheart announces it is Abraham Lincoln’s birthday today and she will be having a

parent coffee tomorrow morning that will teach parents how to get kids connected to the

arts. Lightheart celebrates a few accolades honoring specific classes, and crossing guards

lead the students in the Pledge of Allegiance during the flag raising. Lightheart tells the

students there are two more days left in the week and that students need to think about

“how you want to be proud of the work you do today.” With the last word from

Lightheart and the translator, parents kiss their children goodbye and teachers file their

classes into their classrooms.

This vignette exemplifies how a focus on relationships extends from Lightheart’s

leadership style to Smith staff’s efforts to cultivate parent ties to the school community.

Figure 7 shows the structures, practices, and policies Smith’s staff uses to enable parent-

community ties. The Healthy Start Room staff manages most of the parent-community

ties with structures like the food bank, translation of documents, and connections to

outside organizations for counseling services and after school programming. Principal

Lightheart also utilizes the Parent Teacher Association and the School Site Council to

connect with parents. The principal connects with parents at Morning In-take and helps


coordinate services to students and parents through their Coordinated Services Team.

Teachers develop relationships with parents at the Morning In-take and the biannual

parent conferences. While the parent liaisons may organize the events, the teachers,

principals, and all Smith staff form ties with parents at the school-wide events.

The Healthy Start Room has two parent liaisons that manage most of the parent-

community ties at Smith. The school adopted a philosophy that parents’ capacity to

support their children increases when parents receive the support they need to provide an

enriching, safe environment for the students. Consequently, Smith’s leadership uses

money from their benefactor to hire two parent liaisons to support Smith’s parents.

According to one Smith staff member, “A lot of [Smith] parents I work with have very

minimal education from where they come from and are not capable of helping their

students with their homework in English or even Spanish.” This staff member described

how the parent liaisons provide parents with services so they can help their children with

homework or connect parents with services to address unsettling issues like immigrant

status or having enough money for food. For example, Smith’s staff supports many

parents from low-income backgrounds by having a weekly food bank with food donated

by the San Francisco Food Bank. The service of the food bank helps parents send

children to school well fed. Parents line up in the hallway outside of the Smith cafeteria

on Monday afternoons. From “Lunchables,” to potatoes, to carrots, parents take allotted

amounts of food with the help of after school staff and student volunteers. A large

amount of Smith student receive free and reduced lunch (over 70%), so there did not

appear to be stigma attached to receiving services from the school, and parents seemed to

participate in services like the food bank in large numbers.


The parent liaisons also leads monthly workshops targeted at their Hispanic,

Spanish-speaking parents, and their Asian, Chinese-speaking parents. During the Spring

2008, the Chinese Parent Group met on Wednesdays from 3:00-4:00PM and received

workshops on stress management, reading nutrition labels, and asthma prevention. The

parent liaisons organize these workshops, but everyone from the school nurse to a

representative from the Red Cross presents at the workshops. In one Hispanic parent

group, one social worker and three Hispanic mothers sit around a set of long tables

pushed together in a workroom near Smith’s cafeteria. The counselor conducts the

meeting in Spanish. Two of the mothers have children with them in strollers. A sign-in

sheet gets passed around and parents help themselves to a snack of juice and pastries. The

mothers talk with the counselor about developing an exercise plan their families could

follow. One parent shares about going to a dance class and the social worker brings up

that the YMCA offers yoga classes. As they discuss ideas, one of the parents writes down

an exercise plan that they all agree to follow. The parents do more of the talking than the

social worker.

Smith’s parent liaisons also enhance parent-community ties by providing

translation services of all documents and translation for meetings with Chinese and

Spanish-speaking parents and school officials. Here is one parent liaison describing her

role:

[If] the main office needs an employee to call families that don’t speak English… [then] they give me a call… During dismissal time, parents or teachers come in and [ask me to come to their classroom to translate]. Teachers try to reach this parent, [the] parent try to talk to this teacher, but they don’t have a connection, so I will become the bridge about homework or behavior right away [with my on-site translation services].


Many of Smith’s families speak Chinese and Spanish as their first language.

Consequently, Smith’s leadership purposefully hires two parent liaisons that speak

parents’ home language that provide on-site translation during all meetings including

Morning In-take, PTA meetings, and other school-wide events that parents attend. These

parent liaisons also translate the school newsletter and fliers sent home to parents into

both Chinese and Spanish.

The parent liaisons also provide parents with other important opportunities to get

involved at Smith. There is a weekly volunteer workshop organized by the parent liaisons

that parents can attend to do production work like making copies or cutting out materials

for classes. Also, Smith staff in the Healthy Start Room organizes events like math night

and literacy night that invite parents to the school campus to learn about how they can

help their children at home practice their skills and knowledge in these subjects.

The Healthy Start Room also houses two social workers that enhance parent-

community ties in two important ways. First, the social workers organize and manage the

Coordinated Services Team, which in turn organizes the Student Success Team (SST)

process, which involves family members in discussing interventions when students are

struggling in school. The social workers track the teachers’ recommendations for an SST,

organize the meetings often calling parents to make sure they attend, send messages to all

the people like instructional specialist and the principal, and document the decisions

made at the SSTs. Here is one of the social workers describing her work with the SSTs:

One of the big chunks of my job is to coordinate the SSTs. I connect with the teachers. They make the referrals to me, I connect with the parents, I schedule the meeting, I facilitate the meetings, I come up with the action plan and I am also responsible for the case management and follow-up of the action plan. I also do crisis intervention if a kid is having a bad day. A kid is just feeling sad, I will check in with them. Sometimes the teachers


will just call me, and say, “So-n-so is having a hard day.” Sometimes I just notice because I have relationships with the kids, so I if I see they’re looking a little down, or they need to chat, I’ll pull them.

Often times, the people attending SSTs discuss sensitive subjects like potential

disabilities or behavior issues with students. Therefore, the management of the SST

meetings and the follow-up provided after the meeting with parents plays an important

role in parents’ experiences during the SST process and could affect their relationship

with Smith.

Second, Smith’s social workers play an important role in connecting Smith

parents to community organizations that support the welfare of students and parents, and

in some cases the actual academic achievement of students. One staff member comments,

“We have a lot of resources [in the Healthy Start Room] in terms of other agencies that

can be helpful or other resources in the community…” To make these resources available

to parents, Smith social workers’ maintain relationships with neighborhood organizations

(which in most cases are free) and coordinate the multiple services received by families

and students at Smith from these organizations. For example, a number of parents work

with a local organization called Family Connections, which provides after school

programming, parenting classes, and mental health services like one-on-one counseling

and play therapy. The social workers invite Family Connections staff to sit in on some of

the SST meetings for individual students receiving services from Family Connection.

Smith’s staff also partners with Edgewood, an organization that provides counseling

services to the community. A therapist from Edgewood works weekly with the Smith’s

self-contained classroom of students with emotional disabilities. The Healthy Start

Program staff also attends a Portola Community Convener’s meeting where all the


agencies supporting families from the neighborhood surrounding the school share

resources and strategies for helping residents.

Smith’s Healthy Start Room also has an after school coordinator that organizes

Smith’s free after school programming paid for by a grant from the SFUSD school

district. After school programming supports parent ties to the school community by

providing parents with on-site resources for childcare aligned with Smith’s vision of

serving the whole child. Additionally, the after school coordinator cultivates relationships

with local organizations that work in their after school program. Smith’s staff brings in

classes and activities for their after school program through other community based

organizations like Children’s Power Play!, Young Audiences, Performing Arts

Workshop, Streetside Stories, Bay Area Scores and Sport4Kids that encourage healthy

nutrition, exercise and advancement in academics. These organizations fund after school

activities like Kung Fu, cooking classes, dance classes, soccer, and garden activities. (See

Table 10 for descriptions of each of the classes and resources the organizations support at

Smith’s after school program and their estimated dollar value.)

In addition to the extensive Healthy Start Room staff, Smith’s principal and

teachers develop parent-community ties through their relationships with parents.

Principal Lightheart develops relationships with parents through the numerous leadership

opportunities for parents at the school. Lightheart uses the School Site Council and the

Parent Teacher Association to get to know parents. For example, Smith’s principal hosts

a monthly Parent Teacher Association (PTA) meeting that discusses the planning of

school-wide events and shares important community information like neighborhood

safety. Principal Lightheart also plays an important role in leading the Coordinated


Services Team meetings. While a social worker from the Healthy Start Room develops

the agenda and does the follow-up, Lightheart puts effort in leading the meetings, asking

strategic questions about parents and students, and making sure the Coordinated Services

Team provides enough communication and support to parents and students.

For teachers, structures like parent-teacher conferences provide opportunities to

develop relationships with parent. Parent-teacher conferences happen twice a year and

Smith’s leadership boasts a high participation rate by family members, almost 100%.

Teachers also develop relationships through the SST process described above. Finally,

teachers socialize with parents on a daily basis during the 10-15 minute Morning In-take.

During Classroom SSTs teachers share anecdotal evidence they learn about students

during these discussions with parents before and after the daily Morning In-take. While

some parents come every day, others coincidentally walk in with their children while

rushing to get them to school on time. Teachers use opportunities like parent-teacher

conferences and Morning In-take to develop relationships with families.

To summarize, Smith’s practices, structures and policies emphasize parent-

community ties by developing relationships between Smith’s parents and local

organization and the Healthy Start Room staff, the principal, and teachers. The Healthy

Start Room staff spur most of the relationship-building with the parents. Smith’s parent

liaisons provide structures and practices like a food bank, parent focus groups,

translation, and a weekly parent volunteer group to encourage parents’ ties with the

school. Smith’s social worker and after school coordinator connect parents and students

with outside community organizations that support families’ welfare and help foster

positive support. Structures like the Coordinated Services Team, Student Success Teams,


the School Site Council, the Parent and Teacher Association, student-teacher

conferences, and the Morning In-take allow Principal Lightheart and Smith’s teachers to

develop relationships with parent and enhance Smith’s parent-community ties.

Professional Capacity It’s 2:00PM on a Monday afternoon, and a group of five kindergarten teachers, Smith’s

Vice Principal (V.P.) and Smith’s Principal congregate in a large supply room near the Smith

cafeteria. Of the five teachers, there is one bilingual Spanish teacher, one bilingual Chinese

teacher, and three English Language Development (ELD) teachers sitting around a table

surrounded by stacks of guided reading materials and textbooks. The V.P. passes to the teachers

a grade level meeting log that lists focal students for each kindergarten class. During the

Classroom SST, the teachers pick four focal students at the beginning of the year to use as an

anchor for their planning. Teachers chose focal students based on benchmark assessment scores

and select students struggling in key areas like reading comprehension or number sense. The log

also includes meeting objectives, materials to bring, and blank spaces for someone to write

attendance, discussion notes, action items, next steps, and agenda items for the next grade level

team meeting. (See Appendix C for a copy of the grade level meeting log.) The teachers also

have with them student writing samples and a list of results from their formative benchmark

assessment of literacy.

Principal Lightheart starts the meeting by asking each kindergarten teacher to talk about

the objectives they are working on with their focal students. An ELD teacher describes how her

focal students have issues with fine motor skills and letter recognition. Lightheart asks the

teacher to describe her approach to teaching letter recognition. The teacher describes how she

works one-on-one and in small groups with students on upper and lower case letter puzzles, flash

cards, and letter tracing. Lightheart asks another ELD teacher to describe the objectives she has


for her focal students and the teacher tells the group a story about one of her focal students acting

immature. Lightheart probes further, asking the teacher to think about patterns across all of her

focal students in academics rather than focusing on one student. The teacher responds by saying

she works mostly with the focal students during center time. Lightheart asks the teacher what

they work on. After a bit more pressing, the teacher concedes that the students need to work on

letter sounds. Lightheart calls on the other three teachers in the same fashion, asking about their

objectives with their focal students and instructional approaches.

The group briefly goes over strategies for supporting students socially, and Lightheart

transitions by asking when the kindergarten should have a math night for parents and what they

should discuss with the parents. The teachers discuss whether to have the meeting in the early

evening and how to incorporate technology into the meeting.

After they decide on the details of math night, Lightheart leads the teachers through a

discussion of their student writing samples. Teachers share their results anecdotally by showing

students’ actual writing samples and telling the group the scores for each writing sample. One

teacher describes issues with spacing and periods and Lightheart asks for other “red flags.”

Another teacher brings up that some students copied other students or the teacher instead of

writing from their own ideas. Lightheart wraps up the discussion of writing by pointing out that

they all seem to have the objective of spacing. To capture the data from these scored writing

samples and the teachers’ anecdotal evidence, Lightheart asks teachers to fill out their students’

scores on a “scattergram” which is a graphic organizer outlining the students’ strengths and

challenges in language arts skills.

Lightheart finishes the meeting by reminding the teachers of the focus on spacing in

writing for the next meeting and to populate their scattergram to use as a guide for their


discussion of their next writing goal. The V.P. writes these objectives on the notes and tells the

teachers she will put the notes from the meetings in their boxes.

This vignette portrays Smith’s monthly grade level meeting, one of the structures

at Smith that emphasizes professional capacity, or teachers’ competencies around content

knowledge and pedagogical skills. Figure 8 outlines the structures that support the

professional capacity among the teachers at Smith. The structures stem from Principal

Lightheart’s approach to leadership, but then branch out to specific practices and policies

related to hiring and retention, professional development managed by the Lead Team, and

planning that starts with the Classroom SST and reinforced by the grade level team

planning described in the above vignette. In general, these practices, structures and policy

strengthen the professional capacity of Smith’s teachers.

Principal Lightheart instilled certain policies, structures, and practices related to

hiring, evaluation and retention that influence the quality of teacher at Smith. Hiring

practices have shifted over time at Smith. A previous principal at Smith described the

challenges of hiring quality teachers for open positions at Smith in the early 1990’s and

how she had trouble getting teachers to come work at Smith. She discussed how she

“literally got someone off of the street and put him in the classroom.” As the culture of

the school began to shift, with the growth of the Healthy Start Room, additional capacity

building for teachers, and a better handle on student behavior, the past principal said,

“We started competing with the high demand schools on the west side of town.” As

Smith’s reputation improved, it provided a higher likelihood of having better teaching

candidates. Consequently, Principal Lightheart comments, “We are a little bit lucky

because people want to come here. Smith is not like the west side…” Principal


Lightheart still has trouble finding candidates for the Spanish/bilingual teaching positions

because of the small pool of teachers that have these skills. “…[A]nd those are the kids

who need it the most,” said Principal Lightheart, referring to her Spanish-speaking

students who are often English learners. Overall, Smith’s increasingly positive reputation

helps them hire quality, experienced teachers that want to work hard.

Smith’s leadership holds high expectations for teachers and clearly articulates

those expectations in a few different ways. Here is Principal Lightheart describing the

general expectations she has for teachers:

I look for people who are team players. I look for people who are going to work well as a team. A couple of years ago we had someone apply for fifth grade who had a lot more experience than the young woman that I chose, but I just could not see her working with the other fifth grade teachers. Some of it is luck. People can interview quite well, and not be so great. I do think the other piece of it here is that everybody works really hard here. Not that they don’t work hard at other schools. I tell them when I am hiring them, “There is a lot of expectation here that you will meet with other people, that you will go to professional development.” I think the peer pressure is the most important. That does go back to those older teachers that really walked the walk. They didn’t sit there and go, “Oh my god, another reading program, I’m just doing what I did.”

Principal Lightheart starts conveying these expectations during the hiring process by

describing the extra time Smith teachers commit to planning and professional

development. In the Classroom SSTs and the monthly grade-level planning sessions,

Lightheart again describes her expectations for teachers by having forms for reporting

meeting objectives, action items, and next steps articulated at the monthly grade-level

team planning, which are then written by the Vice Principal and placed in teachers boxes

for reference. The grade-level team planning also allows for an element of peer pressure,

with teachers having to share their instructional practices with each other and receive


feedback from their peers. Also, at the Classroom SST, teachers are expected to come to

the meeting with a form reporting the different benchmark assessment results for each

student including the focal students. (See Appendix D for a copy of the CSST reporting

form for Smith teachers.) Lightheart also conveys expectations to teachers through the

evaluation process. At times during the hiring process, Principal Lightheart does have to

accept consolidated teachers, and consequently, Lightheart does not know whether those

teachers will meet the hiring standards traditionally used at Smith. Here Lightheart

describes how she uses teacher evaluation to vet consolidated teachers:

The hiring practice has been iffy in that if I know a teacher is retiring, I can post the position. When the teacher retires, they let the district know. So, you can’t pretend you don’t have a position. Then you get teachers that have been consolidated. Some have been great and some have been terrible. [INTERVIEWER: What do you do when you get a terrible teacher?] You start the process. You do the evaluations. You meet with them. I got a terrible teacher last year, and actually she was not consolidated. Luckily, I could non-reelect her. We met four times and I gave her all kinds of extra support and tried my best. I PARed a couple of teachers, older teachers. I got one that was consolidated that came from middle school to first grade, which I was really upset about. That was my second year here. I think now I would try to fight it because I think that was too much of a leap and we PARed her and she retired.

Lightheart is referring to PAR, or a Peer Assistant Review, which is a system developed

in partnership with the district and the union to coach struggling teachers as well as

document their efforts in the classroom with a more experienced teacher. The

combination of articulating clear expectations setting at a very high bar, and reinforcing

those expectations through evaluations help Principal Lightheart maintain a staff with a

high level of professionalism and experience.

Teachers at Smith stay for long periods of time because of the stable and

supportive professional culture. The stability in principal leadership, with three principals


in 22 years, allows teachers to feel stability in policies, practices, and structures stemming

from the principal. Teachers also comment on the supportive leadership style of Principal

Lightheart. Here is a teacher commenting on why staff members stay at Smith.

I think the principal makes the biggest difference at this school…Its all about the principal and the leadership. I mean if you feel you are working on a team with a good leader, you are going to stay.

Here, Principal Lightheart describes the support she gives to teachers.

Teachers feel supported here. I really believe strongly in the [concept of] servant leader. My job is to support the teachers in doing the work. Being in the classroom is by far the hardest job and I think that is really critical for leaders to [appreciate that]… I listen a lot to teachers. I try to bring them into decision-making. I definitely believe strongly in shared leadership.

Steady and supportive leadership create a professional culture at Smith where teachers

want to work hard and want to stay for many years.

Smith’s leadership developed structures that grow teachers’ professional capacity

through its history of school-wide reforms. In most cases, Smith’s principal and teachers

works with partner organizations or writes a grant to get teachers involved in reforming

their practices. One example of Smith’s history of reform is their work with Partners in

School Innovation, a local consulting firm that helps with school-based reform aimed at

educational equity. With Partners, Smith teachers learned reciprocal teaching techniques

and reading comprehension strategies, which gave teachers a lot of expertise working

with groups of students. While many of the older teachers know these strategies, and

some of the newer teachers do not, the process of working with organizations like

Partners for School Innovation celebrates the notion that investing in teachers expertise,

knowledge, and understanding helps achieve the overall goal of raising student

achievement. The process of reform and improvement continues at Smith as currently, all


second grade teachers are attending a workshop through the California Reading and

Literacy Project focusing on reading instruction and comprehension strategies, which

builds on their use of the RESULTS reading assessment, a formative assessment used

school wide. Principal Lightheart plans to train all Smith teachers next year using the

California Reading and Literacy Project strategies.

From 20 years of participating in school reform, Smith’s leadership instituted

some now common planning structures like Cycles of Inquiry, Classroom SST, and

monthly grade level meetings to enhance the professional culture and grow the capacity

of the teachers. Smith’s school brochure talk about the school wide use of a Cycle of

Inquiry: “The staff has used a Cycle of Inquiry to look at our student data, assess areas of

weakness, develop a plan of action, and continually review our progress and update our

instructional strategies.” As seen in Figure 9, Smith’s cycle of inquiry has teachers

examining their standards, collecting formative assessment data, analyzing the data in the

Classroom SST, and using data to share plans for instruction during grade level team

monthly planning. With a Cycle of Inquiry, teachers take the steps necessary to make

informed decisions regarding improvements to their instruction.

Teachers at Smith have time to go through the Cycle of Inquiry using structures

like the Classroom SSTs the monthly grade-level team planning. The Classroom SST

provides a more one-on-one setting between a teacher and Principal Lightheart (with the

support of a social worker and other resource teachers) to analyze his/her student data.

The Classroom SST provides Principal Lightheart with time to examine whether the

teacher meets the expectation of assessing each of the students using the benchmark

assessments, coach the teacher through the analysis of the data using a Cycle of Inquiry,


and assess whether the teacher has enough professional capacity to implement the

improvements necessary to reach his/her focal students and increase student achievement.

The monthly grade level meetings provide another set time for Principal Lightheart to

walk groups of teachers through the Cycle of Inquiry, and support each teacher’s capacity

to implement improvements. When teachers share their work in these monthly grade-

level meetings, their peers assess the quality of their instruction and provide feedback and

suggestions for how to improve their instruction. In general, Smith’s leadership utilizes

structures like the Classroom SST and the monthly grade-level planning that cultivate and

also support the professional capacity at Smith.

To enhance their professional capacity further, Smith’s leadership designs

professional development specific to the needs of their teachers. To hone in on which

teachers need to develop their professionalism, Principal Lightheart relies on her

Leadership Team to weigh-in on decisions regarding the school-wide professional

development. Often times, this manifest itself by Principal Lightheart sharing some

possible structures and topics, and getting feedback from the staff regarding which

structure or topic to focus on during an upcoming professional development day or staff

meeting. Lightheart clearly runs the Leadership Team meetings considering she organizes

the agenda, but she leaves lots of time for teachers and staff on the team to provide input.

For example, in one lead team meeting, Lightheart asks the members of the team for

ideas on organizing different focus groups throughout the school to discuss the new goals

of the strategic plan. One teacher talks of having students answer the questions as a way

to get teachers and parents to think about the goals. Lightheart brainstorms with the

group questions they could ask the student focus group, which address the goals of the


strategic plan, for example, “Do you feel safe at school?” Another teacher suggests video

taping the students so that they will feel the need to be honest. Lightheart writes down

the suggested questions and the other ideas for the student focus group. In general, the

lead team helps utilizes the professional capacity of the lead teachers, and also provides

the principal with insight into what development teachers need to advance teacher

capacity.

Structures like the professional development and staff meetings at Smith have a

lot more sophistication than your average school-level meeting or training. With the help

of the Leadership Team, Principal Lightheart plans professional development and staff

meetings with assigned heterogeneous seating, so teachers break up into cross-grade level

discussions. In one professional development meeting discussing the district wide

strategic plan and Smith’s school site plan, a table of food is set up in the back of the

library, where teachers are meeting. Teachers sit in groups of six to nine teachers based

on assigned seating provided by Principal Lightheart through small lists placed at each

table. [See Figure 10 for a map of the structure for this professional development at

Smith.] At this professional development meeting, teachers discussed topics in small

groups first, and then shared with the whole group. Principal Lightheart does not spend a

lot of time standing at the front of the room speaking to her teaching staff. Instead, you

will see Lightheart in professional development and staff meetings standing to the side or

sitting with a group of teachers, often nodding her head and reiterating comments from

people to clarify their point and acknowledge their views.

Also Principal Lightheart also builds upon content from off-site training to stretch

and apply teachers’ learning. For example, as part of the California Reading and


Literature Project (CRLP) teachers learned how to use a tool called a “Scattergram” that

organizes data about student literacy skills. Lightheart expects teachers during their

grade-level planning to then have the Scattergram filled out and to use this same tool to

guide discussion during planning. She continues to use this tool during professional

development. Often times Lighheart will ask a teacher who has applied and pursued their

work from the outside professional development by CRLP to share their work, for

instance modeling how they filled in the scattergram and discussing how it made them

think differently about their learning. By connecting outside professional development

with in school capacity building and planning, the likelihood of teachers at Smith

applying their new knowledge and skills is high.

Smith’s practices, structures, and policies enhance and grow its professional

capacity. Lightheart’s approach to hiring, and evaluation has cultivated a teaching staff at

Smith with the willingness to live up to high expectations. The stability of the staff, the

supportive school culture, and the clear articulation of high expectations attract high

quality teachers to Smith and makes hiring quality teachers more likely for Principal

Lightheart. Rigorous teacher evaluation by Lightheart reinforces these high expectations,

and allows Lightheart to manage consolidated and newly hired teachers in a structured

and well-documented way. The history of reform and emphasis on a Cycle of Inquiry

provide a fertile context for growing teacher professionalism. Structures like the

Classroom SST and grade-level team planning send teachers the message that their

professional capacity plays an important role in increasing student achievement. The

professional development and staff meetings at Smith have a high level of sophistication,

which utilizes the well-distributed leadership between the principal and the leadership


team. The structures, policies, and practices at Smith encourage a high level of

professionalism among its teachers and grow the professional capacity of Smith teachers.

Student Centered Learning Climate Down the hall from Smith’s main office sits the school’s fourth and fifth grade

classrooms. Bilingual classes and English Language Development classes sit side-by-

side. Walking into one fourth-grade classroom, student-created vocabulary charts hang

across a wire extending from one end of the room to the other. The bulletin board titled

homework lists the journal prompt, “Yesterday, I went to the Botanical Gardens…” A

poster lists the behavior expectations for the class and a chart outlines a system of points

based on good behavior.

As students scurry around the classroom cleaning up from the last activity, the

teacher asks the students to get seated in their clusters of four or more desks. Once the

students have settled down, the teacher models how to transfer information from a Venn

diagram into a paragraph that compares and contrasts two people. She uses work by a

student as a model for transferring this process. After the 10-minute mini-lesson, some

students head to the teacher’s desk and grab a plastic cup with a number. The teacher

calls out, “Who has [the number] one,” and starts helping students by talking to the

Hispanic female student who has the cup with the number one on it. The teacher asks,

“What can I help you with?” and has the student read the sentence she is having trouble

with, and helps the student spell “island.” The teacher calls out the number two, and

subsequently works one-on-one with the students who took the numbered cups in

sequential order.

The teacher comes over to an African American boy who had not taken a number,

but who has his head down on his desk. The teacher asks the student how he feels and has


a quiet conversation with the student. The teacher ends the conversation by reminding

him about the work of transferring the Venn diagram information onto a paragraph. After

the teacher walks away and a few minutes pass, the student sits up, takes a deep breath,

wipes away some tears, and gets out his pencil and Venn diagram.

In another area of the classroom, an Asian boy and Hispanic boy lay on their

stomach on the rug side-by-side with their Venn diagrams and lined paper in front of

them. They were part of a group of students still learning English that worked with the

teacher to fill out their Venn diagram. One of the boys shows the other one how to spell a

word. The Hispanic boy keeps his finger on the Venn diagram to help the partners keep

track of what other information they need to add to their paragraph. Other pairs of

students work together throughout the classroom in their clusters of desks and some

students work on their own at their desks. Even though all the students do not finish their

paragraphs, the teacher asks the students to clean up for lunch recess.

This vignette captures many elements of classroom-level structures that support

Smith’s student-centered learning climate: one-on-one conferencing, organizing the

classroom for small group work and instruction, and the student-teacher relationship.

Smith’s leadership also uses a number of school-level structures to support a student-

centered learning climate: the Positive Management Team couched in the TRIBES

program, the Coordinated Services Team, the Elementary Advisor, and a College Bound

focus. Figure 11 outlines these structures, practices, and policies that cultivate a student-

centered learning climate at Smith.

At the classroom level, the teacher maintains a student-centered learning climate

by focusing on one-on-one conferencing. By the time the lesson is over in the vignette of


the fourth grade teacher, she will meet one-on-one with 10-15 of her 23 students in a

matter of 30 minutes. In the case of the African American boy who had his head on the

desk, the teacher talks to this student for about three minutes, about as much time as she

spends with the other students during the work period. Having these three minute, one-

on-one interactions on a daily basis over a sustained period of time allows the teachers to

get to know the students needs through anecdotal evidence based on these interactions. In

addition, these one-on-one interactions provide students with instructional support from

teachers centered on their developmental level and individualized needs.

Also at the classroom level, many Smith teachers organize the desks into small

groups or pairs, so the students can work closely with one another and to facilitate the

small group instruction and support teachers provide students. Figure 12 shows a map of

the classroom from the vignette showing how the students’ desks are paired in groups of

four to six, so students can work together on activities and the teacher can float between

groups with ease. In Figure 12, the teacher’s desk does not sit at the front of the

classroom as a focal point of learning, but instead sits to the side and acts more as a

repository of classroom materials like the numbered cups used to manage the one-on-one

work. Smith teachers also use small groups to provide additional instruction to students

like English learners and students with special needs that need concepts from lessons

reviewed. In this vignette, the teacher had taught a lesson previous to this one with a

small group of English learners where she lead them through the exercise of developing

the Venn diagram and then had them work in pairs to complete transfer of information

into a paragraph.


These one-on-one and small group interactions also allow student-teacher

relationships to grow and for teachers to know their students better. Teachers at Smith

recognize the importance of the relationships they form with students as a means of

achieving a focus on the whole child, collecting anecdotal evidence to support their

understanding of students’ needs, and keeping students engaged in learning. One teacher

describes this strategy:

For me, it means that my focus is simultaneously academic and social/emotional. It means getting to know my students and evoke their personal interest in my academic plans for them, but also having a genuine connection with them. I find that my classroom management strategy has so much more to do with just understanding what kind of a learner the kid is and trying to make sure that there is time for that style of learning.

Teachers pay close attention to the information they gain about students through these

relationships and the tiny details that influence students learning. They talk about these

details in the Classroom SSTs and monthly grade level team planning. For example, the

kindergarten team talked about their focal students in the monthly grade level planning

by describing their focal students’ struggles with letter recognition, fine motor skills,

learning routines, and social interaction in class. The kindergarten teachers then shared

the different strategies like small group work with puzzles, flash cards, and tracing letters

that they used to address the letter recognition and small motor skills.

At the school level, Smith’s leadership utilizes additional structures that support

student-centered learning that help students make the social and emotional adjustments

needed to put their focus on engaging in classroom instruction and working hard in

school. To encourage the students’ behaviors that support learning school-wide, the

Positive Management Team group meets on a monthly basis to aid teachers in the

school’s overall focus on a behavior management program called TRIBES. The


agreements in the TRIBES program include mutual respect, no put-downs/appreciation,

the right to pass, and attentive listening. TRIBES agreements give the school a

vocabulary for talking to students about behavior in a supportive rather than punitive

light. The Positive Management Team is lead by the Vice Principal and also includes

some classroom teachers, the Elementary Advisor, and other support staff who work with

students at recess. At the team meeting they discuss individual students with the most

behavior challenges in school, and plan the steps needed to reinforce positive behavior

often. This takes the form of the Elementary Advisor checking in with students one-on-

one during strategic times in the school day. It could also take the form of organizing a

room during standardized testing which helps students who have trouble focusing during

testing to have the most comfortable disruption-free environment. Overall, the Positive

Management Team supports behaviors school wide and the encourages students’

engagement in school. The Positive Behavior Management Team will also reinforce

teacher’s use of the TRIBES agreements in class by going over these agreements

annually at staff meetings.

The Coordinated Services Team (CST) also supports student learning by

providing more targeted social, emotional, and academic support to students struggling in

school. The team meets on a monthly basis to follow-up on the academic and social

interventions used with individual students. The principal, vice principal, Healthy Start

Room staff, special education resource teachers, and other specialists meet to follow-up

on SSTs and organize the services provided to students throughout the school. At one

Coordinated Services Team meeting, thirteen people sit around a long set of tables in the

Healthy Start Room. The group discusses outcomes of SST meetings and specific issues


students have like lack of attendance and progress in a small reading group, referring to

students by their first name. They also talk about students’ home life, referring to parents

getting laid off or parents smoking in their cars with students. They feed these

discussions back into action items like pursuing an SST for individual students, follow-up

with a parent or teacher after an SST meeting, or visiting a student in class to make sure

the discussed intervention is being received by the student. Different members of the CST

take responsibility for these actions, and one of the social workers takes notes at the

meeting, recording decided action steps and who is responsible for following up. In

general, the Coordinated Service Team focuses on the alignment of academic and social

supports the students receive.

Also at the school level, Smith’s leadership uses a position called the Elementary

Advisor to help the Positive Management Team and Coordinated Services Team fulfill

their goals of supporting student learning. San Francisco schools have Elementary

Advisors, a position paid for by money the district receives from the state to help them

desegregate their schools. San Francisco schools use their Elementary Advisors in

different ways – some schools use the positions as a parent liaison or a manager for their

SSTs. Smith’s Elementary Advisor provides social and emotional support for students to

aid them in their academic advancement and to help manage behavior on the playground

and before/after school. For example, every day, the Elementary Advisor comes into

classes and checks in with particular students based on their discussion at the Positive

Management Team and Coordinated Services Team meetings. Over the course of a year,

the Elementary Advisor works with 40-50 students in this way. The Elementary Advisor

at Smith also manages the traffic when parents drop off and pick up students, monitors


the playground during recess, and coordinates the Crossing Guard Program, which gets a

team of students involved in safety on the school grounds. Additionally, the Elementary

Advisor at Smith lives in the neighborhood and mentors students outside of school.

Being both a parent and Hispanic male helps Smith’s Elementary Advisor connect with

students who often feel let down by traditional structures of school. According to the

Elementary Advisor, he tells the students, “First I am your teacher, then second a friend,

and third whatever you need me to be.” The Elementary Advisor plays a dynamic role in

students’ social, emotional, and academic well-being, which are all necessary

components of a student-centered learning climate.

Smith’s leadership uses the College Bound program to connect student learning to

more long-term goals and encourage students to go to college. The College Bound

program helps Smith’s staff make students aware of the opportunity they have to go to

college at the end of high school. Most Smith students are left out of the college planning

process because they do not have parents who went to college nor understand the steps

needed to get into college. The College Bound program gives students opportunities to

visit college campuses and talk about what it takes to go to college. When asked what

things at school that helped you, some Smith students described the benefit of visiting the

University of California at San Francisco campus and seeing the a college science lab.

Smith’s leadership promotes programs like College Bound as another example of

centering learning on students’ needs.

Lingering Question: Could Smith principal and teachers better serve its African

American population? Smith’s teachers serve a very small number of African American

students compared to some other elementary schools. District wide, African American


students experience lower achievement than white and Asian students and need support

to make up for this gap. Smith’s staff freely admits they could provide more support to

their African American students and families, and in fact in a number of staff meetings

observed, teachers brainstormed ways they could better served these students.

The combination of classroom-level and school-level structures (like one-on-one

instruction or the Coordinated Services Team meetings) makes Smith’s school climate

centered on student learning. Smith’s staff uses these structures to create a network of

support for student learning and students’ social and emotional well-being.

Ambitious Instruction4 It’s a Friday afternoon and a Smith teacher gathers his group of fifth graders on

the classroom rug around a small easel with chart paper. All students have their eyes

intently on the teacher as he explains a math game called “Name that Number.” Some

students sit on their bottoms, while other students in the back sit up on their knees for a

better view. In a span of 10 minutes, the teacher introduces the game and reviews the

math concept “order of operations” learned over the course of four previous lessons. He

models for the students how to play the game by choosing cards from a pile, and then

using the chosen numbers to create and solve problems like (5+1)-6 = 0 and (-7-2) +12 =

3. The teacher emphasizes solving within the parentheses first as one of the strategies in

this game.

At the end of the mini-lesson, the teacher passes out a small worksheet and

spinner to each group. Students form groups based on their own interest, with their

teacher reminding them that they need to make responsible choices when choosing

4 At times, certain terms related to instruction and curriculum will be used throughout the sections that address these topics. To better understand the definition of the terms used, please see Appendix F for detailed definitions of the curriculum and instructional strategies used by these effective schools in San Francisco.


partners. Students may choose to sit either on the rug or at the four desk islands, with four

desks to an island. Most students move to the desks, with the teacher circulating around

to each group, encouraging them to use negative number and write their solutions on their

math worksheet. The teacher also watches each group prior to talking with them and then

redirects them by asking strategic questions like, “What’s next?” and “Could you use a

negative number there?” Some students use calculators and other students talk in Spanish

to each other while they work on the game.

One group of students includes an Asian male, a Hispanic male, and an African

American male. The Asian male stands, looking over the shoulder of the African

American male as he types in an equation to the calculator. “Yes, I got 7!” says the

African American male student. The group members write down seven on their

worksheet and the Hispanic male re-shuffles the cards.

After circulating to each of the other groups, the teacher sits down at the table

with one group of three Hispanic boys. The teacher does most of the talking leading the

students through the game. He asks questions like, “What cards do you have left to work

with?” and waits for a few seconds for one of the students to respond. When one of the

students gets the answer correct, the teacher yells, “Yes! Now show your group what you

did.”

After 30 minutes, the teachers asks students to play their last round of the game

and reminds them to fill out their worksheet. After some hustle and bustle cleaning up,

the teacher asks the students to raise their hand with a thumb up, down, or to the side to

show how they feel about the game. He nods his head while slowly examining the student

feedback. The teacher goes onto share an equation developed by one of the Hispanic boys


in his group. He points out how the equation did not work at first, but then the student

added parentheses.

Prior to this lesson, this 5th grade teacher met informally with the other 5th grade

teachers to share about their progress in this new curriculum called Everyday Math. Here

is the teacher describing that meeting:

We have a lot of time, especially with this new [curriculum, Everyday Math], that we are supposed to meet informally. We do that anywhere, from lunch to having meetings after school…[With] the math especially, [we talk about], “I’m on this unit,” or what’s working and what’s not working.

These meetings allow this fifth grade teacher to learn from the other teachers’ approaches

to utilizing the new curriculum. These conversations help increase professional capacity

(as described in the previous section), but they also help align the instruction and

curriculum across the team of fifth grade teachers.

This vignette captures Smith’s focus on ambitious instruction. As seen in Figure

13, Smith’s teachers use certain pedagogy and content as well as practices aligning their

instruction. Smith teachers’ pedagogy utilizes data-driven instruction. The pedagogy

used by Smith teachers to instruct English learners probably best exemplifies a focus on

data driven instruction. Smith teachers instruct students using content from curriculums

adopted school wide including Houghton Mifflin, Everyday Mathematics, and FOSS

Science kits. Teachers also supplement these curriculums with additional materials that

make the content more engaging and authentic. Alignment of pedagogy and content play

a major role in making the instruction ambitious at Smith. Smith principal and teachers

use school-wide curriculums, monthly grade-level team planning, and alignment with


after-school programming and even experiences students’ have a home to develop a

coherent framework of pedagogy and content that supports ambitious instruction.

Smith’s policy of using data driven instruction plays an essential role in

developing ambitious instruction. Their data driven instruction follows the “Cycle of

Inquiry” described earlier in the Student-Centered Learning Climate section. Smith’s

leadership puts language arts at the center of the majority of its inquiries, but data is

collected and discussed about skills and knowledge in mathematics, too. The data-driven

planning starts with careful examination of grade-level standards, and then continues with

a collection of formative assessment data. [See Figure 9 for a visual representation of the

cycle of inquiry used at Smith.] For reading, Smith teachers collects assessment data

using a series of tests from the California Reading and Literacy Program called

RESULTS. These tests include running records that check for fluency, accuracy, and

reading comprehension. For the past seven years, these tests happened at the beginning

of the year for all students and the middle of the year for focal students. Classroom

teachers assess all of their students in the beginning of the year one-on-one. Smith’s

leadership pays for 35 days of substitute teachers from its general budget, so classroom

teachers may test all of their students. Smith teachers also use the SCOE assessment, a

test aligned with the Houghton Mifflin curriculum and written by the Sacramento Office

of Education (hence the acronym SCOE). Teachers enter this data from RESULTS and

the SCOE in a program called the Online Assessment Reporting System (OARS) and

administrators and teachers at Smith collate reports looking at students’ overall scores

from OARS.


After teachers administer assessments, collect the assessment data, and enter the

data into the OARS, they meet with Principal Lightheart, their colleagues and other staff

to analyze that data and figure out how the data will “drive” or shape their instruction.

While Smith does not stand behind one pedagogical strategy like teaching to the Multiple

Intelligences or Project-Based Learning, it utilizes a variety of strategies based on the

evolving research of best practices related to instruction. These practices often come from

additional professional development or training paid for by their partnerships like

Partners for School Innovation or grants through BASRC. Out of habit, Smith teachers

and Principal Lightheart are always on the look out for strategies that support the student

needs that surface during their analysis of student data. For example, teachers’ reference

books like Strategies that Work: Teaching Comprehension to Enhance Understanding

(Harvey and Goudvis, 2000) and Reading for Meaning (Miller, 2002) are used during

their team planning sessions as sources for instructional strategies used at their grade-

level and school-wide. In general, grade-level teams base their choice of instructional

strategy on the assessment of student needs through analysis of data, all with a watchful

eye, input, and approval from Principal Lightheart.

Smith teachers use a number of structures to analyze the data including the

Classroom SST and the grade level team planning. At the grade level meeting, the

principal and often the vice principal meet with grade level teams to discuss and

coordinate instructional strategies based on students’ assessment data. They base their

planning on the four focal students used during the work in the Classroom SST. For

example, one grade-level team implemented a new reading comprehension strategy

because they found students’ scores on the SCOE in comprehension to be low. They


discussed their progress toward implementing the comprehension strategy of

synthesizing, and outlined changes they wanted to make in their instruction to improve

the students use of the strategy. They developed a common assessment tool to evaluate

how well students could synthesize while reading. Finally, the teachers created a timeline

for collecting data on students’ skills and knowledge related to synthesizing using their

common assessment tool. The teachers also brought students’ written work to the

meeting and examined writing from their focal students to gauge if the student work

showed signs of improving students’ ability to synthesize what they read.

With 61% of Smith’s students classified as English Learners, Smith’s leadership

closely scrutinizes the data about their English learners and the pedagogy used to meet

their needs. In the 1990’s, Smith’s leadership added a Spanish bilingual program focused

on maintenance of the Spanish language, where students did not study English in-depth

until 3rd grade. In 2002, the Smith staff looked at the data from students in the Spanish

bilingual program and found only one student at the proficient level on the California

Standards Test in English language arts. They decided the program did not teach English

early enough and this affected student outcomes on test scores. One Smith teacher

received an EdFund research grant to study models for instructing English Learners and

based on this work added reading instruction in English in the first grade Spanish

bilingual classrooms. (The San Francisco Ed Fund is a local, non-profit organization that

provides small grant annually to San Francisco teachers among other programs that

support the school district. Smith’s leadership then shifted their program policy to

kindergarten students receiving 90% of instruction in Spanish and 10% in English. At

first grade it changed to 70-80% in Spanish to 20-30% in English. At second grade,


students receive a minimum of 40% in English. Third grade had a 50/50 ratio and fourth

and fifth grade an 80/20 ratio. According to Lightheart, the fifth graders Spanish tends to

fall off, so the school more recently looked for ways to ensure bi-literacy through their

Spanish bilingual program, but in general the program is considered “transitional”

bilingual program. Smith’s leadership also added a Chinese bilingual program, but it uses

even less of students’ native language with kindergarten receiving 20% of their content in

Chinese and 80% in English and only 10% of their content in Chinese in the subsequent

years. The Chinese bilingual program only lasts through third grade and there is no

expectation of being literate in Chinese. This difference with the Spanish bilingual

program is party be due to the lack of teaching resources like curriculum and books in

Chinese and the reality that Chinese students do not have the option of taking the

California Standards Test in Chinese. Other classes aside from the bilingual classes use

English Language Development (ELD) strategies to support English learners.

Smith’s policies support the alignment of pedagogical strategies by having

curriculum that is shared across grade level and builds on itself from grade to grade.

Smith teachers use the Houghton Mifflin curriculum in kindergarten through fifth grade,

which is a more scripted curriculum that provides detailed lessons and pacing guides.

This shared curriculum allows Smith’s teachers to address students’ academic

experiences in a precise manner. While Smith teachers use of a common curriculum in

most subjects, the teachers deliver instruction to students through a variety of

instructional approaches informed by grade-level planning and professional development.

However, the curriculum balances these different pedagogical approaches with common

content to align the materials students receive in class. According to Principal Lightheart,


“We use Houghton Mifflin school wide so everyone is on the same page, and we can

have collaborative discussions.” Adds Lightheart, “The key is doing it together.” The

Houghton Mifflin curriculum allows Smith teachers to share similar content in the

language arts through each grade level and across grade level teams, while at the same

time discussing the instruction they will use to best deliver the content. Teachers also all

use the Everyday Day Math curriculum, the Harcourt curriculum for social studies, and

Full Option Science System (FOSS) kits for science focused on problem solving, inquiry,

and hands on science. (See Appendix E for a detailed description of each of these

curriculums.) Smith’s teachers abide by the Houghton Mifflin pacing calendar, daily

lessons, and materials provided by the curriculum. In some cases, Smith teachers hold

and reference the Houghton Mifflin teachers’ manual during their lessons. In most

language arts lessons at Smith, students work out of the Houghton Mifflin workbooks. In

general, the curriculum dominates the structures and practices in Smith’s language arts

instructional period.

While the Houghton Mifflin curriculum allows Smith teachers to align the content

of their instruction school wide, the curriculum does not do the best job of providing

engaging and authentic content. Principal Lightheart describes the drawbacks of

curriculums like Houghton Mifflin: “I think that joyful learning is a piece that sort of

went by the wayside with Houghton Mifflin.” To counteract the dull content of Houghton

Mifflin, teachers at Smith supplement the curriculum. Because of the school’s history of

reform with BASRC and Partners in School Innovation, the principal and teachers at

Smith always look for ways to improve and enrich the materials they use through outside

resources. They rely on Houghton Mifflin for the alignment and general cohesiveness


among the content of their curriculum, but do not shy away from finding content that

instruct students in language arts with more engaging and authentic content. One grade

level passes around a box of different Cinderella stories from different cultural

background to supplement their unit on fairy tales. A fifth grade teacher reads aloud The

Watson's Go to Birmingham – 1963 (Curtis 1997), a story of an African American family

that brings up issues of race and civil rights. A kindergarten teacher shows students a

Leap Frog video on phonics to supplement their language arts instruction. A fourth grade

teacher uses journal prompts for students based on the recent inauguration of President

Barack Obama. The prompt reads:

On Tuesday, Barack Obama will become our president. Write a letter to Obama. What would you like him to do for our country? What questions do you have for him? Are you excited to see him become president? Why or why not?

This teacher tells the students that they will mail these journal responses to President

Obama once they are completed. In general, the supplementing of the curriculum aims to

engage students and makes activities more authentic, but the general curriculum at Smith

still stay true to the pacing and structures presented by Houghton Mifflin.

Lingering Question: How could Smith teachers expand their use of authentic and

culturally relevant content? In their attempt to align their curriculum and instruction

within grade level teams, across programs serving English Learners and across grade

level, it seems Smith staff spends a lot of time attempting practices and structures school-

wide such as their use of the Houghton Mifflin curriculum. These practices and

structures tend to focus instruction based on students needs, but do not spend much time

paying attention to when the curriculum and content used in that instruction is culturally

representative of the students at Smith. It seems Smith’s teachers could benefit from


spending some time focusing on supplementing their curriculum with authentic and

culturally relevant materials, to make the curriculum more engaging and representative.

(See Appendix F for a discussion of terms related to curriculum used by effective schools

like “culturally relevant content.”)

Smith teachers do scrutinize the curriculum adopted by the district to be used for

English Language Development instruction. The district adopted the Rigby curriculum, a

curriculum aimed at teaching English learners academic English through lessons

embedded in content, which teachers use for a half an hour every day. Yet, Smith

teachers in the upper grades did not see Rigby as an effective tool for their age group.

Lightheart describes this conflict with the Rigby curriculum.

There’s this difference between scaffolding and teaching language. With scaffolding, you’re teaching the focus content, and when you’re doing ELD, the focus is language. The teachers are having to make it up. Kindergarten and first grade, the Rigby program is probably OK, you know it is a lot of chanting. When you get to the upper grades the materials are so minimal and so poor that the teachers are supplementing [by using other curriculums]. The focus is a language goal, which is OK, but it’s not a consistent program.

While Smith teachers follows district policies on adopted curriculum, it continually

scrutinize their data and make sure the curricula work for the students. In this case, Rigby

did not seem like the most effective content in the upper grades so Principal Lightheart

and the upper grade teachers decided to teach language development by having a

language goal within their content lesson.

While the school puts a major emphasis on alignment through common content, it

also keeps their instruction aligned through their grade-level team planning, their after

school programming and their connections with students’ experiences at home. Grade

level team planning allows teachers to align their pedagogy and content. By consciously


aligning their work, teachers learn from each others’ innovations and advancements, and

also help teachers see where there is need to improve their instruction. One teacher

describes how her team decided on uniform goals in writing, and the different strategies

they would teach in writing to reach these goals. This teacher also describes how it is

helpful to have veteran teachers on her grade-level team, and talks about how she can

walk down the hall to get help from them while they work on the same lessons.

In addition to grade-level planning, Smith’s staff creates alignment by designing

the after school program to support its instructional program. Here is an example of an

after school class focused on academic tutorials:

Its 3:00PM, and a group of 12 Hispanic students file into a classroom with their

backpacks over their shoulders a little sweaty from the 15-minute recess after their

regular school day ended. An after school teacher and an assistant remind students to take

a seat at a desk and get out their homework. Some of the students claim not to have

homework, so the after school teacher calls the director of the after school program and

asks her to bring a packet of practice math problems for the students. The after school

teacher calls three students to a back table to help them on their homework in a small

group. Other students write their names on the chalkboard to signal to the assistant they

want help with their homework. The assistant works with a Hispanic female first and

speaks to her in Spanish and English, helping her understand the directions on the math

worksheet about probability. Students look through their backpacks to find a penny

needed to complete the homework. The sound of pennies landing on the desks starts to

echo throughout the room as students flip the coins on their own or in pairs while

working on their math problems.


As seen in the vignette, Smith’s after school program starts with a short recess,

and then over an hour devoted to “academic tutorials” that aligns directly with the skills

students were working on earlier in the day in their regular classroom. Students also

participate in “enrichment” classes like nutrition, science, art, book club, and gardening.

Smith students also participate in a “recreational program” with activities like Kung Foo

and dance. To make sure the after school program aligns with the regular school day,

Smith’s leadership funds an after school coordinator with the money they receive from

their status as an Expanded Collaboratives for Excellence in Learning (ExCEL) after

school program. ExCEL is a San Francisco Unified School District program that houses

funding from grants through the federal government, state of California, city of San

Francisco, and a conglomeration of grants and in kind donations from organizations

throughout San Francisco. The after school program enrolled approximately 150 out of

over 600 Smith students in the 2008-2009 school year and about 180 out of 600 Smith

students in the 2007-2008 school year.

The coordinator aligns the “academic tutorials” in the after school program by

centering those tutorials on homework from the students’ regular classroom. The

coordinator keeps abreast of Smith’s instructional program by attending meetings with

other school personnel to make sure the after school services align with academic

instruction and checks in with teachers regarding students in the after school program on

a regular basis. For example, in the vignette about the “academic tutorial” during the after

school program, the students claimed they did not have any homework, and the after

school teacher called the coordinator to get some additional work in math for the students

to practice their skills. The coordinator investigated the situation and found out the


students had a substitute teacher that day and the students did not write down the

homework written on the blackboard. The coordinator’s extra effort to investigate the

lack of homework helped those students complete the correct homework and kept the

student work aligned with what was taught in school.

The alignment of the instruction at Smith extends to students’ experiences at

home. Smith’s leadership intentionally builds programming for its families to inform

them about practices, structures, and policies at school. The programming teaches family

members about what they can do at home with their children to help them achieve in

school. Teachers at Smith host parent-teacher conferences twice a year with almost 100%

attendance that provides teachers time with family members to review individual student

data on their children’s progress. Smith’s staff also follows-up these one-on-one

conferences with larger “data nights” where it reviews school-level results from the

California Standards Test with families. To help families know how to support their

children at home in their academic development, Smith’s staff hosts literacy and math

nights. According to one Smith staff member, “We involve the parents a lot in the

education. We bring them in to volunteer. We hold math night and literacy night. We try

to educate the parents about what they can do to promote their child’s education.” These

academic focus nights teach family members the strategies for helping their children

focus on reading, writing, and math skills during their time at home. These strategies

reinforce instructional strategies used during the regular school day.

Smith’s teachers maintain a high level of ambitious instruction using a number of

practices, policies, and structures. To develop a common pedagogy, Smith teachers use

data-driven instruction during grade-level team planning that allows teams to go through


a Cycle of Inquiry, and choose common pedagogical strategies to address the areas of

student need surfaced by the data. Smith teachers use data-drive instruction to closely

monitors the needs of special populations like English learners and has changed its

school-wide policies regarding its bilingual programming based on data from the

California Standards Test. Smith’s teachers choose common content by adopting

curriculum packages school-wide and supplementing those curriculums where they fall

short in meeting student needs. Smith’s teachers align their efforts towards ambitious

instruction by adopting school-wide curriculums like Houghton Mifflin, examining data

and improving instructional strategies using grade-level planning, after school

programming supportive of regular classroom instruction, and parent education that

provide experiences aligned with regular day instruction at students’ homes. Smith

teachers could possibly do a better job making their curriculum more culturally relevant

for their students at the risk of having less alignment.

Relational Trust across a School Community Over 40 teachers and staff sit quietly around round tables in the Smith library

watching the inauguration of President Barack Obama. Principal Lightheart started a day-

long professional development by having teachers watch live feed of the inauguration. As

President Obama takes his walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, Lightheart begins the

professional development by leading a discussion of people’s reflections on the

presidential inauguration. Lightheart ask the staff to share their reflections. A white

female teacher says with a new president and a new superintendent in San Francisco she

feels hopeful they can accomplish something. Principal Lightheart extends that thought

by suggesting with the new leadership people feel a new sense of responsibility to

accomplish the goals with the dwindling resources. A Hispanic male staff member shares


how his son now thinks he could really become Mayor of San Francisco because he sees

Obama becoming President.

After a 20-minute debrief on the inauguration, the first half of the professional

development meeting centers on the draft of Smith’s school site plan. Lightheart reads

through the three descriptions of the goals and the action plans the staff and parents have

developed so far. When invited, the staff does not hesitate to present their feedback on

the plan. Right away, one of the only African American staff members brings up that the

site plan needs to convey more concern for African American students. Principal

Lightheart talks of forming an African American parent group and points out that the

African American families don’t come to the PTA. A white female teacher says that the

PTA tends to split in two by language (Spanish and Chinese) and maybe the PTA does

not reflect the African American families’ needs.

Lightheart continues to field feedback about sensitive subjects like race/ethnicity,

culture, and equity described in the school site plan. She always seems to have an

appropriate comment or way to reduce stress accompanied by tense topics. For example,

when teachers express concern that they will not have the resources to accomplish this

plan, Lightheart provides helpful comments like, “These goals are for 2009-2010, so they

don’t need to be accomplished today.” Lightheart calls on all the staff raising their hands.

Even when teachers bring up comments that do not seem relevant, Lightheart seems to

spin them positively. For example, when a teacher advocates for using a different

assessment than the benchmark assessments Smith teachers currently use, Lightheart

respectfully counters that the current assessment they use aligns with the state tests, and

the other assessments do not. Lightheart also tells the teacher she would be happy to talk


further about the alignment of the assessment and the test after the meeting. Even though

Principal Lightheart tends to navigate and control the discussion, teachers seem to feel

free to make any comment they want, and Lightheart appears able to handle any

comment teachers present.

This vignette shows the product of Smith’s relational trust between their principal

and its staff. Teachers at Smith feel comfortable sharing personal and possibly risky ideas

within a meeting of over 40 staff members. Teachers and staff talk about how Lightheart

listens to their ideas and treats people with respect, making teachers and staff feels more

comfortable with Lightheart and more comfortable around their peers. Over her

numerous years as principal, Lightheart has earned the trust of teachers and staff.

Teachers will readily share their view with Principal Lightheart because of this relational

trust and teachers attribute their longevity at Smith to the trust they have in Lightheart’s

leadership.

Smith’s staff would not be able to accomplish most of their practices and

structures without the support of relational trust. The Sebring framework defines

“relational trust” as the relationships supported by feelings of trust that school

communities rely on during the school improvement process, which help sustain those

improvements over time. At Smith, many community members highlight relational trust

as a key component of the school’s success. This relational trust has developed between

Principal Lightheart and the school community, the Smith staff and families, the Smith

staff and students, and the school community and the self-contained classroom at Smith.

Principal Lightheart’s relational trust with the Smith school community acts as an

over-arching catalyst for the trust developed within other relationships. “What it really


comes down to in education is relationships,” said Principal Lightheart when describing

the importance of relational trust. The principal’s relationships with the parents, staff, and

students leads to feelings of trust between the members of the school community and the

principals approach to leadership. Based on Principal Lightheart’s lead, other Smith staff

members also take time to develop important relationships with their peers, families, and

students, which help feelings of trust spread at Smith. Lightheart cultivates this relational

trust among the staff, parents, and students by taking time to talk to people, hear what

they have to say, and respond in a sincere way that makes people feel included and

valued. According to one teacher:

[Connie], I like the way she leads the school. She is willing to listen to each one of us. She might not compromise with us, but she is willing to listen. She’s the one that runs the school and we respect her ideas and respect her decisions. At the same time she respects our ideas by listening to us, but the final call is still on her.

Principal Lightheart listens when teacher go to her, and whether Lightheart supports staff

input or not, she will respond in a respectful way. Also, Principal Lightheart leads

through example. Here is one teacher describing Principal Lightheart’s leadership:

[Principal Lightheart] is very hands on. It is kind of silly but she goes to the cafeteria and hands out lunch cards every day. She does it for the kids, but I think it helps for the teachers to see her there, too, because she is also in the trenches. She does not separate herself from us in that sense. Occasionally, she has to, but I’ve been aware of schools where principals sit in an ivory tower, and she doesn’t do that at all.

Lightheart models the behavior she wants to see from teachers, families, and students. By

being on the front lines, she also gets to know students in the cafeteria line and talks to

parents before Morning In-take. This helps Lightheart develop relationships that lead to

feelings of trust throughout the school community.


In addition to the relational trust between Principal Lightheart and members of the

Smith community, families talk about the trust they have due to the nature of

relationships with Smith staff. Here is one parent describing the relational trust she has

with the Smith staff and how low staff turnover helps cultivate her trust in the school.

Here at John Smith, there are people who have been here for a while that parents feel like they have trust in that they can go to if they have questions, especially bilingual people. There are a lot of people here at our school that does not speak English very well. I can go to the office, for example, and ask a question, and they’ll be helpful and there is also follow through. If they don’t know the answer right away, they’ll find out and get back to me. There is not a lot of turn over. When people come and go a lot, it is hard to develop relationships or have trust in people, but people sort of stay here for longer and that helps build trust. A lot of other schools don’t have that of parents that I talked to.

Smith’s staff creates structures and practices that cultivate trust with families such as

having bilingual personnel and having staff that take parent requests seriously by

listening and following through. Families also recognize the importance of a school with

consistent, long-term staff. The longevity of staff tenure gives families and students time

to form relationships, and creates an environment where trust flourishes. With strong

relationships and feelings of trust, families will more often partake in the opportunities on

Smith’s campus like attending their Morning In-take or attending math or literacy night.

Smith’s staff develops relational trust with students by creating multiple

opportunities for students to form relationships with teachers. According to one staff

member:

In the classrooms, every teacher here is just a really great person and really cares about the kids, so I think they are able to develop caring relationships and trusting relationships with students. I think they have a high level of expectation, so they really try to push their kids to their potential.


When Principal Lightheart interviewed fifth grade students in a fishbowl to gather input

related to the goals of the school site plan, students answered questions about feeling

cared for and safe. When asked, “Do you think the teachers care about you?” a Hispanic

female student responds, “If you get a bad grade on a test, the teacher helps you study

more.” An African American female talked about her teachers knowing her well. When

asked, “Do you feel safe at school?” four out of five of the students in the fishbowl

commented about their teachers helping them feel safe, with many of them commenting

that a teacher’s presence on the playground helped them feel safe. These feelings of

safety stem from strong relationships between staff and students, and help cultivate the

trust.

The staff in Smith’s Healthy Start Room also provides another layer of close

relationships between students and staff, which builds trust. One of the students from the

fishbowl commented that she feels cared for by the staff in the Healthy Start Room by

saying “I know everybody because I always talk to them in Room A (a.k.a. The Healthy

Start Room).” A Smith staff member working in the Healthy Start Room’s comments on

its value:

I think [the Healthy Start Room] is a safe place for the kids. They know when they come in here they are going to meet a friendly face, someone who cares about them. Sometimes we invite kids in here to have lunch, so they know it is a special privilege. They come in here to get their needs met. Just to get a hug, to say hello, just to get information. We have information about after school programs. We have information in the community. We have translators. Kids come in here and they feel comfortable.

Students interact with the staff of the Healthy Start Room on a regular basis. Students in

all grade levels receive one class a month on health, nutrition, and violence from the

social workers from the Healthy Start Room. Teachers also send students down to the


Healthy Start Room to talk to the counselors and other staff if they have behavior or

emotional trouble in class.

Students develop relational trust with Smith staff by working closely with the

after school program staff. According to one staff member:

No one really falls under the radar here. If a kid is not doing well, our after school program is all teacher referral base, or principal or social work based. They are all kids that are struggling academically and socially. I think that lends itself to students that are not doing so well academically. There is a catch here. We have a great resource department here. The resource specialist is the lead teacher in our after school program. [The after school coordinator] works in the Healthy Start office with the social workers, the school nurse, the school nutritionist… There is this on-going circle of info around these children. Certain kids keep coming up on the radar, and it is mostly academic struggles, but I think they are addressed because of the other services we have here at the school.

Some after school staff are also classroom teachers or teachers’ aids at Smith so students

know the after school staff well and vise versa. The structure of sharing personnel

between the regular school day and after school program also develops trust across the

Smith school community. Teachers at Smith readily work with the after school program

coordinator to share information about students.

Another way Smith’s staff exemplifies its focus on relational trust is by

developing strong relationships between the Smith school community and the students in

the self-contained classroom for students with emotional disabilities. Smith works hard to

incorporate these students into mainstream classrooms like music. Principal Lightheart

also talks about the large amount of time devoted to these students. On a regular basis,

these students come to the Principal and Vice Principal’s offices to address their

emotional outbursts. Sometimes these students run into the offices in the middle of their

outburst with the Elementary Advisor trailing behind and other times the students come


in quietly and ask to sit down and cool off. Lightheart will drop everything to help one of

these students calm down. She keeps the students’ home phone numbers on hand,

communicates with their parents by phone, and even lets the students talk to their family

members by phone to help them address their emotional needs during the school day.

Even with over 600 students, Smith’s staff builds trust through the many different

relationships throughout its school community. Principal Lightheart’s leadership style of

builds strong relationships among her staff of over 30 people and sets a strong foundation

of relational trust for the whole community. The teachers and staff at Smith also develop

trust through their extensive relationships with families and students. The school

community makes extensive efforts to develop strong relationships with students in the

self-contained classroom housed at Smith. The efforts in relationship-building at each of

these layers pays off when the Smith school community has to confront the challenges

that come with school improvement.


Case 2: Xavier Academy

The sun rises and a flurry of activity surrounds the black top playground during

morning recess at Xavier Academy. In one corner, students from different backgrounds

and ages wait in line for their next turn at “wall ball” while an African American male

and white male challenge each other to a game. “Wall ball” involves two players taking

turns hitting a rubber ball against a wall, only letting the ball bounce once in between

each players turn to hit the ball. At Xavier, the students play the game against a wall with

a mural painted that includes “The Pledge to the Planet” often recited by the students

before school, “I pledge allegiance to the world to cherish every living thing to care for

the earth and sea and air with peace and freedom everywhere.” As their game comes to

an end, both students shake hands and the winner takes on the next person in line. Other

students step off yellow school buses coming from some of the poorer neighborhoods in

the city, and other students play kick ball.

Teachers circulate throughout the playground. One teacher talks to a white male

parent about a possible architecture project. An African American female parent

straightens her son’s jacket in preparation for a class performance. The principal, Jules

Sutter, surveys the area while talking to a staff member. She calls a student by name and

tells him to sit on the bench and chats with parents about their children.

When it is time for school to start, Principal Sutter shouts, “Get in a circle.”

Teachers, parents, and students transition into the school’s “Morning Circle” exercise,

where students line up in their respective areas according to their classes. Sutter stands in

the middle of the circle and says, “Today is Monday, let’s do it. It is a short week.” She

shouts the phrases, “Be safe. Be respectful. Be responsible. Be good listeners,” with the


students repeating each phrase. Sutter asks the circle, “What do you come to school for?”

The students yell back, “To learn!” After this exchange, classes line up, parents kiss their

children goodbye, and teachers walk their classes inside to start the school day.

The practice of Morning Circle alludes to the many important structures,

practices, and policies at Xavier Academy. In this vignette, Xavier’s “Morning Circle”

alludes to some of the school’s main tenets of inclusion and diversity, strong

relationships with students and families, and an overall push for civil rights. This case

study of Xavier Academy uses the Sebring framework to highlight the structures,

policies, and practices that make Xavier a school effective at closing the achievement

gap.

Local School Community Context Xavier Academy cultivates its local school community by recruiting and

maintaining a student population that helps achieve the mission of the school and reflects

the values of the local community context. Xavier’s student population consists of

students from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds, with no one group forming a

majority. The largest group is African-American students (34%), followed by Hispanic

(24%), White (22%), Other (14%), and Asian (6%). (See Figure 14 for more detail.)

These proportions have remained stable over time, to the extent that Xavier’s ethnic

composition changed little between 2002 and 2008. The only noticeable change in recent

years was a gradual increase in percentage of White students from 14% in 2005 to 22% in

2008, and small corresponding decreases in students from other groups.

Fifty four percent of Xavier students were eligible for free or reduced price lunch

in Fall 2008, and much smaller percentages of students fit other classifications such as

receiving special education services (13%), English Learners (11%), and gifted (7%).


These categories have remained fairly stable over time, with the percentage of gifted

students having increased from 0% in 2001 to 20% in 2005 and then decreased to 7% in

2008. (See Figure 15 for more detail.)

Xavier’s demographics of its school community help it achieve its overall

mission. Opened in September 1996, Xavier Academy represents the values of inclusion

and diversity favored by many people in San Francisco. Eighteen years after the death of

the well-known San Francisco political official, Mr. Xavier a champion of the civil rights

movement, a City Supervisor campaigned to name a school after him. Some people

debated whether parents would want to send their children to a school named after a

controversial official. The first (and current) principal, Jules Sutter, added “civil rights

academy” to capture the support of citizens involved in the city’s progressive political

culture. The San Francisco School Board voted to rename Diamond Elementary School, a

struggling, under-enrolled school with little connection to the surrounding community.

Principal Sutter aimed to change the school’s reputation. “We had a huge opportunity and

people took the name seriously,” said Sutter. City Supervisors, local business owners,

teachers and parents rallied behind the mission of the new school.

Our mission is to empower student learning by: teaching tolerance and non-violence; celebrating our diversity; academic excellence; and strong family-school-community connections.

The school hoped to embody the values represented by Mr. Xavier: tolerance, diversity,

and community activism. “The name of the school drives what we do,” said Sutter.

Teachers and parents help ensure that the school’s focus on civil rights, social justice, and

equity passes on to the future citizens of San Francisco.


To focus on the mission of the school, Xavier’s leadership makes sure that a large

subgroup of its student population comes from students traditionally underserved by

public schools such as African American and Hispanic students. To attract these students,

Xavier leadership takes advantage of the open enrollment policy of the school district,

which crafts a diverse population of students from across the city. Xavier’s principal

uses information sessions and advertising it conducts in certain neighborhoods to attract

its African American and Hispanic students. Principal Sutter describes this focus while

talking about possible changes to school enrollment in the district.

Most tours at the school represent the upper middle class, white families. It may seem we are not trying to recruit white families, [but] we need to have a diverse pool of families. Our recruitment is diverse. When it comes time spending energy for recruiting and hosting events, the priority is more Bayview/Hunter’s Point. If we succumb to what the district wants, we will have only 15-20% choice outside that radius and we would not have diversity.

Xavier draws from the neighborhoods where public housing and other lower to middle-

income families reside.

Sutter is referring to the district’s push to move from an open enrollment policy to

the neighborhood boundaries. If this were the case, Xavier’s student population would

dramatically change. As described below by a teacher at Xavier, the diversity of the

school teaches students about principles such as empathy, acceptance, and understanding,

what some at Xavier believe are the main tenets necessary to achieve social justice and

civil rights.

I think it is important for kids to have diversity and not just be told about it… we have to learn to interact so it’s just second nature. It is not something that we have to overcome to be better citizens in the world. [Diversity] is something that is in their nature, they don’t even think about it. Its just habit, being inclusive.


Without this diversity, some question whether the mission of the school is feasible.

Although the neighborhood once housed immigrants moving to the big city, a wealthier

population has moved into the neighborhood with houses fetching $1 million and up.

This gentrification limits the neighborhood’s diversity and the number of families with

children that can afford to live in the neighborhood. Consequently, the school does not

rely on the neighborhood to provide a diverse mix of students.

In addition to its focus on maintaining a diverse student population, many local

leaders support Xavier and its mission. The school is located in a neighborhood of San

Francisco, which is an epicenter of civil rights activism. Surrounded by this legacy, local

leaders sing the praises of the school to the community and support the school through

fundraising. For example, one city Supervisor talks often about Xavier. The Supervisor

gets people to know the school by holding community meetings on the campus and

inviting Principal Sutter to the meetings.

In addition to recognition through political support, Xavier students has made

steady growth in achievement over the last 7 years. As documented by the California

Academic Performance Index (API), Xavier went from an API growth score of 575 in

2002 to a score of 772 in 2008. Additionally, Xavier’s API growth score for its free and

reduced lunch subgroup continued on a similar trajectory, growing from an API score of

534 in 2002 to 748 in 2008. (See Figure 16 for more detail.) Although Xavier’s

subgroups of Africa American, Hispanic and English Learners are too small to register an

API score, its overall growth suggests that the achievement of all students is rising.

Leadership Acting as a Catalyst for Change It’s a Thursday morning before school starts and Principal Sutter gathers Xavier’s

Leadership Team together in the school library to talk with two district officials about


their school site plan. Xavier’s Leadership Team, including three Xavier teachers, the

Parent Liaison, the Elementary Advisor, two instructional coaches, and Principal Sutter,

sit around a table with two district officials. One official starts the meeting by asking the

members of Xavier’s Leadership Team to explain their process for working on their site

plan. The principal references her impending retirement and therefore, the site plan

focuses on what parts of Xavier they want to sustain for years to come. The Parent

Liaison quickly follows up by recounting the five meetings they had with families to

discuss the site plan. Principal Sutter describes how families and Xavier staff wrote ideas

on cards about what they wanted in the school site plan, then posted the cards on the wall,

and then participated in a “wall walk” where they reviewed each others ideas for the site

plan. Based on their reflections from the wall walk, the School Site Council created a

collaborative definition of the goals for the school and actions they would take to reach

those goals.

To follow-up, one official asked what opinions the Xavier staff hears from

families that do not often come to meetings. Principal Sutter responds that most Xavier

families get involved with the process of developing the site plan. She points out that

85% of the Xavier parents attended the school’s Winter Peace Assembly where they

celebrated the holidays, and also discussed the site plan. In casual as well as more formal

conversations, Sutter describes how she hears families express their interest in

maintaining diversity. More recently, Principal Sutter reports that many of Xavier’s

African American and Hispanic parents, who traditionally do not get involved in school,

brought their children to practices for Xavier’s basketball team and attended games on

Fridays for eight weeks straight. Sutter used this opportunity to talk with these family


members at the final game of the season in a small group, collecting their ideas about the

school site plan. One Xavier teacher says that most parents talk about the importance of

the after school programming and extracurricular activities at Xavier. Principal Sutter

adds that Xavier’s principal fights to keep those extracurricular activities even with

budget cuts and time constraints.

Later in the conversation, the district official describes how Xavier’s student

achievement had some ups and downs in the past and asks the group if they talked about

this phenomenon. One teacher retorts by listing the challenges she has with maintaining

a high level of instruction with the lack of support from the district. The district cut the

hours she receives from a para-professional, and consequently, she has to rebuild her

instructional program every year because of budget cuts. She does not have enough

money to buy a set of new chapter books for her class. She learns new curriculums by

herself rather than the district providing proper training.

This vignette portrays the tone representative of the general approach to

leadership at Xavier -- advocacy. From Xavier’s Leadership Team, to its secretary, and

its mission statement, Xavier’s leadership advocates for a set of values: civil rights, social

justice, inclusion, diversity, and strong relationships. While leadership at Xavier relies on

Principal Sutter’s charisma, the above vignette shows the leadership of Xavier’s teachers

and STAR staff celebrating their accomplishments and standing up for what they believe

are students’ civil rights in the face of their superiors. The feedback Xavier’s Leadership

Team gives to these district officials exemplifies the many facets of Xavier’s leadership:

advocacy that runs through Xavier’s model of governance, the distributed leadership

amongst the staff, Principal Sutter’s visionary leadership, a strong school vision that


inspires engaging forms of instruction as well as purposeful cultivation and management

of Xavier’s resources and funding. As seen in Figure 17, the model puts Principal Sutter

at the center of three supportive governance structures – the Leadership Team, the School

Site Council and the CARE Team.

Described in the opening vignette, the Leadership Team represents a group of

teachers and staff at Xavier chosen to articulate the viewpoints of teachers. The

Leadership Team also includes the staff funded by the STAR program which supports

Xavier teachers’ instruction (a supplemental funding program for low performing schools

described later in the case). The STAR program provides Xavier with an Instructional

Reform Facilitator or IRF that provides leadership related to instruction. In general,

Principal Sutter discusses school-wide decisions with the Leadership Team, but the whole

Xavier staff discusses and votes on school-wide decisions related to instruction.

The School Site Council consists of parents, teachers, and some STAR staff that

make decisions related to setting the goals for the school, creating an action plan,

monitoring results, and setting the annual budget. In general, Principal Sutter and the

Xavier staff make most of the budget decisions and steer the goals and actions for the

school, but they get all decisions approved by the School Site Council.

The Care Team (described in more detail later in the case) leads the management

of the social/emotional well-being of Xavier’s students, deciding which students need

extra support. They manage the Student Success Team (SST) meetings convened when

individual students need extra support or might need special education services.

While Figure 17 appears to give Principal Sutter control over the other

committees, Sutter does not lead the school in this way. Sutter emphasizes a distributed


leadership model where all her teachers get to vote on important issues and take part in

leading the school. She uses a distributed leadership model to accomplish the democratic

idealism of the civil rights movement. Principal Sutter does not spend her time

controlling meetings, but instead facilitates meetings by doing more listening than

talking, providing small group work, and uses exercises like the “wall walk” to get all

participants’ voices to be heard. Sutter describes that democratic process at Xavier.

The democratic process has to be that budget, decisions, and processes involving children have to be open to the stakeholders who are involved with those things… Staff meetings are consensus oriented. We don’t take too many votes, but we try to operate on the consensus model. People are pretty vocal when they disagree with stuff… We would never take a vote before hashing it through.

Sutter worked as a school leader at a teacher run school in San Francisco, and knows the

value of sharing leadership. “I am not a micromanager,” says Sutter. Instead, she

develops a sense of trust with the teachers and families by providing them with some

autonomy and outlets for their voices to be heard. At staff meetings and professional

development sessions, Sutter encourages teachers to take leadership roles in small

groups. She has people assign roles of timekeeper and note taker. Sutter creates time for

the presentation of conflicting ideas, debate, and dialog about decisions being made. In

general, Sutter seeks consensus among her staff and parents and allows the process and

structure of meetings and decisions to be questioned.

Xavier’s school community benefits from the visionary and stable leadership of

its founding principal, Jules Sutter. Sutter utilizes her extensive experience in the world

of education and politics to uphold Xavier’s vision for civil rights. Here Principal Sutter

describes her background in politics, how that influences her work as a school leader and

supports the general school’s vision.


I have a solid political training. I think that is really key… I come from the movement. When something like the election night, when Obama wins and Prop 8 doesn’t and Arkansas or Alabama had a constitutional amendment about gay marriage, we’re coming together to talk about how we are going to discuss this… The celebrations that go on in the hallway aren’t what’s the month. There is a collection of political agendas that go out there as opposed to a monthly multi-cultural events…I come from a background of the movement. I was an anti-war activist. It gave me a grounding of activism, a political sense of the world, and a desire to change it and some skills to know how to do that… It allows me to listen and to hear all sides of different kinds of people… To bring disparate people together.

Principal Sutter creates structures, policies, and practices that focus the school’s vision

for civil rights. For example, Principal Sutter maintains policy of inclusion where

students with disabilities stay in mainstream classes. Sutter takes steps to keep

challenging students in school and accepts students that other schools ask to leave.

Consequently, Sutter’s approach to leadership involves hands-on practices on the part of

the principal to enhance the effectiveness of policies supporting students’ academic

achievement. Principal Sutter makes home visits to students in need and takes personal

responsibility for the students she serves. It is not uncommon to see Principal Sutter

working one-on-one with students in her office and delivering supplies to families in

need at their homes.

Principal Sutter’s visionary leadership benefits from a strong vision that focuses

on civil rights. The laser-like precision of this vision resides in all members of the Xavier

community. The Xavier staff in general, including the secretary and the classroom

teacher, takes the name “Civil Rights Academy” very seriously. For example, at a recent

professional development session, teachers were discussing decisions about Xavier’s

school site plan. When teacher and staff were proposing actions they should take next

year in their school site plan people threw out the idea of creating a school wide social


justice and civil rights curriculum and would back up their support for this proposal by

saying, “We are civil rights school.” Xavier’s principal Jules Sutter reports that teachers

will come into her office to protest a decision they disagree with and say, “We can’t do

this. We’re a civil rights academy!” During the 2007-2008 school year, a teacher, parent,

and the principal from Xavier embarked on a walk from San Francisco to Sacramento to

publicly protest the budget cuts to education in 2008, what Principal Sutter viewed as a

direct threat to students’ civil rights across the state. Xavier’s principal prominently

displays a sign in the school hallway describing how the school had only $32.00 left in its

budget for school supplies after allocating its funds. The sign reads, “Shame on you

California! Our children, your children… Our future depends on better public schools!”

In general, the calls for civil rights at Xavier insist that local and state government see

education as a fundamental right all students deserve and Sutter and all the staff at Xavier

go the extra mile to make their vision heard.

With the principal, teachers, and parents championing the school vision, the

practices, structures, and policies at Xavier naturally spread ideals like civil rights and

social justice throughout Xavier teachers’ instruction and curriculum. Xavier’s staff

openly talks about the importance of civil rights and social justice in their classroom as

exemplified by this teacher’s comments:

There is a push for civil rights and social justice… I think that’s a big drive in the school to expose the kids to things and also give them skills to have a critical and analytical look at things, so that they may make their informed decision on their paths that they may need to do to traverse the obstacles, positive or negative, that are going to come into their lives later on.

Xavier’s principal uses numerous strategies school wide to develop a focus on social

justice. For example, rather than your typical holiday assembly, Xavier’s school


community has a “Winter Peace Assembly” where the local men’s choir sings songs from

the era of the civil rights movement. One teacher talked of re-centering the curriculum on

perspectives from the teacher’s Native American heritage not normally discussed in class.

Here is another teacher recounting an example of discourse in class that develops those

critical thinking skills aimed at combating characteristics of an unjust society.

You got to have them work it out with each other… [We are reading a book on] slavery and half of the people are being beaten. [I say to the students], “Is it that simple? Do you think all white people were like, Let’s have slaves? Do you really think that?” [The students say], “No…” I really make them get underneath it. I said, “Harriet Tubman frees people, do you think mostly black people helped her?” And [the students say], “Now that I think about it, that wouldn’t make sense.” I said, “Yeah, most of the people must have been white right?” And [the students say, “Yeah. Well then how did [slavery] ever last so long?” [I say], “Hmmm, how do things last so long.” We’ll just keep going through it.

This vision of civil rights and social justice at Xavier encourages instruction and

curriculum where teachers teach students higher order thinking skills like analysis and

evaluation that engage them in reflection and critical thinking in hopes of spreading the

Xavier vision beyond the school walls. (See Appendix F for a more detailed explanation

of higher order thinking skills and other instruction and curriculum related terms.)

Principal Sutter and the teachers at Xavier hope these higher order thinking skills

inspire Xavier graduates to eventually become advocates for civil rights and social justice

in their own communities. Here, Principal Sutter articulates the relationship between

Xavier teachers’ instruction and curriculum to some larger social values:

The ultimate vision is that we’re providing a setting where children can begin to learn how to be fully involved citizens in a society that is diverse, that is not inclusive and not socially just, and be able to be active participants… to make that society better in the future. It is really the creation of citizens that can vote with intelligence, that can work with their neighbors, that can take jobs that are part of a global economy, that can be educated and astute about the environment, whatever direction it goes.


They start here knowing the work begins with themselves as strong people, then you have to interact with your neighbors and friends at all levels of diversity. You have to be able to read, write, and do math… I’m not trying to define that they all need to be Nelson Mandelas when they grow up, but they do need to have the materials to be able to intersect in the kind of the society that is different than the society than we have now. I’m hoping they can change that society.

While Principal Sutter and Xavier’s teachers do not expect all of their students to be

“Nelson Mandelas,” their vision does foresee a world where Xavier students advocate for

their rights and the rights of others in face of an unjust world.

The leadership of the Instructional Reform Facilitator (IRF) supplied through the

STAR program also plays a role in Xavier’s instructional leadership. The IRF leads

Xavier teachers in weekly grade-level planning sessions focused on their daily

instruction. The IRF also leads teachers in the analysis of assessment data every other

month to inform their instructional planning. Principal Sutter often attends these grade

level planning sessions, but they are for the most part run by the IRF.

Principal Sutter’s management of resources like STAR’s Instructional Reform

Facilitator or additional funding opportunities also plays an important role in Xavier’s

leadership. Principal Sutter strategically manages resources from the STAR program by

shaping STAR’s instructional coaching and the role of the parent liaison with the general

vision of the school. Also, the support received by Xavier staff from community leaders

and organizations brings additional funding opportunities to the school. For example, a

city Supervisor supports fundraising for the school by educating local merchants and

community members about Xavier and announcing their upcoming events. He announces

fundraising events on his Facebook page with over 2000 members. At a local merchants


association meeting taking place at Xavier, the city supervisor lead a spontaneous

collection of funds for the school.

I got up and talked about the event that was coming up, [Xavier’s] first fundraiser event, and a lot of the bar owners that were there just started pulling $100 bills out of their pockets, and the next thing you knew we had raised $1300 in the middle of this Merchants meeting.

To manage these additional funding opportunities, Xavier’s community members created

a non-profit 501(c)3 fundraising organization, called “Friends of Xavier.” The

organization hosts an annual large fundraiser at an off-campus site where they have a

silent auction.

Xavier’s leadership also utilizes and strategically manages resources offered by

the city. The school resides across the street from a recreation center, which has a

community center, baseball diamond, dog run, and basketball court. Xavier students play

basketball in the after school program on the recreation center courts. Xavier’s staff

partners with a local church through a school volunteers, adopt-a-school program, that

brings volunteers to read to students once a month and has a “buy a book, read a book,

leave a book” program. Also, Xavier teachers frequently take their students on field trips

to museums and other local events. It participated in a 10-week dance workshop with the

San Francisco Ballet that incorporates some Xavier students into productions of the

Nutcracker, Swan Lake and Othello at the professional level.

In summary, Xavier’s charismatic principal leads the school’s governance

structure, but relies on principles of distributed leadership. Principal Sutter leans on the

Lead Team, the School Site Council, the CARE team and her Instructional Reform

Facilitator provided by STAR to share the leadership responsibilities of the school.

Principal Sutter spreads the vision of being a “civil rights academy” among Xavier’s staff


and inspires teachers to institute instruction that supports equity, social justice, diversity,

and inclusion. The Instructional Reform Facilitator provides instructional leadership for

the school by organizing consistent instructional planning. Principal Sutter strategically

cultivates and manages additional funding opportunities and resources stemming from

her use of the STAR resources, the support of community and political leaders and the

non-profit organizations like Friends of Xavier, and Xavier staff’s integration of

community resources into its instruction.

Parent-Community Ties Parents, teachers, and staff sit down around a set of desks in a Xavier classroom

on a Tuesday evening. Some parents drop their children at the childcare down the hall

while the Parent Liaison and other teachers set up a buffet of Mexican food at a table.

Principal Sutter stands at the front of the classroom and starts the School Site Council

(SSC) meeting. She explains the purpose of the meeting -- to work on the school site

plan. Sutter lays down some context for the work by detailing the achievement gap in San

Francisco and how a students’ zip code can predict students’ achievement. Principal

Sutter provides some statistics about Xavier’s leadership maintaining a large African

American population in spite of declining enrollment of African American students

district wide. She also points out Xavier’s continued growth on its achievement test

scores.

After this overview, Sutter explains the process the group will go through of

working on the site plan goals -- they will break into three small groups to discuss the

different parts of the plan. Sutter asks that the groups have a mixture of parents and

teachers and reminds parents to get some more dinner. One group forms with an African

American parent, four white parents, a Hispanic parent, and an African American teacher.


They discuss a goal related to student achievement. The group reads over some ideas

collected from parents and teachers at a previous SSC meeting handed out by Principal

Sutter and discusses which ideas best represent the goal they want to accomplish. The

teacher and a parent argue whether students should focus on computer skills in

elementary school. Two other parents debate whether instruction in art and nutrition

support academic achievement. The teacher shares that students in her class usually pick

math over music when they have a choice. The African American parent, without any

prompting, writes some notes summarizing their discussion.

After 30 minutes, the principal asks the groups to write down the key ideas from

the brainstorm. Principal Sutter invites parents to three other meetings to discuss the

school site plan – a parent coffee in the morning, an evening meeting a parent’s home,

and a school-wide meeting. After an hour, Principal Sutter explains that they will

transition the SSC meeting which acts more like a leadership body into the Parent and

Faculty Committee (PFC) meeting, which play the role of building community and

organizing community events. She tells the group that they hold the meetings back to

back so parents can attend both meetings in one night. The Parent Liaison starts the PFC

meeting by handing out an agenda that will discuss the outcomes of their December

fundraiser and the upcoming school-wide read-a-thon in the spring.

This vignette presents one of many structures Xavier’s leadership uses to develop

ties between Xavier parents and the school community. As seen in Figure 18, the

structures that enable parent-community ties at Xavier stems from work by the school

secretary, Principal Sutter, the staff and teachers, and Xavier’s parent liaison. While

many Xavier staff participate in all of these structures, these four staff spend time


managing these structures, and act as the backbone to the on-going relationships with

Xavier’s parents.

With the help of Xavier’s secretary, Xavier’s staff starts getting to know its

families the minute they walk into the school’s main office. From the school’s inception

in 1996, the same school secretary has greeted families. Her interaction with students as

they register sets the tone for the relationship with the whole school. Here is Xavier’s

secretary describing this very informal, yet important process at Xavier.

[W]hen they register with me, and they bring their child, I say nothing. I look at how they can relate to their child and how their child listens… If I see a kid where a parent does not have that much control, I do make judgment calls. I see what kind of kid it is, when Ms. Sutter is putting the kids together in classrooms, I can make a generalization that this child has certain issues that maybe one teacher may deal with differently, or deal with it a little better than one teacher does.

Principal Sutter describes Xavier’s school secretary as “the heart of the school… She

strongly builds community… [She has] connections with all the families… She knows

the stories of everyone in the whole school.” In knowing the families, the school

secretary then conveys that information to the staff and teachers. For example, she sits on

the Care Team, the committee that supports students with high need. She also sees all the

staff as they walk into the office to check their mailbox or use the photocopier, and shares

information about students and families in passing. “I make it a point to know,” says the

school secretary, “Everyone should know every kid.”

In addition to Xavier’s secretary, Principal Sutter also manages a number of

structures that promote parent and community ties. Sutter welcome parents at the

Morning Circle where parents mingle with Principal Sutter, staff and teachers before


school. Sutter also manages the School Site Council meetings and the Care Team

meetings all of which engage Xavier families.

When hiring, Principal Sutter takes into account maintaining a representative

balance on the Xavier staff of different characteristics: race/ethnicity, disability, and

sexual preference. Here is one staff member talking about the importance of this

representative balance among the Xavier staff for building parent-community ties.

There is an administrative team here. The Elementary Advisory is Spanish speaking, there’s an African American secretary, each parent has a group here…Everyone has someone to come to. My Spanish parents if they have a problem will come and say let me speak to [the Elementary Advisor]… You have to balance it out… Certain cultures and certain things people understand and know how to do it differently… Everyone needs to identify with someone.

The Xavier parents talk about the importance of the representation among the staff

members. One African American female parent commented, “When I saw [the African

American secretary], I said, ’Thank you Jesus.’ It is so multicultural. [It’s] a little city

here! I am sure other parents felt that way.” Two white males also talked about the

importance of having a gay man on the Xavier staff. They feel like the school embraces

their son’s reality of having two fathers and makes their family feel comfortable. This

representation among the staff encourages parents to feel accepted by the school

community.

The Xavier teachers and staff also provides other structures that support parent-

community ties. For example, parents experience staff and teachers engaged in the school

community on a regular and long-term basis. Over half of the teachers at Xavier have

taught there for five to ten years. Some of the staff including the para-professionals are

also parents at Xavier. Almost 100% of staff in the after school program also work with


students in the regular day, and therefore they often see parents when they drop off their

children in the morning and pick up their children at night. Xavier’s staff makes it a point

to attend school-wide events. This year, 85% of parents attended the Winter Peace

Assembly, giving another chance for Xavier staff to interact with parents. According to

one Xavier staff member, “You got to know the families and they have to be able to trust

you. They have to be able to tell you the worst thing possible and not get in trouble for

it.” Structures like parent-teacher conferences and Student Success Team (SST) meetings

(that involves parents, teacher and stuff meeting to discuss students having challenges in

schools) also connect staff and teachers to families. Xavier teachers also talked of the

informal interactions in the Morning Circle, at school events, when they pick up and drop

off their children as consistent arenas where they interact with parents and developed

those relationships that connect home and school.

Xavier’s leadership relies heavily on its parent liaison to develop parent-

community ties. The Parent Liaison, with the help of Principal Sutter, runs the Parent and

Faculty Committee (PFC) meetings alluded to in the vignette. This committee acts as a

main community building and fundraising structure for the school. In fact, the PFC

created a separate, non-profit 501(c)3 fundraising organization, called “Friends of

Xavier” to manage the resources cultivated by outside community members. Friends of

Xavier hosted a large fundraiser at an off-campus site where they had a silent auction.

The PFC also organizes small fundraising events oriented more towards building

community such as a read-a-thon that raised about $1500. The PFC uses the funds raised

to support more parent involvement including providing dinner and childcare for PFC

meetings and mailings to parents. Principal Sutter pointed out that she believes some


parents come to the PFC meetings for the free meal, but at the same time it keeps them

involved in the school. More importantly, parents and community members, staff and

teachers attending a fundraiser have opportunities to connect with each other. Xavier’s

principal receives funding for its Parent Liaison through a school district STAR program.

While elementary schools receiving STAR funding use their parent liaison in

different ways, Xavier’s principal uses its parent liaison to focus on getting parents

involved and informed. Xavier’s parent liaison sends home a monthly folder that includes

a newsletter. In the newsletter, the parent liaison gathers news from each of the classroom

teachers and also includes exercises and games parents can do with students at home

related to their child’s grade level classroom work. For example, the parent liaison

included some reading fluency packets for students related to their grade level, so

families could support students’ reading development at home. The monthly folder also

includes important announcements of upcoming events related to school.

Xavier’s parent liaison also maintains an extensive website about Xavier for

families and the public which has a calendar of upcoming events, news about past events

in the school, and an area with links for appropriate skill-development websites families

may explore with their children. Additionally, Principal Sutter and Xavier’s parent

liaison create detailed bulletin boards around the school office about important

information as well as content from classroom projects and community events. For

example, outside the office hangs information about the process parents and staff went

through for defining social justice in their school site plan, newspaper clippings of the

recent inauguration of President Obama, a table with books and materials on Chinese

New Year, as well as fluency charts based on grade level expectations. In general,


Xavier’s parent liaison attempts to inform and involve parents through the school’s

monthly folder, newsletter, website, and bulletin boards.

Other less traditional forms of involving and informing parents and the

community include the extensive community outreach by Xavier’s parent liaison along

with Principal Sutter. For example, as part of their development of goals for Xavier’s

school site plan, the parent liaison and Principal Sutter held meetings about the site plan

in communities where students live. They held a meeting at a recreation center in the

Bayview/Hunter’s Point (a neighborhood far from Xavier’s campus with low income

African American and Hispanic families, but home to many Xavier students) where 36

people attended the meeting. They also held a meeting about the school site plan at a

family’s home in the neighborhood around the school. Sutter even met with parents about

the site plan after a Xavier student basketball game at the recreation center as well as at

the Winter Peace Assembly. The parent liaison and principal talk of making home visits

to students’ families like delivering donated holiday presents to a struggling family.

Xavier’s parent liaison helps Principal Sutter organize these community outreach

sessions. Parents talk of the parent liaison’s support being meaningful as she is both an

advocate for Xavier families and a Xavier parent herself. In general, the extra community

outreach Principal Sutter and the parent liaison do with parents helps keep Xavier’s

families informed and involved.

Xavier’s leadership maintains strong parent-community ties using various

structures, policies, and practices managed most prominently by Principal Sutter, the

parent liaison, the school secretary and other staff and teachers. From an outgoing

secretary, to Sutter’s hiring policies that reflect the parents they serve, Xavier staff makes


extra efforts to get to know its parents. Xavier’s staff keeps parents informed with the

help of its parent liaison, and they keep parents involved by attracting parents to meetings

like the PFC with food and childcare. Xavier’s staff builds ties with parents by hosting

outreach meetings in the neighborhoods where many of its parents reside. In general,

Xavier’s staff sees parent-community ties as an integral part of fulfilling the mission of

its school.

Professional Capacity The hum of the school day rings through the hallways at Xavier while the

Instructional Reform Facilitator (or IRF) and two teachers from the same grade level sit

around a table in Principal Sutter’s office. While the teachers get ready for their monthly

planning meeting, their students attend either a P.E. class, art class, or receive instruction

from a permanent substitute teacher.

The IRF starts the meeting, with Principal Sutter joining a little bit later. She

begins by passing out reports with the most recent benchmark assessment results from

tests administer by those teachers at their grade level. In this case, the results focus on

reading and writing. The IRF asks the teacher to describe one strategy that worked this

year. The more experienced of the two teachers says she thought teaching the students

how to write topic sentences and conclusions worked well, but she still feels like the

students lack enthusiasm for writing. The less experienced teacher reports that she is

happy with lots of things, but does not describe anything specific.

The IRF asks the teachers to look over the assessment results. While reflecting on

the students’ fluency scores, the teachers start talking about the challenge of increasing

students’ fluency. The more experienced teacher gives an example of a student that can

read some words when they are in context, but can not read those same words on a


fluency test. The less experienced teacher asks if it may be time to test the students in

fluency and regroup the students based on the new test results. The more experienced

teacher asks for the IRF to come help her with testing her students in fluency again and

the less experienced teacher follows with the same request.

As they continue to examine the data, the IRF encourages the teachers to narrow

in on their next goal that will guide their instructional planning. The IRF suggests that

they make the goal related to writing because they have good test results in reading. Both

teachers brainstorm their approaches to writing instruction through journals, writing

folders, and other engaging writing activities like writing personal history narratives.

Yet, the teachers shift this discussion from writing to their frustrations with teaching

students reading comprehension. Principal Sutter points out that the teachers will receive

additional materials that they could incorporate into their instruction like leveled books in

the coming week. The IRF probes to see if the teachers want to focus on comprehension

instead of writing. The less experienced teacher expressed the challenge of assessing

comprehension and the more experienced teacher suggests using their SRA leveled

readers and comprehension questions. Principal Sutter supports this idea. The meeting

continues for another hour as the group decides on the goal of reading comprehension,

and makes a plan for teaching students about prediction.

This vignette portrays many elements of professional capacity at Xavier most

importantly how it utilizes resources from the Students and Teachers Achieving Results

or STAR program. Xavier teachers rely on the instructional coaching from the IRF and a

focus on data-driven instructional planning to guide instruction in every classroom. In

addition to STAR, Xavier teachers have a strong commitment to the school’s vision and


mission partly due to Xavier principal’s strategic hiring policies and the structuring of its

professional development. Other factors, like Xavier staff’s ability to align its after school

programming with its instructional program, contribute to the professional capacity

amongst the Xavier staff. Figure 19 displays how the combination of the planning with

the IRF, the school’s hiring practices crafted by Principal Sutter, and Teacher’s practices

in professional development.

In general, professional capacity at Xavier expanded since its involvement in the

STAR program. Xavier students did not always have the glowing results on standardized

achievement tests as they do today. Some Xavier staff and district officials attribute

Xavier teachers’ attention to instruction and increases in achievement in the last few

years to its involvement in The STAR program. Principal Sutter relayed that Xavier sat

on the cusp of qualifying for STAR status, so Sutter pushed the district to bring the

program to Xavier because she wanted the extra resources. The district designated Xavier

a STAR school in the first round of STAR schools about ten years ago. At the time,

Xavier did not have the same type of achievement with all of its students on standardized

tests that it has today, but since Xavier started receiving the STAR resources, the school’s

achievement has gone up.

It is possible Xavier’s success with the STAR program stems from the way

Xavier teachers integrate the STAR resources into its instruction. STAR status provided

Xavier’s principal an Instructional Reform Facilitator (IRF), a Reading First Coach, and

art and P.E. instructors that take over classes while teachers have their weekly planning

sessions and data release days four times a year, a permanent substitute teacher, as well

as the materials for the SCOE assessments (described below) at 8-week periods.


According to one district official, Xavier’s principal and teachers uses the STAR

resources to its advantage by shaping them and making the resources part of its larger

vision.

If one of the things we know about schools that really get results over time is that it has to hang together. It is more than 10 independent highly effective people. How do you move towards that? Staffs are different and approaches to professional development and to school-wide coherence need to be adapted as well. In some schools it is much easier to get agreement and compliance… Probably at Xavier, regardless, a top down approach is never going to work. You can never say, “Here it is. Do it!” It is an approach that says, “How are we going to improve everyday instruction. What do we know about it?”

The district official rightfully characterized the curriculum used by the Reading First

program, the curriculum funded by the STAR program, as “top down” meaning the

district chose a scripted curriculum for STAR schools without input from the schools.

Instead of rejecting the curriculum funded by Reading First, the Xavier staff slowly

started working with the elements of the approach that fit within the school’s values. For

example, teachers use an approach called “Universal Access” in their literacy block that

has students breaking into groups for work in different “centers” and for small group

instruction. (Learning centers are explained in more detail in Appendix F and in the

Ambitious Instruction section.)

As part of its STAR resources, Xavier has an IRF that leads each grade level team

in a weekly planning meetings as well as a “data release day” meeting where the grade

level teams meet four times a year for a half day to review data from the eight-week

assessments. The teachers test each student in their class and collect the data and the IRF

organizes the data in a graph form for the “data release day” meetings. The teachers use

tests designed by the Sacramento Office of Education (referred to as “the SCOE”) that


assess students on the skills for each theme in the Houghton Mifflin curriculum. (See

Appendix E for a description these curriculums and assessments used by Xavier and the

other two case study schools.) Based on changes they see in the data on the SCOE and

the California Standards Test (CST), the teachers chose three focal students as a base for

their planning. One teacher describes focal students as, “…[G]enerally African American

and Hispanic because we are trying to get this gap closed.” Focal students also have the

most potential for advancing to a higher level of proficiency in their skills. One Xavier

staff member described how weekly planning around focal students drives their

classroom planning in general.

Every week teachers bring in samples from [focal] students, showing those students work of the common instructional practices. For instance, if we are working on writing a summary, at the end of the six-week theme the students have to write a summary on a certain passage. We talk about what other summaries can we have them do, what steps do they need to get there, what mini-lesson do those focal students in particular need, and the class, but really those kids, what do they need to get there.

The opening vignette outlines a “data release day” meeting where teachers examine the

data from their benchmark assessments. In this case, the teacher created an instructional

goal related to comprehension based on the progress students made in their reading

scores.

Xavier teachers describe the benefits this planning has on their instruction in

language arts, but they also express some reservation with the reliance on certain types of

testing. One teacher described having trouble with organizing reading groups. Yet, with

the assessments every eight weeks and consistent group work, the teacher gets a better

sense of which students need help and students’ level of proficiency. In contrast, another

teacher expresses a sense of caution in relation to the testing.


There is definitely a lot of anger with the way the [SCOE] test is formatted. For example, the last one we did, it talked about cows and milk maids, not that the kids should not be exposed to that, but some of whom have literally never heard of stuff like that. Mind you, we use it and definitely analyze it, but [there is] probably a lot of arguing that goes on with the validity of it. So, we also try to include in that classroom [other] assessments, be it anecdotal or tests, or whatever we need to try to steer where we are going with each child.

Over 50% of Xavier’s students have characteristics like being an English learner or

coming from a racial or ethnic group that may not be represented in many test questions.

Instead, the vocabulary on the tests often leans towards a dominant white, upper-middle

class culture. Teachers at Xavier take these realities of bias and validity into

consideration when analyzing test results that will inform their planning.

The STAR resources helped increase the professional capacity at Xavier so much

that Principal Sutter expressed concern about whether the school could continue to

increase and maintain high levels of students achievement without the resources.

Principal Sutter said of the STAR resources, “If those things go we are back to square

one.” Sutter expressed concern that the district would take the resources away with the

impending budget cuts. It remains to be seen whether Xavier teachers would continue its

weekly grade level planning and use of benchmark assessments without the support of an

Instructional Coach as well as release time with the help of an art teacher, a P.E. teacher,

and an extra substitute teacher.

In conjunction with the STAR resources, Principal Sutter instituted hiring policies

for Xavier teachers that adhere to the school’s vision of being a civil rights academy.

Sutter says her hiring criteria has three characteristics: quality teaching experience,

diversity, and the teacher’s ability to define social justice in the lives of the classroom as

demonstrated by past teaching experience. Sutter describes the characteristics of teachers


hired by the school as strong-willed people focused on social justice and civil rights. She

points out that with these strong-willed characteristics, the teachers do not always agree,

but they work hard to come to consensus. Of the eleven classroom teachers at Xavier,

Sutter hired eight of them using the above criteria.

Xavier teachers also take personal initiative by participating in professional

development on their own volition. With these high levels of expertise and training,

professional development delivered at Xavier is not something that can be dictated. The

expertise of the staff requires people leading professional development at Xavier to act

“more like an ambassador than as a dictator,” said one teacher. While most of the

professional development comes from outside of the school, most people leading the

trainings utilize the expertise of the Xavier teachers and build off of their experiences and

intentions. Professional development at Xavier has a constructivist feel where teachers

share their practices then make connections to that base of knowledge. When learning

about the curriculum funded by Reading First, the IRF described how the Xavier teachers

chose the idea of Universal Access (UA) to integrate into their instructional model

because it fit with the vision of the school. UA provides flexible grouping of students

based on homogeneous skill groups. The IRF and the Reading First Coach funded

through STAR and the designated math coach that works with the fourth and fifth grade

teachers all described building off of Xavier teachers’ expertise when planning for

professional development.

The professional capacity of Xavier teachers took a major boost with the help of

the STAR resources. The Xavier teachers take advantage of resources like instructional

coaching from the IRF and additional time for instructional planning. Principal Sutter


carefully hires teachers with experience as well as a drive to fulfill the vision of creating a

school focused on civil rights and social justice. Teachers also bring their own drive,

expertise, and training that influences how Xavier’s leadership delivers professional

development to its teachers. Consequently, Xavier’s principal organizes its professional

development to build off of teachers’ expertise. In general, the professional capacity of

teachers at Xavier benefits from the STAR resources, hiring policies focusing on specific

teacher characteristics, and specially crafted professional development to serve their

expertise.

Student Centered Learning Climate It is a sunny afternoon at Xavier Academy and a group of students come back into

their classroom after recess. As soon as the students enter the room, the teacher asks them

to get ready for a debate. Without any direction from the teacher, teams of students pre-

selected by the teacher circle chairs in their respective corners of the classroom, with

three to four students per a group. The groups are diverse by race and ethnicity, gender,

and skill including one boy with special needs that partners with another student for help.

The teacher asks two teams for a debater and they huddle together discussing

which teammate to choose. A Pacific Islander male student named Kevin5 shuffles to the

center of the classroom. He wears a hooded sweatshirt and his hands are in his front

pockets. Earlier in class he had his hood pulled over his head as he struggled to solve a

math problem being discussed by the class. From the opposing team, an African

American male student named James dashes into the center of the room. He stands tall,

chest out, and smiles excitedly back at his teammates that call out his name in

excitement.

5 This scene uses pseudonyms for students’ names.


The teacher stands behind her desk and presents the students with a scenario --

what would you do if a car dealer quotes a lower price over the phone and presents you

with a higher price for a car at the dealership? The teacher gives them a few seconds to

think, and then asks then to respond. James raises his hand first and says you should pay

the higher price because that is the actual price of the car. Kevin presents an opposing

view. He pulls his hands out of his front pockets and dances back and forth in an

animated way, explaining how you have an opportunity to bargain with the car dealer and

get a lower price for the car. The teacher asks one of the debate teams to present

questions to the debaters. One student asks, “Why would the dealer want to lower his

price?” and another student asks, “Shouldn’t you be honest and pay the actual price for

the car?” Both debaters come up with rebuttals to these questions with Kevin explaining

the bargaining process and James still defending his choice to pay full price.

At the end of the debate, the teacher asks one team to score each debater. The

teammates confer on their scores, and the student with special needs gets help from his

partner with writing a score on his tablet. When the group shows a higher score for

Kevin, he thrusts his fists in the air and his team cheers. All the students clap and tell

both students good job as they re-join their teams for the next set of debates.

The teacher repeats this debate exercise three to four more times with different

teams submitting debaters presents different scenarios, and has different teams scoring

each debate. Throughout the debates, students keep their eyes on the debaters, listening

closely to their every word, and “ooing” and “ahing” at their opening remarks and

rebuttal. Students sit at the edge of their seats raising their hands when the teacher calls

for questions. Sometimes the teacher calls on students not raising their hands, with most


students coming up with questions when asked and only a few questions asking to pass.

Although the teacher presents the debate topics and calls on students, the debaters stand

in the middle of the classroom and the teacher stands to side to shine the spotlight on the

students and give them a chance to lead.

At the end of school, the teacher takes time while students pack up to talk to

Kevin. In a one-on-one conversation, she discusses the math problem Kevin struggled

with earlier in class and walks him through the steps he learned that would help him get

the problems correct on his homework. She tells Kevin to come work with her during the

after school program for more practice. She tells Kevin how proud she was of his work

during the debate and points out his impressive knowledge about bargaining. The teacher

and student share a hug and the student finishes packing up his bag.

The engaging instruction and student-teacher relationships highlighted in this

vignette underscore the importance of Xavier’s student-centered learning climate. Figure

20 outlines the structures, practices, and policies that Xavier’s leadership utilizes to

center its climate on students’ learning. At the classroom level, the most important

practices come from the relationships students and teachers develop. The opening

vignette depicts this student-teacher relationship building as well as Xavier teachers’

focus on personalizing instruction. At the school level, Xavier’s leadership uses its Care

Team and the Elementary Advisor to track student needs and support student learning.

Xavier’s staff adopted a school-wide policy of inclusion that gives students with different

characteristics and disabilities the opportunity to be a part of the “everyday” classroom

lessons and activities. School-wide, Xavier’s staff also utilizes practices that create a

family-like atmosphere, such as their once-a-month practice of breaking students up into


classrooms with students of all different grade levels and a different teacher called

“Families,” so students feel comfortable and have a desire to engage in school. In

general, Xavier teachers puts student learning at the center through a thoughtful set of

policies, practices, and structures.

The above vignette demonstrates the focus of the Xavier staff on utilizing student-

teacher relationships at the classroom level. The teacher takes into account what she

knows about each students through her relationships to craft instruction that engages

students and personalizes students’ learning. To create engaging instruction, the teacher’s

approach asks students to apply their critical thinking skills and analytical reasoning to

answer problems rather than having them recall facts and figures. The teacher creates

multiple points of entry into the lesson through the small group work, team-like

atmosphere, the scoring, the questioning during rebuttal, and the repetition of the debate

format. Even a student that struggled earlier in a math lesson has access to the content

and has opportunity to succeed. The teacher has high expectations for students and

personalizes support for students, including students with disabilities, so they have the

opportunity to reach those expectations. She partners the student with disabilities with

another student who takes responsibility for his partnership, always prompting the

students he is helping at the appropriate times. To personalize instruction for one student,

Kevin, that she saw struggling earlier in math, the teacher takes extra time with him after

the lesson and provides him with the support he needs through additional explanation and

after school support to reach the grade level standard. Generally, this Xavier teacher’s use

of personalized learning experiences and engaging content and lessons represents


common instructional practices through out the Xavier teaching staff, which helps

Xavier’s leadership create a climate centered on student learning.

In particular, Xavier’s student-teacher relationships help teachers know how to

personalize their classroom work and connect students’ backgrounds and experiences to

the content of their daily instruction. One teacher describes the value of these

relationships.

The connections that you have with them [add value]. How much do you know about the individual kid and tapering things for them? There is the system that exists, but systems tend not to work for individuals, like considering everybody. We have that system, but we have a little bit of an understanding of the individual. We know enough about that individual. We know enough about the individual so we can make adjustments for families and this person inside of a family.

As teachers develop these relationships with students, they also develop a sense of trust

with the student that allows students to feel safe in school. One teacher describes former

students who come to Xavier after they have graduated because they view it as a safe

place.

I had some [former students] here last week, and I said, “Oh what are you doing here girls,” and they were like, “Oh we are locked out of her house and we knew that we could come here,” or “Oh, we got out of school early so we came here.” It is like that all the time, all the time…

Another teacher talks of ways to develop that trust with students.

I think that [students at Xavier] through time and their experiences with me get that sense that I am here for their interest, I have their best interest at heart. I think they know that… I really try to be consistent so they know what to expect, they know what I expect, they know what will happen when they behave a certain way and that includes working hard.

The consistency with students described by this teacher helps Xavier’s students develop

feelings of trust and safety. In turn, these feelings of trust and safety allow Xavier


students to develop relationships with their teachers. These relationships help build up

students willingness to take risks academically like the student Kevin who struggled

when trying to solve his math problem about buying a car when solving the problem with

pencil and paper, but felt comfortable enough to debate the topic in front of the whole

class. Kevin’s growth in math may not be possible without the trust and safety in a strong

relationship with their teacher.

In addition to teachers’ efforts, Xavier’s leadership also centers its school-wide

practices, structures, and policies on students’ social and emotional well-being as a means

to support student learning. To coordinate additional services and support for students’

general well-being, Principal Sutter works with the school nurse, the Instructional Coach,

the Elementary Advisor, the secretary, and school counselor on the CARE team.

Discussed briefly before, the CARE Team implements strategies for helping struggling

students and structures for supporting the general welfare of students. Each person on the

committee manages a grade level and collects information from those grade-level

teachers about students in their classes. Some members of the CARE Team also present

concerns about students they observe on the playground or in the after school program.

The CARE Team decides which students need to have a Student Success Team (SST)

meeting that involves the principal, the classroom teacher, the parents and any other

support staff working with the student. Xavier’s staff has SSTs on approximately 100

students a year (almost 50%). Principal Sutter reports that the CARE Team helped 10

students get glasses this year. The CARE Team may ask the school nurse to make a

presentation on germs to certain classes or to help with student behavior around spitting.

For families, the Care Team may conduct home visits, monitor a family’s housing status,


or help parents make and attend doctor’s appointments for their children. They may also

ask the counselor to talk to students about bullying based on certain incidents on the

playground. Xavier’s staff uses the CARE Team as a primary structure to get students the

support they need to advance student achievement in school.

Also at the school-level, Principal Sutter uses her Elementary Advisor to center

many of Xavier’s structures on student learning and student welfare. At Xavier, Principal

Sutter utilizes her Elementary Advisor to manage the record keeping for student

attendance and calling parents when students miss school. During the regular school day,

the Elementary Advisor supports student behavior during recess and in classrooms. For

example, the Elementary Advisor checks in daily with the first grade classrooms to

ensure certain students’ behavior is on track. She also acts as the site coordinator for

Xavier’s after school program, which allows her to be one of many links between the

regular school day and the after school programming. With this broad perspective of both

the regular school day, and before and after school programming, Principal Sutter has her

Elementary Advisor sit on committees that discuss student welfare like the Care Team

and connect with parents at the School Site Council and the Parent and Faculty

Committee. Additionally, the Elementary Advisor also is a parent at Xavier, so she

relates to students and parents from multiple perspectives. For example, when Xavier’s

Elementary Advisor calls parents regarding a student absence, she can relate through

multiple lens as a parent and a school staff member.

At the school-level, Xavier’s staff also puts students at the center of learning by

having an inclusion policy where students receiving special education services are

included in regular instruction. Xavier’s leadership incorporates specialized teachers and


para-professionals to create a mainstream classroom environment with appropriate

instruction for students individualized needs. In one classroom, inclusion looks like an

autistic, Asian male student working one-on-one with a para-professional while other

students participate in an Everyday Math lesson focused on order of operations. In

another part of the lesson, the autistic student sits with the group and participates as the

class tallies their points they earned during a lesson where they use currency in a virtual

mini-society. As students vote on how they will use their points (either for their

individual purposes or to support the community to which they each belong) another

student helps the autistic student know when to raise his hand while voting. In another

part of the lesson, the teacher calls students up to the board and has them write out verbal

problems using the appropriate notation. The teacher starts this part of the lesson by

calling the autistic student up to the board and having him write down and solve

problems like simple addition and subtraction problems. Students clap and cheer as the

autistic student gets the answers correct.

Numerous staff at Xavier described the school community at Xavier as a family.

These relationships with teachers and staff gives students those personal, “family-like”

connections to adults at Xavier giving students extra confidence to keep striving in

school. Xavier’s leadership also cultivates the emotional support for students, similar to a

family, by running a school-wide program called “Families” that builds these emotional

support networks among students and adults. “Families” happens once a month for an

hour on Fridays where students mix with other grade level classes and teachers. Teachers

have students from each grade level in their class. The curriculum for this program varies

from story telling, to public speaking, to an exploration of students’ heritages. This


program develops relationships with students across grade levels. Sutter says, “It is how

they learn to play across the yard.” It is also a time where teachers that teach fourth

graders get to know the first grade students and vice versa. “I have seen [students] since

they were little biddy kid[s],” says one Xavier teacher. Students develop long-term, in-

depth relationships with teachers and other students through structures like “Families”

that gives an extra layer of emotional support not found at most schools.

To summarize, Xavier’s leadership creates a student-centered learning climate

through student-teacher relationships and personalized instruction at the classroom level.

Xavier’s leadership also developed school wide policies and practices that put student

learning at the center of its school climate including the use of its Care Team and

Elementary Advisor, and Xavier policies like inclusion and the development of a family

atmosphere to keep students engaged in school and interested in learning.

Ambitious Instruction In a third grade classroom on Xavier’s second floor, morning air whips through an

open window rattling a set of student-designed dioramas of endangered species. On a

wall of the classroom hangs students’ writing about ancestors. A piece of chart paper has

a poem written on it that starts, “We are made of our ancestors, everything that we have

learned of our ways and language.” Another wall displays a poster with the five B’s that

make up the Xavier Academy School Rules -- "Be safe. Be respectful. Be responsible. Be

a listener. Be a learner.” The white board in the front of the classroom announces, “When

I am finished, I can, 1) finish all incomplete work, 2) read quietly at my desk or in the

library, 3) practice multiplication flashcards with a friend, 4) you can practice cursive.”

Next to the white board hangs a chart with a list of activities such as word work, readers

theater/fluency, SRA, reading group and group names made-up by the students such as


the “ice creamcicles” and “chocolate vanilla swirls” are placed under their respective

center activity for the day.

The teacher enters the classroom with the students and helps them unload their

backpacks into their respective cubbies. For this point on, the hour and half literacy block

begins. For the first fifteen minutes of class, students sit in a circle at on a large rug and

the teacher leads them through a “weekend check-in” where students each share one

interesting thing that happened over their weekend. One African American male student

shares about a movie he saw and another Hispanic male students talks of going to his

father’s house for the weekend. Some students choose to say “pass” and not share, but

the teacher checks back in with them to see if they want a second chance at sharing. After

the check-in, the teacher walks over to the job board and announces their changes in jobs

for the week. Then, he asks students to come to their desk for a spelling pre-test.

For the next 30 minutes of the literacy block, students take their spelling pre-test.

As the students sharpen their pencils and get out their spelling folders, one African

American male student, wearing a shirt with a picture of then Senator Barack Obama,

comes to sit at a back table with his pencil and folder. He gets out a laminated phonics

chart and paper for the spelling pre-test. There is also a Hispanic female para-professional

sitting at the back table who helps the African American male student by asking him in a

quiet voice if he has numbered his spelling words correctly on the pre-test. The teacher

reads through the spelling words aloud to the class, saying each word in a funny sentence

where students laugh. He explains the words are homophones and talks about these words

sounding similar, but being spelled differently. The teacher spells the words aloud and


students self-correct their pre-tests. After students put away their pretests, the teacher

introduces four vocabulary words for the week and writes the words on the white board.

The teacher rings some chimes to gets students attention and asks them to put

away their pre-tests and transition to ”centers” – four activities related to English

language arts. The teacher assigns groups of four or five students to each activity.

Students are grouped based on their reading ability determined by a set of benchmark

assessments completed every 8-weeks. A busy hum rings through the classroom as

students work in these four centers for 45 minutes.

• One group of students sits in the “library” of the class where there is a rug and pillows to work on the Word Work center. They pull out clipboards and write down the four vocabulary words for the week introduced earlier by the teacher. The students look up a definition, a synonym, an antonym, and draw a picture for each vocabulary word.

• Students working in the “Fluency/Readers’ Theatre” center practice reading fluency passages with the para-professional with students being timed for the pace of their fluency. These students also work on reading aloud a Readers’ Theatre script after their fluency practice.

• Students working in the “SRA” center independently pick reading passages out of a file filled with readers at varying levels. Each reader has a short, typed passage to read and comprehension questions at the end to answer. Students pick a reader suitable to their reading level, read through the reader, write down the answers to the comprehension questions at the end of reading, and check their answers for accuracy using the answer key. Students then move onto other readers at varying levels based on how many comprehension questions they answered correctly.

• The teacher leads a small group of students through a “Guided Reading Lesson.” The teacher has students look at the pictures in the book, make a prediction to what will happen in the book, read the book aloud together, read the book again aloud with different students taking turns reading each page, and then the teacher asks follow-up questions to check for students’ understanding. Students discuss and write their answers to the question.

Towards the end of the period, some students in the Word Work center get a little too

talkative, so the teacher asks them to move from the class library to their desks. The

students are expected to read silently after they complete their Word Work. Towards the

end of the period, the students from the Guided Reading Lesson write their answers to


some comprehension questions in the back of the book as the teacher watches the

students performing Readers Theatre with the para-professional. By the end of the 45

minutes, most students end the literacy block by reading silently at their desk.

This vignette captures many slices of Xavier teachers’ approach to ambitious

instruction. Figure 21 shows the structures, policies, and practices of Xavier teachers’

ambitious instruction. Xavier teachers have struggled with cultivating an aligned, robust

school-wide plan for instruction and curriculum. However, Xavier teachers bough into an

aspect of the curriculum funded by Reading First called Universal Access (UA) described

in the opening vignette. This structure helped Xavier teachers come up with a common

understanding of instruction and curriculum. UA and other structures highlight Xavier

teachers’ general pedagogy including personalization, small group work, and multiple

points of access. Although not captured by the vignette, the content of Xavier teachers’

instruction includes culturally relevant materials and real-world problems. Again,

structures like UA help Xavier teachers align its instruction by having common

instructional practices based on STAR resources like the curriculum funded by Reading

First, and other district wide curriculums like Everyday Mathematics. (See Appendix E

for a description of these curriculums.) The alignment of instruction at Xavier also

extends to the after school program. While teachers traditionally have functioned very

independently at Xavier, a general movement towards a common approach is beginning

to emerge.

Teacher’s pedagogy at Xavier combines a set of three pivotal approaches. Xavier

teachers personalize instruction for students. The section titled Student Centered

Learning Climate described personalization in more detail. In general, Xavier teachers


personalize instruction by forming strong relationships with students to gain information

regarding students’ backgrounds and interest. They use this information to craft units of

instruction that build on students’ personal experiences, knowledge and skill. For

example, third grade teachers lead a study of student heritage.

Teachers combine personalization with another strategy of utilizing small group

instruction. If you enter any Xavier classroom, teachers have desks pushed together to

form small groups. As seen in Figure 22, the map of the classroom featured in the

vignette above shows students 4-5 student desks pushed together into five different

groups. Teachers use these groups to facilitate small group work. Often, teachers take 10-

15 minutes standing in front of the class to introduce a lesson and then spend the rest of

hour rotating to each set of desks providing support and additional instruction to each

small group. Teachers then can tailor their additional instruction to each small group

based on their needs. Here is one Xavier teacher describing his use of small groups and

specific instructional strategies that benefit English Learners.

I think through the small groups that I use I think I get through to [English learners] fairly well. You just try to incorporate all these strategies into your daily routine. Over the years, especially, I realize that a lot of what I have said goes over their heads and I need to slow down and be more specific. I try to remember that something that seems very simple to me may not be in the realm of their knowledge at all, so that is a big thing I try to pay attention to… I won’t photocopy specific assignments for ELL students. I think it is just a matter of taking time and stopping when something seems like, for reading, just stopping and talking about the vocabulary, and telling stories about some kind of a concept, [and] bringing in my personal story about something. Like the word, “bank.” We had a story called Around the Pond. [The characters] were walking on the bank. You take that word with [English learners] and talk about all the uses of the word. I told them one of my favorite things I did last summer was sit on the bank of the lake where my dad lives and wait for the wind to pick up so I could go sailing. I reiterate some kind of story and maybe they’ve heard that story before. Just being more specific and thorough.


Xavier teachers use small groups to provide students with that personalized support.

Sometimes teachers organize students based on similar skill levels as seen in the centers

described in the vignette. They are referred to as homogeneous groupings, so the teacher

can deliver small group instruction to students with common skill levels. Other times the

teachers organize students based on different skill levels, referred to as heterogeneous

groupings, so the students’ build off of each others’ varied sets of skill and knowledge.

In addition to the instructional practices of personalization and small group work,

Xavier teachers introduce new concepts by using multiple points of access to new

knowledge and skills. Xavier teachers base their planning for lessons off of students’

personal interests, previous understandings, and general knowledge and skills. Here is

one teacher describing Xavier teachers’ approach to providing multiple points of access:

We are trying to concentrate on multiple intelligences that other kids even in fifth grade [who] are writing at a third or second grade level [are included]. There are all sorts of disparities going on there. This teacher will do stuff like debates. These kids will at least have to have notes, but it will give the kids a chance that don’t have innate and learned abilities on writing, it will give them a chance to flower and blossom, and show their intelligence and persuasive abilities.

Traditionally, schools use teacher-centered instruction that imparts students with skills

and knowledge based on grade level standards rather than students’ previous knowledge,

skills, and experience. These practices often leave some students disenfranchised and

disengaged from school because their skills and knowledge do not fit certain cultural

norms or they do not meet grade level standards. Instead, Xavier teachers utilize

instruction that closely assesses students’ skills and knowledge through formal

assessments and anecdotal evidence from close student-teacher relationships. Through

this knowledge of students, teachers use students’ interests and understanding of their


background to provided varied approaches for understanding and comprehending new

content. Here is one teacher describing how she provides students with an equitable

distribution of opportunities through multiple points of access.

I can have a standard high expectation for my classroom, but [an African American female student] is going to respond very differently than [an Asian male student]. Her high is not his high. His high note is not the same. Their notes are different… I don’t believe in equality. I don’t think it exists. What are you talking about? In my classroom, I try to move towards equity. I have kids in here, both their parents have PhDs, and I have kid who has homeless issues sleeping in someone’s floor.

Xavier teachers purposely provides multiple points of access to students based on their

prior knowledge, level of skills, and general interest in hopes of giving students the

maximum opportunity to learn new content. For example, with the opening vignette, the

teacher used multiple points of access to draw students into the math concept. Earlier in

the day she had students complete an on demand word problem similar to the one in the

debate with each students solving a problem on a small white board. After multiple

opportunities to practice on the white board, the teacher presented students with a

problem on paper and pencil. Throughout this time a para-professional works one-on-one

with a boy with special needs and another para-professional and the teacher circulate,

helping students one-on-one work on the paper and pencil tasks.

The content used during instruction at Xavier supports these instructional

strategies. Xavier’s teachers use the district-required curriculums such as Houghton

Mifflin and Everyday Math, but enriches curriculums often filled with images from

dominant perspectives with other more culturally-relevant materials. According to one

Xavier teacher:

Many of this stuff was done from my own creation. Houghton Mifflin does have a Universal Access side to it, ESL books, and stuff like that, but


some of the curriculum is a little on the dry side and it over-generalizes, so you can’t really figure out what to focus on [with] each specific kid if you want to get really in depth with the children.

To build depth and culturally relevant content, one Xavier teacher enriches her social

studies and language arts curriculums by teaching a unit on elections she created to

support students’ application of literacy skills. Students had to plan speeches and

fundraise for their campaigns. They gave presentations and the students sponsored a

school-wide spirit day. Also, Principal Sutter talked of enriching the reading curriculum

with other books better suited to students’ backgrounds and contexts like books with

LGBT families represented or narratives from Hispanic or African American inner city

youth.

Xavier teachers also makes curriculum more engaging by presenting activities in

real-world, authentic settings that relate to students’ lives and experiences. In a math

lesson, one teacher presented problems to students they may actually have to solve in

their own lives. The teacher asked students what they would do if their mom sent them to

the corner store to buy three loaves of bread. They have $12.00, but bread loaves cost

$4.99 each. What would they do? The teacher asks the class, “Do you think this happens

in real life?” and then tells the students as they work on that problem that they need to

have math and reasoning skills to solve these types of problems in the real world. The

teacher presses students by saying they would not take the time to pull out a calculator at

the store and they need to be able to solve this problem in a timely manner. At Xavier,

students experience narratives and perspectives in the curriculum infused by the teachers

that reflect students’ lived, real-world experiences making the curriculum more

accessible and engaging.


Guiding Question: How could the staff align their work instructionally in all the

subject areas given the strong personalities and emphasis on consensus among the staff?

While teachers’ pedagogy and instructional content at Xavier has traditionally been

strong, Xavier teachers have a history of working in isolation and not developing a

coherent instructional program. The staff at Xavier has an incredible drive to educate for

social justice and promote education as a civil right. With this drive also brings staff with

strong characteristics, unwilling to change unless convinced that change supports the

vision for the school. For example, the staff begrudgingly accepted the use of pacing

guides through Houghton Mifflin and the Reading First program that they now use in

conjunction with the 8-week SCOE theme tests. While this practice now results in

seemingly positive outcomes, it took Xavier staff a while to buy into it and use the pacing

guides even though in the end it may improve their instruction.

Over Xavier’s years of working with the STAR resources, and participation in

weekly planning sessions, Xavier teachers started aligning their instruction. For example,

when Xavier teachers started to utilize the curriculum funded by Reading First, they

quickly agreed the curriculum’s approach called Universal Access was both effective and

fit within the mission of their school. Now, all Xavier teachers use the Universal Access

(UA) configuration during their language arts instruction to base instruction on students’

individual needs. “Universal Access is a way to format information for the kids that is

accessible at their learning level,” said one Xavier teacher. UA organizes instruction into

small groups based on students reading level. The groups rotate on a daily basis either

working at different centers or working from a menu of activities tailored to students

individualized proficiency levels. The UA approach aligns well with the Xavier teachers’


previous use of small group work and therefore, teachers use this approach not only in

their language arts period, but also use UA strategies in math, science, and other subjects.

This alignment of instruction practices by using UA has spread to other subjects, with

teachers making efforts to use new curriculums like Everyday Math school-wide.

Prior to aligning its instructional content and pedagogy, Xavier’s leadership

aligned the before and after school programs closely with students’ regular school day.

Funded by Expanded Collaborations for Excellence in Learning (ExCEL), Xavier’s

leadership structures the after school program with staff that work with the students

during the day like teachers and para-professionals. Both programs combined give Xavier

staff the ability to work with students from 8:00AM to 6:00PM, which provides more

time for instruction and support. This connection between before school and after school

builds pathways of communication about homework and assignments, allowing teacher

to check for horizontal and vertical alignment between grades and within grades. The

students complete most of their homework in the after school program, relieving some

over-worked families of the pressure to do homework. The program also exposes

students to activities and clubs that provide enrichment and more reasons for students to

feel excited and engaged in school. Xavier’s after school program has clubs ranging from

science club to hip-hop club. In general, Xavier staff conscientiously aligns the work

during the before and after school program to reinforce what its accomplishes during the

school day.

From teacher pedagogy to content, Xavier teachers attempt instruction that is both

ambitious and school-wide. Xavier teacher’s pedagogy stems largely from their focus on

personalized learning experiences, small group work, and multiple points of access.


Xavier teachers use content that is culturally relevant and presents problems for students

to solve in real world scenarios and settings. In the face of a strong willed and

opinionated staff, Xavier teachers make more recent efforts to align their practices by all

using Universal Access with great fervor. Alignment of instruction has consistently

played a part in how Xavier’s leadership runs the before and after school programs,

which allow students to receive additional instruction and support beyond the school day.

Relational Trust across a School Community It is a Tuesday afternoon at Xavier Academy, and students from all different

grade levels scurry into a fifth grade classroom to start a class called “Families.” The

teacher greets them by name as they come and asks them to take a seat. Many students

enter with big grins on their face and wide eyes, especially the students from kindergarten

and first grade that are entering a fifth grade classroom. The fifth grade students that

stayed in their homeroom pop popcorn in the microwave and lay out napkins for snack.

Xavier’s leadership uses Families as a time for building relationships across the

school. Families gives teachers a chance to get to know students that they do not teacher

every day and students get to know a new teacher and students from other grade levels.

Every teacher runs “Families” a little bit different.

The teacher in this classroom starts “Families” by going around to each student,

starting in the lowest grade level, kindergarten, and asking them to stand on their chair

and tell the group one word describing how they feel. A white girl, two African American

boys, a white boy, and an Asian girl all stand on their chairs. The teacher calls on the

white girl and she says, “Happy.” The teacher calls on an African American boy and he

can not think of anything. The teacher calls on a white boy and he says, “Excited.” The


teacher asks one of African American boy kindergarteners to sit down because he is

tipping in his chair. The teacher calls on the Asian girl and she says, “Good.”

The teacher goes through this structure with each of the grade levels, having them

stand on their chair and tell the group one word. For the first graders, the teacher asks for

a word that means tough, for the second graders, she asks for a word with a sports theme,

for the third graders the teacher asks for “the happiest word you can think of.” For the

fourth graders, she asks them to stand on their chairs and to name words that mean happy.

The students start to giggle as the teacher presses the older students to come up with

words students have not yet used. An African American girl says, “I don’t have nothing.”

The teacher asks her again and waits. When she still can not think of something, the

teacher moves to the other students.

One of the students from the teachers’ homeroom class has her parent come to

pick her up early from school. As the parent stands in the doorway waiting, the teacher

pauses with the discussion and gives the student her homework and a hug. While the

student packs up and the other students sit there listening, the teacher tells the parent that

she wants to sit down and talk about her daughter’s class placement for next year.

The teacher redirects her attention to the students in her class for Families and

makes sure everyone has popcorn and settles them down for some storytelling. The

teacher makes-up a story from scratch to share with the students. As the teacher tells the

story, the students sit eating popcorn, at times raising their hands to ask questions. The

teacher makes her story-telling interactive, asking for input from the students, and getting

them to make predictions about what might happen next.


This vignette portrays the structure of “Families” that helps teachers and students

at Xavier develop relationships that allow students more easily to trust the teacher and in

general the adults they work with at Xavier. The Sebring framework defines “relational

trust” as the relationships supported by feelings of trust that school communities rely on

during the school improvement process. The relational trust at Xavier stems from the

strong network of relationships between the many people involved in the school. Students

and adults at Xavier trust each other because they develop strong relationships, feel safe,

and view people at Xavier as committed to the mission of the school. This relational trust

develops on many levels, but is most prevalent between the teachers and students, staff

and families, and the principal and teachers.

Relational trust between the Xavier teachers and the students develops from

certain practices and structures in the classroom. For example, teachers often have one-

on-one conversations with students. Xavier teachers do not spend a lot of time sitting in

the front of the classroom leading the class. Instead, their instruction takes the form of

small group work in centers during Universal Access or one-on-one work with a student.

This provides time for teachers to get to know students on a more personal level. Here is

one teacher describing the relationships she has with students:

Like I know those two girls [that were previously in the classroom talking to the teacher]. I’ve known that one that is talking the most. I’ve known her since she was in kindergarten. I see her dad pick her up. I talk to him. She has never been in my classroom, but I know her. I know what her dad does for a living. I’ll ask her, “Who braided your hair?” I’ve seen her around since she was a little bitty kid. I know all of these little kids because I try to talk to them. You know we have “Families,” here, too, right? That way you know all these different sets of kids. Those are other ways of extending the school community that I think is invaluable in lots of ways, even though it takes away from other things, it adds to those same things.


Xavier teachers take time during their instruction and beyond to get to know students. In

fact, Xavier teachers take extra time beyond the classroom to make connections with

students, as described by this teacher:

I would say the connection you have with them [add value]. How much do you know for the individual kid and tapering things for them? Like there’s the system that exists, but systems tends not to work for individuals. We have that system, but we have a little bit of, an understanding of the individual. We know enough about the individual, so that we can make adjustments for families and this person inside of a family…This is not the profession for being disconnected. If you are going to do this, you better be willing to extend yourself or else you are not going to serve society, and you might as well not participate. Teaching is a rather peculiar profession. It’s exhausting, like you really have to be selfless. You really have to extend yourself towards people. If you are going to work with a school with 600 students, you may not know everything about every single one of them, but you need to participate in things so you recognize the people at least… Assemblies… we have so many little events. The silent auction, the assembly, we don’t have a car wash, but whatever it is we are doing… our little meetings. “We are going to have a little committee to do…” Whatever! You have to do these things or else you are disconnected and you don’t have a personal relationship.

In addition to the Xavier teachers efforts in extracurricular activities, many Xavier

teachers also work in the after school program which allows students to see the teachers

in a more informal setting where teachers can interact with students more freely. The

small size of Xavier also helps teachers and students see each other on a more regular

basis aside from just in class.

As described in the vignette earlier, Xavier’s leadership also emphasizes

developing relational trust by having curricular programs like “Families.” The Xavier

school community participates in Families once a month, where students K-5 each spend

an hour or more in another teacher’s classroom. For example, a teacher will have 2-3

students from each grade level that comes to his/her classroom once a month. During

Families, students smile a lot, get excited to socially interact with the teacher, and seem


to open up. Teacher have license to develop the interpersonal relationships with students

using any approach they want. “There is something important about culture of family and

inclusiveness of families,” said Principal Sutter. Families give teachers and students

relationship-building opportunities, but still provides a reliable structure for students to

feel safe getting to know the Xavier teachers. It also provides time for students to get to

know other students not in their grade level, and gives them another layer of relationship

on the playground with older or younger students.

Another part of relational trust forms within the Xavier school community

between teachers and parents. As seen in the vignette, teachers extend themselves to

parents, making time to speak with them one-on-one, calling them on the cell phone, and

talking with them before and after school. Parents feel comfortable enough around Xavier

teachers to make their opinions know, even when pressed by a teacher. In one school site

council meeting, a teacher and Hispanic parent argued over whether computer skills are

important at the elementary level. The teacher claims that computers are not interactive or

provide conversation students need at this stage. The Hispanic parent rebuts and points

out that games on computers can be very educational. Teachers make effort to help

parents feel safe and comfortable freely exchanging their ideas and opinions and keeping

in close contact with one another.

This relational trust also exists between the principal and the teachers at Xavier.

Principal Sutter has an understanding with her teachers that they both want to fulfill the

mission of civil rights. According to Sutter, “Accessibility I think is key. I think people

really know by now that with all my failings, things they squabble about and things they

don’t like about me, that I have that moral imperative and they do trust that portion of it.”


Principal Sutter makes herself accessible by coming to school before everyone gets there,

and leaving after everyone has gone. By being available at all times, she makes herself

accessible to teachers. Also, teachers will freely come into Principal Sutter’s office and

share their opinion on something that they think could improve. They also share new

ideas with Principal Sutter about what actions they want to take to promote civil rights

throughout the school.

One example of teachers and the principal having a free exchange of ideas in an

open, safe environment is a discussion of behavior management on a playground during a

staff meeting. A teacher and Principal Sutter presented to the staff the idea students

getting their name placed in the box if they did something positive on the playground.

Students’ names would be picked from the box and rewarded with a prize. Many teachers

objected to having these rewards and some teachers asked if this recognition of positive

behavior could be accomplished in a different way. Some teachers suggested having

teachers do it in their own classroom to keep track that all students get recognized.

Another teacher wants the rewards to be more meaningful and focused on citizenship or

different areas in academics. The conversation continues in a more heated way with

many teachers raising their hands and rejecting the ideas of rewards for behavior. In

general, this staff meeting represents an example of Xavier teachers feeling trusting

enough to express their opinions to their principal in an open forum.

Xavier’s staff builds relational trust throughout the school community by

developing teacher and student, teacher and parent, and teacher and principal

relationships. These relationships support the hard work and challenges members of the

school community confront in their school improvement process. These relationships


help students feel safe and trusting of adults at Xavier, so that they want to come to

school, participate in class, and feel comfortable in their classroom, on playground, or in

the lunchroom. The teacher and parent relationships build trust by helping parents

understand the dedication and hard work of the teachers, and having parents more

regularly talk with teachers and engage in dialog with the teachers more freely. The

relationships between teachers and Principal Sutter provide an important layer of

relational trust that allows Xavier staff to attempt new and improved ways of serving its

students and does not hold Xavier teachers back from pursuing the ideals of a “civil

rights academy.”


Case 3: The NEW School

On a Thursday evening, parents, students, and community members pack into a

second and third grade classroom at NEW School’s Project Open-house. Guests sign in

as they enter the room and take a list of questions and a rubric about the project. A roller

coaster fit for a marble extends from the ceiling, wraps across the tops of tables, and

spirals down running along the ground. Students stand in a line next to the part of the

track they constructed holding their prepared presentations and trying not to fidget. They

make last minute adjustments to the twists and turns of the track to insure the track will

work. As the presentation starts, each student describes their portion of the track as well

as scientific concepts like friction and velocity that make the marble zoom down the

track. The teacher climbs up a ladder and releases a marble. The audience says, “Oh,”

and “Ah,” as the marble sails through the track. The presentation ends with audience

members posing questions and students readily answering.

The students focused on this roller coaster project for the past eight weeks,

learning about scientific concepts like acceleration and deceleration, writing summary

paragraphs about their process of building their roller coaster, and reading books about

the science behind roller coasters and fictional accounts involving roller coasters.

Throughout the project, students worked in groups to build multiple versions of their

roller coaster, experimenting with the best models, and eventually combining their efforts

to build one large track. They applied language arts skills by writing explanations of their

work and making presentations. Students had to use their interpersonal skills (which are

not always honed at the second and third grade level) to resolve disagreements over how


to build the roller coaster and participate in trial and error experimentation to get their

model right.

All along, the teacher acted as a facilitator by presenting 10-15 minute mini-

lessons about key concepts related to physics, group work, or writing, but letting the

students take their lead in applying their new knowledge of the physics and language arts

concepts. For the most part the teacher stood at the sidelines only outlining work

expectations. Having “looped” with the third grade students (meaning he taught most of

the students in second grade as well as third grade), the teacher knows the students well

and uses these relationships to differentiate instruction and personalize learning

opportunities. The teacher strategically places students in groups with many different

skill levels. The teachers then provide students like English learners or students with

disabilities with extra, one-on-one attention, helping them with writing their presentations

and spending more time working with their small groups. The teacher meets weekly to

plan this project with two other second and third grade teachers. Throughout the project,

the teacher checked for understanding by using formative assessments like taking notes

on the vocabulary students’ use in their small groups, and summative assessments like the

presentation at the Project Open-house.

This second and third grade school project at NEW School highlights many

important structures, policies, and practices at NEW School: the project-based learning

that adds depth and meaning while emphasizing interdisciplinary skills; multiple

classroom strategies to engage students in learning activities; and professional sharing

and planning by the teacher with his grade-level partners to make the daily lessons work

seamlessly. This case study of the NEW School (a.k.a. NEW) uses the Sebring


framework to highlight the structures, policies, and practices that make NEW a school

effective at closing the achievement gap.

Local School Community Context NEW School is a small school of about 220 students. It serves students in

kindergarten through eighth grades with students like English Learners and students

receiving special education services included in daily instruction. San Francisco

maintains a diverse student population with Hispanic students forming the largest group.

As is shown in Figure 23, the Hispanic students were clearly the largest subgroup,

making up 40% of the student body at NEW. Other groups were similar in size to each

other, all falling between 10% and 20%: Other (18%); Asian (17%); White (14%); and,

Black (12%). Unlike other schools in San Francisco, where one subgroup of students

form a majority at the school, the ratios at NEW have remained very stable since 2001.

As shown in Figure 24, 60% of NEW students were eligible for free or reduced

price lunch in Fall 2008 and 39% were English Learners. In addition, 15% of students

were classified as gifted and 10% received special education services. Over time, the

percentages of students eligible for free or reduced lunch increased substantially, growing

from 39% in 2001 to 60% in 2008. This increase is in large part to do with better tracking

on NEW’s part of how many students turned in applications for free or reduced lunch.

Other groups also showed some long-term changes, but such changes were smaller.

From 2001 to 2008, the proportion of special education students declined (21% to 10%),

the proportion of gifted students increased (5% to 15%), and the proportion of English

Learners increased (33% to 39%). NEW does not give any rationale for these changes,

but the shifting characteristics do impact the school’s population.


While NEW does not make its students’ performance on standardized state

measures a key focus of its instructional program, NEW continues to have rising test

scores. From 2002 to 2008, NEW’s API score has grown from 673 to 802. As seen in

Figure 25, NEW’s API growth score for its free and reduced lunch subgroup continued

on a similar trajectory, growing from an API score of 648 in 2002 to a score of 782 in

2008. Similarly, NEW’s API growth score for Hispanic subgroup continued on a similar

trajectory, growing from an API score of 664 in 2002 to a score of 749 in 2008. The API

scores for the English Learner subgroup hovered around 800, decreasing slightly each

year to 793 in 2006, 781 in 2007, and 772 in 2008. Although some of NEW’s subgroups

are too small to register an API score as subgroups, the school’s overall growth suggests

that the achievement of all students is rising.

While NEW had its ups and downs in achievement, the school always maintained

strong community support for its program. The school opened in 1972 when a group of

parents starting pre-school co-ops in San Francisco rallied together to open a new school

that they named NEW School. The parents hoped to develop a public school option with

students, parents, and teachers very involved in the schooling process. They wanted a

school that functions more like a “family” where all adults involved had a responsibility

to connect with students and help them in their schooling. Additionally, parents also

wanted a school that reflected the racial and economic diversity of San Francisco. The

school leadership soon learned that parents come and go, finding it challenging to rely on

parent leadership. Consequently, the school merged into a teacher-run school with a

teacher-leader (referred to as a Head Teacher) rather than a principal. The person playing

the administrative role of “Head Teacher” came from a teaching position and


consequently brought stability to the leadership at NEW. Parents continue to play

important roles in NEW, but left the school leadership to the teachers.

NEW first resided in the Marina district of San Francisco, but moved in the

1980’s to the Excelsior neighborhood that houses more diverse, working class families.

While any student living in San Francisco may apply to attend NEW, over 50% of

students come from the surrounding lower income neighborhood. The Head Teacher

describes the neighborhood as, “…a diverse working class neighborhood. It has had an

influx in the last 10 years of white, middle-class folks… [There are] Latino and Chinese

mostly, Filipino, and some African American.” The school itself resides in a three-story,

brick school building with a large playground and school garden. Over the years, the

parents formed a non-profit organization called Project OLE (Outdoor Learning

Environment) that contributes funds to the garden and playground. According to the

school website, Project OLE aimed to transform the playground into “an innovative and

inspiring learning environment.” By raising funds through grants, private funding, and

public contribution, Project OLE added features to the playground like a new climbing

structure, a water feature, a garden shed, a plot for planting, as well as various shrubs and

trees on the property. In 1996, the district gave up part of the land near NEW and allowed

the Boys and Girls Club (BGC) to build a community center and gymnasium.

Consequently, NEW has a relationship with the BGC to use the BGC gymnasium for the

school’s P.E. program and many NEW students utilize the before and after school

services provided by the BGC. The other part of the playground has a large black top

surrounded by urban-themed murals representing images of the city and urban life.


NEW is a small school with a diverse racial and ethnic composition serving

mostly low-income students of color. With its long history and strong support from

families, the school moved to a different neighborhood in hopes of serving more students

from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and continues to cultivate relationships with

organizations like the Boys and Girls Club to expand its services to students in the

neighborhood. NEW’s local school community context reflects the low to middle income

families in the surrounding neighborhood.

Leadership Acting as a Catalyst for Change It is a Monday afternoon, and a group of NEW teachers meet in the office of the

Head Teacher. These teachers form the “Lead Team” at NEW, with one teacher

represented from each grade level team at grades K/1, 2/3, 4/5, 6-8, as well as a parent

outreach coordinator and a fourth grade teacher acting as the after school program liaison.

These grade level representatives each come from a different “Developmental Learning

Team” or DLT, otherwise known as grade level teams where NEW teachers meet to plan

their instruction and develop their curriculum. They sit around two tables pushed together

with some teachers taking notes on their laptops and other teachers with notebooks and

pencils.

The Head Teacher passes out an agenda and assigns people roles like a

timekeeper, facilitator, process checker, and note taker. The Head Teacher, acting as the

facilitator, asks the after school coordinator to start the meeting. The coordinator talks of

making the after school program more focused on the goals of the school. She describes

how a lot of students miss the after school program’s focus on academic time because

they leave early or special events interfere. She proposes to the “Lead Team” that NEW

make it a requirement for students in the after school program to stay until 5:30PM. The


facilitator asks if people on the “Lead Team” want to ask questions or comment. The

parent outreach coordinator adds that she would like to see the program more enriching

rather than just doing homework. The after school coordinator responds that she wants to

work on the scheduling first and then the content. Another teacher asks how much time

they have to get feedback from their “Developmental Team.” One teacher follows-up

with a question about whether parents have other options for after school care.

After more discussion of the aspects of the after school program, the facilitator

moves them onto other topics including an update on the school-wide composting

program (one teacher requests more bags), improving follow-up with Student Success

Teams (encourage teachers to follow-up with parents after an SST meeting), and a

discussion of how to stop parents from double parking when they pick up their children.

The group also discusses at length whether NEW should allow classroom

fundraising. The Head Teacher recalls that NEW has a fundraising policy where any

fundraising with families has to be completed after school hours. One teacher pointed out

that this policy started 10 years ago and families know it exists, but one or two teachers

started to fundraise with their classrooms on their own. The Head Teacher acknowledges

they ask for families to give $35 a month if they can to pay for camping trips, translation

of documents for parents, and yard duty. Some teachers air their opinions that they do not

like teachers selling junk food to kids. Other teacher contend that most of these class

fundraisers are community-building activities like bake sales that raise funds for a cause

students studied. One teacher asks if the NEW personnel feel like they are short on

money and the Head Teacher asks if they should discuss this with the whole staff to

revise the funding policy. A teacher requests that the Head Teacher announce what the


current fundraising policy is in the “Monday Notes,” the weekly bulletin given to

teachers, and then introduce the topic for discussion during the next staff meeting.

Finally, the group ends by discussing how decisions get made by the team that

designs their professional development called the “PD Team.” The PD Team is made up

of another set of teachers representing different grade levels. Some teachers on the “Lead

Team” suggest that some people on the “PD Team” have personality conflicts and

consequently some members of that team do not feel like they have a voice in

professional development. The Head Teacher tries to clarify the different opinions that

have been voiced to her. One teacher thinks the teachers on the PD team should just voice

their opinions. Another teacher suggests that there might be pathways of communication

the PD team members have not used. While another teacher points out that as a small

school there will always be personality conflicts. The Head Teacher asks another teacher

on Lead Team to talk one-on-one to the teachers on PD Team that feel like they have no

voice and report back to the Lead Team.

The group briefly works out details like who will bring breakfast items to the staff

retreat this coming weekend. They also postpone a meeting focused on professional

development to give staff time after the winter retreat to work on what they talk about at

the retreat. The meeting ends a teacher performing a process check to make sure all the

items of the agenda were discuss and meeting norms were followed. This teacher reports

that they ended on time at 5:00PM and the group shares some celebrations with a few

people complimenting each other for some of the great work they did in their classroom

or throughout the school.


This vignette portrays the Lead Team, one of many committees at NEW that

govern the school. The Lead Team is the general decision making committee for school-

based decisions. The Lead Team at NEW makes small-scale decisions like composting

processes and large-scale decisions like how the school plans its professional

development. While most schools in San Francisco rely on the top-down leadership of

their principal, NEW teachers utilizes structures like committees and the rotation of their

”Head Teacher” every three years to govern the school. NEW staff uses a complex set of

committees to govern the school. Table 11 describes the different committees at NEW.

For the most part, the Developmental Level Team (DLT) is made up of teaching staff

from each split grade level and makes student and classroom level decisions. However,

some topics for school-level decisions come from conversations at the DLT level. One

staff member describes the process for raising voting issues as follows:

If someone thinks the dismissal time is chaotic, the system is that that teacher could talk to the colleague on their DLT, for example talk to their K/1 representative, and the rep would put this on the agenda. The lead team would decide if this is a whole staff decision, lead team decision, or back to the [DLT] team.

The Lead Team, PD Team, and staff meetings (with some input from the Middle School

Task Force) manage school-level decisions, with the Head Teacher fielding a few less

complex school-level decisions on his/her own. Made up of representations from the

each DLT, the Lead Team decides whether the school-level decisions need to be made by

the Lead Team Committee or voted on by the whole staff. One staff member describes

how the Lead Team votes on decisions:

If the average of everybody’s fingers around the table is less than three, it means that not enough people care about this issue and the Head Teacher should make this decision… If it falls between a four and a seven, it is


squarely Lead Team purview. If it is higher than a seven, the whole staff needs to make a decision about this. That’s a consensus decision.

If the Lead Team decides to have the whole staff vote on an issue, the whole staff has to

come to consensus about a policy decision.

While the Head Teacher makes a few decisions on his/her own, decisions are

made using consensus for the most part. (See Figure 26.) Consequently, the hierarchy at

NEW becomes much flatter than most schools. Here is one staff member describes how

they reach consensus and vote on items in staff meetings.

Anything regarding program, instructional model, and funding… Those get decided by consensus…We only really call for consensus when we know we have it. We say, “At the next meeting, we are going to be calling for a decision about this, so if you have any issues, talk to someone on Lead Team or talk to somebody on PD Team, depending on where the issues was coming from, before hand so we have a chance to negotiate and work it out before we have the consensus call.” Our consensus model is everybody sits in a circle, and everybody has to put their hand out. You either put your thumbs up if you fully support this, you put your thumb side ways if you can live with it, but it’s not your favorite idea, and your thumbs down means you block it and you have to have an alternative to present.

Committees all run under a similar format that includes picking a facilitator, a

timekeeper, and a “process checker” or person that checks to make sure they followed the

adopted culture norms and meeting norms (described below) at the end of the meeting.

The meeting also includes a time for teachers to celebrate one another and make general

announcements. NEW lists the agreed upon norms for meetings and the culture of the

school at the bottom of each agenda that include:

Culture Norms: − Respect our interdependencies − Ask for help for what you need for clarification, offer help − Intent: trust/assume it’s positive, share and clarify your intent − Space: create it for laughing, crying, contemplating, disagreeing, and for the diversity

of our and each other’s being


− Equity: keep it at the center. Meeting Norms: − Start/end on time − Be engaged/present − No cell phones, side conversations, or activities − Be mindful of patterns of participation − Be mindful of decision-making and silence/agreement issues In general, committees provide “so many different structured opportunities for people to

talk and communicate about what is going on,” commented one NEW staff member.

“There’s a system in place that allows all the teachers to communicate their concerns to

support people.”

Lingering Question: What could NEW do to account for the lag response time

experienced with democratic decision-making? Democratic decision-making, meeting

often in committees, and the process of discussing topics take a lot of time. Sometimes

these processes delay decisions and cause stalemates on items like alignment of curricular

programs or grade level expectations when teachers and staff have differing opinions. Is

it possible to reorganize this system to maintain the quality of democratic decision-

making and reduce the amount of time and possibly resources involved?

With a Head Teacher instead of a principal and democratic decision-making

steering the school, NEW governance sits in the hands of its teachers. This gives

teachers more buy-in to the school. One teacher observed, “People feel like they have

some control over what is going to happen. I think that speaks to the teacher run part of

it.” Another staff member points out that there is not a “formal hierarchy” at NEW. In

fact, NEW does not have a principal and instead has a rotating cycle of lead teachers that

both teach and perform the administrative duties for the school. At one point, the school

had a Head Teacher and a Reform Coordinator, the former focusing more on operations


and the later focusing more on school culture and pedagogy. By 2001, the school could

not afford both positions, so the Reform Coordinator became a classified position called

the System Coordinator working part time on administrative duties like classroom

coaching, organizing sports, teacher contracts, and textbooks, and part time as an algebra

teacher. NEW uses the flexibility of the Weighted Student Formula to pay for the

position that combines being a reform coordinator and algebra teacher. Consequently, the

Head Teacher provides leadership at the school and facilitates the decision-making

processes, operations, advocacy for the school, and the relationships between the school

and the district while still advising one class of middle school students. The current Head

Teacher, Leslie Hammer, describes her position further:

A large part of my job is dealing with the district and advocating, whether it’s through the policy or I’m fighting individual battles. That’s an unfortunate part of the job. I would much rather be spending my time to proactively create policy than to be negotiating individual battles with department heads who are trying to make us do XYZ and that’s not what we are going to do… Right now [The Assistant Superintendent assigned to represent small schools like NEW] takes a lot of brunt of that. I call [Assistant Superintendent] and say, “So-and-so is calling us and saying we have to do this. What do we do?” She says, “Don’t worry about it, I’ll call them, I’ll deal with,” and it goes away. That’s enormous that someone’s keeping their eye out for small schools and there is actually a piece of paper that’s behind it.

The Head Teacher receives some support from district officials like the above assistant

superintendent and the general district policy supporting small schools, but for the most

part, the head teacher represents the link between the district and NEW.

The Head Teacher rotates about every three years. In the second year of a Head

Teacher’s tenure, interested teacher candidates within the school go through a vetting

process. First, a teacher declares interest in the position. Then, the teacher attends the PD

Team and Lead Team meetings and addresses their questions and concerns. The teacher


meets with the Head Teacher and other teachers with questions and concerns. After much

discussion, the Head Teachers calls for a consensus vote at a staff meeting. Once a Head

Teacher is elected by consensus, the prospective school leader shadows the Head Teacher

for a year prior to starting the position so the teacher learns the skills and knowledge

necessary to run the school.

With al l teachers acting as school leaders to some extent, NEW makes it a point

to have a clearly articulated vision that all staff share. NEW refers to its vision: “strong

hearts, strong minds, strong individuals and strong community.” NEW defines “strong

hearts” through its defined set of NEW Virtues and “strong minds” through its defined set

of NEW Powerful Ways of Thinking (both discussed later in the case and defined in

Table 12 and 13). At NEW, students need strong heart and minds to build “strong

individuals” as assessed by their rigorous portfolio assessments in fifth grade and eighth

grade. The students need to contribute to a “strong community” which NEW teachers

builds through a multitude of structures, policies, and practices such as the school’s

extensive teacher committees, the “looping” of students with teachers, and strong ties to

families through Project Open houses and other structures. Teachers all reference this

vision, either during the school assemblies where they acknowledge the students for

displaying strong hearts or minds, by displaying charts that define strong hearts and

minds in their classrooms, or referencing this vision during staff meetings as part of the

logic for making important decisions.

The shared leadership among its teachers and shared vision, also provides NEW

with wide reaching instructional leadership. Developmental Learning Teams play a role

in NEW’s governance, but teachers also use the structure for instructional planning as a


grade-level team. Consequently, members of the PD Team and Lead Team sit at the

DLTs and help articulate and implement school-wide decisions made related to

instruction. Consequently, new reforms do not have to travel far, and teachers understand

why they made those reforms considering they were part of the decision-making process.

Therefore, every teacher acts as an instructional leader at NEW by being involved in the

instructional planning, implementation, and accountability. With all teachers involved in

weekly instructional planning across grade-levels, NEW’s structure of leadership like

DLT have a direct impact on instruction.

To realize these alternative structures, practices, and policies, NEW pays close

attention to its relationship with district policies and its management of resources

procured from the district and additional funding sources. With its approaches to teacher

leadership and ambitious form of pedagogy, NEW seemed like an outcast in a sea of

more traditionally run schools in San Francisco Unified School District. At certain

periods, the teacher leaders rallied with other small alternative schools in the district and

defended its right to utilize curriculums and approaches in learning as well as adopting

other policies not formally sanctioned by the school district. NEW and the other schools

put political pressure on the district to create a policy that addressed small, alternative

schools as a way to encourage innovation and different options for students. In February

2007, the San Francisco Unified School District passed a Small Schools by Design Policy

that supported autonomy among small schools in areas such as governance, hiring,

curriculum, and instruction. The policy provides resources like seven additional days of

professional development and curricular autonomy, bridging NEW’s focus on project-

based learning in-line with district policy. According to one district official:


It was more about building a core relationship that would be ongoing. The focus and intentions were pure in the sense that it was about supporting this school in its own unique structure and culture of working together, and to continue growing as a school.

Now, the district provides an Assistant Superintendent to negotiate relationships between

the district and the small schools within the new policy. For example, when the

administrators’ union rejected NEW’s model of paying its Head Teacher the same salary

as other teachers, the district’s Assistant Superintendent helped the school sit down and

negotiate a governance model in accordance with the labor laws. NEW continues to

struggle with the compromise negotiated with the union of a small school administrators’

position because having an administrator’s position creates hierarchy among the staff.

(This will be discussed later in the case in more detail.) While the Small Schools Policy

gives NEW legitimacy, it does not completely buffer or support all of the policies,

structures, and practices unique to NEW.

NEW’s teacher leadership manages their resources to provide students with an

equitable amount of resources and cultivates additional resources to help realize this

vision. Referenced earlier, NEW will use discretionary funding where they need it most.

NEW gets discretionary funds in its budget through the school district’s Weighted

Student Formula that allocates additional funding for students with higher needs like

English learners, or funding received from the state to help desegregate its schools

through a Consent Decree. Table 14 shows these and other funding sources used by

NEW’s leadership. Notice in Table 14 how NEW’s leadership uses the additional funding

from the Weighted Student Formula to fund their Head Teacher as well as a half time

algebra teacher and a “systems coordinator” that helps the lead teacher with the

operations of the school.


When the district funding falls short, NEW’s leadership acquires additional

resources through grants from outside organizations and ties with organizations that

support their families and students. Often times, the grant writing falls on the Head

Teacher, but teachers and other staff do get involved. Table 14 also outlines the different

sources NEW has for outside funding and how they choose to allocate that funding. NEW

strategically uses those resources to fulfill needs of students and families that are not met

by the baseline funding from the school district. For example, through a grant from the

Zellerbach Foundation for $65,000, NEW’s leadership hires two parent liaisons to

support their Hispanic and African American families. In addition to grants, NEW has

contacts with local organizations and utilizes these services to fulfill student needs. For

example, NEW connects students and families in need of counseling services with the

Southeast Family Mental Health Clinic, a local clinic that serves low-income families in

need. Also, the Head Teacher also has strong ties with the director of the Boys and Girls

Club that sits next to the NEW campus and stays in close contact with the therapist that

serves some NEW students who are part of the Club. NEW connects with Coleman

Advocates and the San Francisco Organization Project (SFOP), which help when NEW’s

leadership needs community organizers to rally their parents about important political or

local issues. For example, an SFOP staff member will on occasion attend the Parent

Action Committee meetings to connect with NEW parents. NEW is part of the Excelsior

Learning Collaborative comprised of three or four schools in the same area that pools

their resources to apply for grants and support each other professionally. NEW also

participates in the San Francisco Coalitions of Essential Small Schools that provides them

with professional development opportunities related to equity and instruction.


The structures of teacher leadership play a central role in NEW’s efforts at school

advancement and improvement. Instead of relying on a top-down, hierarchical approach

to leadership, NEW uses a set of teacher committees coordinated by a Head Teacher that

distributes leadership of the school among its teachers. The committees use a democratic

approach to decisions, which takes time, but cultivates agreement and alignment among

its structures, practices, and policies. NEW has a strong, shared school-wide vision that

resonates throughout the teacher leadership. The Developmental Learning Teams share

instructional leadership with all teachers. Teachers both help reform the policies,

practices, and structures related to instruction and implement those reforms, which gives

NEW the capacity to pursue ambitious instruction. NEW’s leadership strategically

manages its resources by cultivating outside funding as well as relationships with

organizations that provide services to NEW’s students and families. NEW teachers buffer

their school-wide vision by taking steps to preserve their way of teaching students by

advocating for certain district policies like the Small Schools by Design Policy. In

general, NEW’s teacher leadership builds momentum for powerful improvements

throughout their school, acting as a catalyst for positive change.

Parent-Community Ties It’s a Saturday afternoon and two parent groups convene at NEW for an African

American Parent Tea and a Garden Work Day. Upstairs on the second floor of the school

in the cafeteria, the parent liaison assigned to the African American parents at NEW sets

up decorations, activities, and food for the upcoming parent tea for African American

parents. The tablecloths and decoration are red for Valentines’ Day and the placements

each describe a famous African American leader in celebration of Black history month.

Two other parents come in and out of the school kitchen, setting up food on some of the


tables. The room is surrounded by bulletin boards brightly decorated with historical

African American figures.

The parent liaison, an African American female, describes herself as a visual

representative for the African American families at NEW. The liaison says the goal of

these monthly teas is to give African American parents a voice. At the African American

Parent Teas, parents bring their children, and each family brings some food for a potluck

meal. Parents spend time getting to know each other by talking about how they feel

about school-related issues like talking with teachers or how to support their children at

home.

One of the African American parents helping to set up for the potluck says she

has a 7th grader who has been at NEW one and a half years. The parent tells a story of

how NEW felt “socially better” than the other school that her child attended. She says the

small size allows her to know more parents and school events are scheduled in advance,

so she gets them on her calendar. While she does not make it to events during the week,

she regularly attends the events on the weekends like the African American Parent Tea.

Her son receives special education services, so the open line of communication by having

teachers’ email and their home phone is helpful.

At the same time, a group of parents and their children meet down in NEW’s

urban garden for a garden workday. The garden sits on the south side of campus,

surrounded by protective hedges and a small shed and greenhouse for storage and

sprouting seedlings. A compost pile sits to one side. The garden looks freshly tilled, and

has raised beds ready to be planted. Through grant funding raised by Project OLE, NEW

hired a garden teacher that leads the work days and garden classes during the school day.


The garden teacher, four parents, a volunteer, and three or four children (who are also

students) attend this workday, and most of the parents participating today also play

leadership roles on the Parent Action Committee. The families take out the sprouted

seedlings from the green house and tools from the shed, and set to work planting the new

seedlings in the freshly tilled soil.

These two vignettes portray a number of the parent-community ties that exist at

NEW. The African American Parent Tea invites NEW parents not traditionally involved

in the school community, and provides them with a welcoming occasion and environment

for coming to school. On the other hand, the garden workday involves parents who are

traditionally very involved in school and spend a lot of volunteer hours working at the

school. NEW teachers views both parent groups as important and take a number of steps

to keep their ties with each group. As seen in Figure 27, NEW builds parent-community

ties using the relationships parents have with NEW teachers, NEW’s Head Teacher, and

NEW’s parent liaison.

Through research and 30 years of working with students, NEW knows the

importance of teachers working closely with parents. One teacher said, “Throughout this

school, there is an emphasis on recognizing that families know a lot more about their

children than we do.” The Head Teacher explains, “[We attempt to] create an

environment that encourages and supports families to be involved in academic progress.”

NEW teachers realize that they can not reach their standards of student achievement

without parent support. Therefore, the NEW teachers concentrate on creating trusting

relationships between parents, the school, and any other organizations that will support

students’ achievement. According to one teacher, “The trust is going to be established


when they see that their kids are learning, their kids are making progress and growing,

and that their kids feel safe and their kids like coming to school everyday.”

NEW teachers attempt to establish trusting relationships with parents by making

the expectations for students transparent. Teachers starts by going out of their way to

inform parents about the academic expectations for their students. They make students

assessments public by having portfolio presentations and project open houses. To make

these expectations even more transparent, teachers design their own report cards and give

copies of the report cards out to parents at the beginning of year and at back-to-school

night. Teachers have conferences with parents twice a year that last as long as 45 minutes

and have almost 100% attendance by parents every year.

Teachers also cultivate strong relationships with parents by making multiple

efforts to communicate with parents. One teacher describes this focus on communication

with parents:

When we meet with families, we are not meeting as the great knowledge base that is going to tell them how to raise their child and tell them what do next. There is an honest conversation. Ideally, the plus side of that is that families feel more enabled to access school [and] to ask questions.

To facilitate communication between teachers and parents, teachers give out their email

and cell phone numbers to parents and students. The kindergarten and first grade teachers

have homework folders where they can write notes to parents and the parents often write

back. Some staff makes home visits with families. Many grade level teams have a

newsletter that give parents practical information or information related to child

development. Looping, which is when students stay in a class with their teacher for two

years, also plays an influential role in encouraging parent and teacher communication.

Parents have two years to develop a trust with a teacher and feel more comfortable


communicating with a teacher about their child. (Looping will be discussed in more detail

in the section titled Student Centered Learning Climate.)

NEW also develops relationships with parents through parent committees, parent

outreach efforts, and school-wide events that attract families to the school grounds. The

Head Teacher plays the role of managing parent and teacher committees including the

Student Site Council (SSC) and the Parent Action Committee (PAC). The SSC acts as the

parent and teacher committee that gathers parent input on key decisions to inform

teachers’ decisions around budgets and instructional programs. In general, one parent on

the SSC said:

In the end, the parents clearly side with the teachers. Definitely, the parents here support the teachers and have a lot of respect for them. But I don’t feel it’s like the teachers proposed this and we’re say, “OK.” I think there is a dialog there, which is healthy.

The PAC acts as the main fundraising and community building body for the school

among parents. This year, the PAC organized around committee work to make parent

involvement more manageable. In addition to parent-teacher committees, the teacher

created a committee called Caring Coordination of Learning Support (CCOLS). This

committee helps coordinate support services to students struggling in school. It manages

parent involvement in the process of the Student Success Teams (SSTs), often times

teaming with parents on interventions and getting parent permission for outside services

like counseling or tutoring. (CCOLS will be explained in more detail later in the case.)

Additionally, the PAC and NEW’s teachers organize school-wide events that

develop ties with parents including a beginning of school picnic, a back-to-school night,

portfolio presentations, and project open houses. NEW hosts four camping trips a year

(one for each of the combined grade levels: K-1, 2-3, 4-5, and middle school that is 6-7-


8) where parents and students have bonding and growing experiences with teachers and

NEW staff. The Parent Action Committee hosts fundraisers like a pancake breakfast and

a carnival. The Head Teacher comments that parents and teachers “develop trust by

flipping pancakes together.” Many parents come once a week to the Food Bank, a service

run by the after school program with food provided by the San Francisco Food Bank.

Some parents and family members also volunteer in classrooms or in the office, but with

parents work schedules these opportunities do not happen often. A few parents volunteer

at “home-cooked lunch” where they cook lunch for the whole school once a month.

NEW staff also develops relationships with parents by hiring parent liaisons to

address the socio-economic and racial/ethnic diversity amongst NEW’s parents. When

NEW teachers noticed that mostly white and middle-class parents attending parent

meetings like the SSC and the PAC, NEW hired parent liaisons that racially, ethnically,

and even linguistically connected to the African American, Hispanic, and English

Learner parent groups. NEW leadership uses a parent liaison fluent in Spanish to put

extra energy into their English Learner Action Committee (ELAC) and bring the

Hispanic parents all together and get them more involved in school. NEW’s leadership

uses their other parent liaison to focus on the African American parent community

described in the opening vignette. This communication seems to be paying off, with

families commenting on the benefits of the communication with the NEW staff. When

asked what is successful about NEW, one Hispanic parent commented:

[This school is successful because of the] communication between teachers and families, and because teachers know and try to help students who are trying to have trouble and communicate with families about what they can do to help the students succeed.


An African American female parent also talked about liking the access to teachers

through their email and home phone numbers. She commented that the school made

things socially better for her because it is small, she knows more parents, and they

schedule events on the weekends so she can fit them into her work calendar.

NEW cultivates parent-community ties by developing relationships with parents

in multiple ways. Teachers at NEW view parents as an integral part to students’ success,

and therefore spend time developing relationships with parents during bi-annual parent

teacher conferences, project open houses, and school events. Teachers also make

expectations transparent to families and communicate frequently with parents to keep

them informed. NEW has leadership opportunities for parents, so they can act as an

integral part of the school community, and most times the Parent Action Committee and

the School Site Council lead the organization of school-wide events like a pancake

fundraiser or a carnival. NEW also hired two parent liaisons to support parents from the

Hispanic and African American communities. While the parents and family members do

not steer the school, their ties to NEW play an integral role in reinforcing the work of

NEW’s practices, structures, and policies.

Professional Capacity It’s a rainy Friday morning as teachers and staff from NEW make their way up a

long winding road to the top of a hill in Mill Valley, California, a city just north of San

Francisco. In a place that seems worlds away from the hustle and bustle of NEW,

teachers enter into a large two story home surround by redwood trees and large sprawling

lawn. The house is set up for conference and group meetings, with space for the NEW

teachers and staff to spend the night. As people step in out of the rain, the Head Teacher


and a few staff and teachers lay out bagels for breakfast, organize folders with materials,

and set up an easel with the meeting norms listed.

Promptly at 9:30AM, the Head Teacher, Leslie Hammer, calls all the staff and

teachers over to an area of the house with couches, chairs, and a comfortable rug. About

23 staff and teachers convene in the room, including one parent liaison, the secretary, a

resource teacher, an outreach coordinator, the PE teacher, and all the classroom teachers.

The Head Teacher leads the group through a team building exercise where they get in a

line from shortest to tallest silently, split the line into two lines, have each line stand

across from each other, and have each person partner with the person across from them.

Each set of partners picks one question from a bag filled with questions written on little

slices of paper, and discusses that question for five minutes. The group goes through the

exercise again, only this time they line up according to how far away they live from

school and then again oldest to youngest, each time splitting the line in half, getting a

new partner, and discussing a new question.

After 30 minutes of these team building exercises, the Head Teacher welcomes

everyone to the winter retreat and shares the group some reflections she recently had

about the progress of the school. She lauds people for doing their work in a coordinated,

supportive, and organized way and everyone taking responsibility. She reminds the group

to feel proud they are doing this work and tells them that it requires support for each

other. She goes onto review the agenda for the two-day retreat, which includes calibration

of assessment criteria so the schools will better define what it means to move from grade

to grade and lots of team planning. Hammer points out that the PD team planned the two


day retreat and reminds the group of the norms, assigning a person to be a process

checker and another person to be a time keeper.

For part of the first morning, the whole staff watches a video of NEW alumni

describing what NEW does well, what it could do better, and any memories from their

time at the school. After watching the video, the teachers and staff break out into cross-

grade level teams and discuss their impressions. Afterwards, they wrap up their

discussion by having a large group share out in the end. For the rest of the morning until

lunch, the staff split into grade level teams of K-3 and 4-8 to discuss the calibration of

assessment criteria for promotion standards. During this process, the groups look at

student work and discusses the different levels of skills and knowledge needed to

progress from one grade to the next. For example, in the fourth though eighth grade

group, the people read two essays within their retreat folders written by fifth graders. The

group debates which skills and knowledge are needed in writing to meet the fifth grade

writing standards already laid out by a school wide rubric (See Figure 28 for a sample of

the rubric). In their dialog, they compare standards the middle grade teachers have to the

fourth and fifth grade teachers’ standards. The group references specific characteristics of

the two pieces of writing when making their points.

This vignette exemplifies some of the structures, practices, and policies NEW

uses to build professional capacity. Figure 29 outlines the key elements building NEW’s

professional capacity. NEW’s professional capacity stems from the fact that it is a teacher

led school. NEW influences its professional capacity by spelling out high expectations

for their teachers during the hiring process, and increasing retention by providing

additional supports for new teachers. NEW cultivates teacher relationships that ground


teachers emotionally as well as professionally through the challenges of school

improvement. NEW allocates time for teacher planning that utilizes student data and

specific planning strategies. NEW devotes a team of teachers, called the “PD Team,” to

crafting the school-wide professional development and leading teachers through an on-

going cycle of inquiry regarding their practice. Questions remain whether NEW asks too

much of their teachers with such high expectations and whether or not their efforts at

teacher retention are enough.

NEW’s professional capacity starts with the foundation of being a teacher led

school. In general, NEW’s leadership structure expects teachers to utilize their

professional knowledge and skill to make informed decisions about the school. This

professional standard extends to all the different practices, structures, and policies related

to developing and supporting teacher’s professional capacity at NEW.

NEW’s first step to having teachers with a high level of professional capacity

stem from its rigorous hiring standards. A teacher led school differs from a school run by

a principal, and consequently, NEW’s leadership makes the different expectations known

to teachers prior to accepting a position at the school. According to one teacher, “We

have extra commitments on top of our contract and when hired some teachers turn away.”

NEW teacher agree to a set of commitments that outlines the extra time devoted to

committee work and other responsibilities. These commitments articulate the

expectations teachers must live up to as an NEW teacher. Some prospective teachers see

those expectations and decide not to work at NEW. On the other hand, the teachers

working at NEW hold those expectations in high regard. Here is one teacher describing

the affects of the expectations on the hiring of teachers at NEW.


It is a pretty supportive place, but it is a lot for new teachers. It is a lot of expectation, it is a lot of extra time, a lot of outside school hours, which I think is great! If you are willing to do, it’s fantastic. I love it! I jumped right in. There are definitely teachers that read the set of commitments on top of our contracts… We have a lot of teachers who like the school and say, “Yeah, yeah, it’s great.” Then they get here, and those commitments are no joke, they mean them. We’ve had some teachers who have come and it wasn’t a good fit.

Teachers that work at NEW understand the responsibility they have and, in most cases,

the teachers that choose to work at NEW want the high expectations for their teaching.

The clearly articulated expectations of teachers during the hiring process helping build a

community of teachers at NEW that aspire to reach rigorous professional standards.

In addition to clear expectations during the hiring process, NEW supports its

professional capacity by instituting structures that help retain new teachers. While NEW

does not have a formal new teacher induction program, teachers do report feeling

supported in reaching these high standards and expectations through the committee and

team structures. One teacher said:

When you are here, a lot of people step up to say, “Do you need help? What kind of support do you need?” At the same time, there is an expectation that you are going to get done what needs to get done. You are going to ask for help if you need it and that you can also take constructive criticism if someone gives you it. It is not totally sink or swim.

The multiple layers of committees surrounding new teachers with a cadre of experienced

teachers that can provide support. The committees and teams provide new teachers with

time to plan and practice the new approaches to teaching instilled by the NEW vision.

The Head Teacher also takes time to support new teachers or teachers who do not have a

counterpart teaching the same subject. Here is one teacher describing the support she

received from the Head teacher during her first year:


[The Head Teacher] was really helpful. I think she feels like she doesn’t have enough time to talk to teachers, but she definitely spent more time with me with than any other person in a similar position ever has. She evaluates with the same forms other people have evaluated with, but it’s just a different process coming from her perspective. I was evaluated last year because I was new to the site even though I am tenured in the district. The evaluation process was to look at what you wanted to look at. I looked at how I was specifically helping my small group of struggling students during language arts grouping. [The Head Teacher] evaluated what I was doing and gave me a lot of pointers. She also gave me 5, or 6, or 7 resources… I came away with a ton of resources. She gave me all of her Guided Reading books. We talked about Words their Way (1999). We talked about Reading History (2005), Strategies that Work (2000).

With high expectations, NEW does confront teacher burn out and turnover. The school

has the most trouble staffing the middle school level because teachers ware thin while

devoting so much time and energy to maintaining work and behavior standards. In

general, NEW hopes the committee and team structures, along with the support of the

Head Team, support the retention of new teachers.

Lingering Question: How does NEW sustain its vision with teacher turnover and

without an official orientation program for new teachers? Considering NEW experienced

teacher turnover in the past partly because of the high expectations it has for teachers, I

wonder if an official orientation or system for new teacher would help better transition

new teachers, better prepare them for NEW’s extensive program, and possibly avoid

teacher burnout.

Another approach to building professional capacity at NEW involves an emphasis

on building teacher relationships. NEW builds teacher-to-teacher relationships by

providing teachers with frequent and well-planned meetings, workshops, and retreats. In

addition to their weekly committee meetings, NEW’s leadership runs a five-day Before

School Institute and a two-day Winter Retreat. At these meetings and retreats, NEW


cultivates teacher relationships by using team-building activities, as described in the

opening vignette. At another staff meeting, they build relationships by having teachers

participate in a free write for the first ten minutes where they write down whatever is on

their mind. Then teachers brake into cross grade level pairs to share their thoughts. These

teambuilding exercises help teachers build relationships that creates a safe environment

for teachers to share work and reflect on their practice.

The teacher-to-teacher relationships provide teachers with the emotional support

that buffers the turbulence from the challenges of teaching and the school improvement

profess, and professional accountability that keeps their pedagogy at a rigorous standard.

NEW’s leadership holds teachers to especially high standards and expectations, making a

classroom teacher’s job challenging and often stressful. To provide teachers with an

emotional buffer, NEW cultivates the relationships among teachers. Here is one teacher

describing the support she feels from these relationships at NEW and the commitment

teachers make to working at NEW:

We have a supportive administration. I think a lot of the staff we are just close. I think not everyone, but most people are here for the right reasons and they just truly love kids and want to see them succeed and believe in taking the extra step to make it happen. We have a really strong community and we feel supported by each other. I think also it is set out that before you are allowed to work here, you have to sign a commitment that you are willing to do all this stuff, and they make it very clear if this is not something you are able to do or want to do, that this is not the right place for you. So I think the beginning process weeds out a lot of people that are not here for the right reasons.

Here is another teacher describing the support she received from her

Developmental Level Team experience:

Everything is so team oriented. We work as a team. Our Developmental Learning Team, which is our grade levels meeting every week, [allows us to] work together a lot with the other teachers, which is really helpful. On


our [grade] level, we have very different styles, very different teaching styles, very different focuses in some ways, but because the three of us are working together a lot, we get a little bit from each. I think that’s a big, big thing, is how much we work together. The kids don’t have similar experiences in each of the classes, but so much of what we do in our curriculum has been gone over by another teacher and planning together.

At the same time, NEW uses teacher relationships to provide teachers with

accountability. Sometimes referred to as “relational accountability,” teachers develop

deep relationships with the other teachers in their school community that help hold them

accountable for the outcomes of their teaching. The numerous committee meetings create

a network of checks and balances that ask teaching teams and committees to check the

quality of each others daily planning and the work produced by students. Here is one

teacher describing how the professional development at NEW provides for a check on the

quality of teacher work:

At the split PD meetings, the teachers are on the rotating cycle of bringing portfolio work for looking at student work protocol… They have a 20-minute protocol and they share work and get feedback from their colleagues on work… If work is definitely not meeting standard, they are going to hear that from their colleagues.

Here is another teacher describing how the teacher collaboration in meetings helps

teachers develop a common standard for their work:

Every school has meetings, and probably long ones, too, but the thing I can say about our school is the meetings are mostly about kids. Another thing I like is we share work. A teacher will share work that they are doing with kids and how it is scored and how it is graded. We actually understand what the other teachers are teaching, so that we can help them, and we can help kids with their work as well as our own. I do a lot of vocabulary in this class. I know I am not a language arts or social studies teacher, but it is important to help kids know how to read… In terms of the communication, yes we meet a lot. We meet a little bit more than we need to. I’d rather meet too much than too little. I think that there are some schools where teachers don’t have any collaborative time at all, and you can’t even see eye-to-eye that way. I have actually had disagreements in the past with staff members, but if you can meet with them enough, you


can find that common ground and you can work stuff out. If you don’t meet with them at all, ever, then you just harbor resentments and you don’t do well.

The team planning described by this teacher checks whether teachers have a consensus

for their standard of pedagogy, a process where teachers have to revise and reflect on

their instruction prior to its introduction to students. The weekly committee work and

planning meetings combined with the close relationships help teachers weather the

challenging work they have to do on a day-to-day basis as well as hold each other

accountable for having high standards in their pedagogy.

In addition to teacher-to-teacher relationships, NEW builds its professional

capacity by participating in weekly team planning using their Developmental Level

Teams. NEW uses two structures to enhance this planning and build teaching knowledge

and skill. First, teachers use a planning method from Wiggins and McTighe’s (1998)

Understanding by Design, sometimes referred to as backwards mapping, where they

identify the desired results usually supported by district and state teaching standards, then

determine acceptable evidence by designing assessment criteria and tasks, and then

planning students’ learning experiences by laying out their activities. One teacher

described the start of her planning for projects by “going backwards and focusing on the

skills most important for sixth and seventh graders to learn.” Another teacher describes

planning a unit by saying, “We start with the standards and work our way back.”

Backward mapping puts teaching objectives and assessment criteria at the forefront of

teacher planning. With backwards mapping, teachers clearly presenting the objective of

their lesson to students as well as the criteria on which the students will be assessed. For

example, Figure 28 shows one page of a two-page rubric used across NEW, developed by


cross-grade level teams that outlines the criteria for persuasive writing. At the top of the

rubric is the standard this Rubric supports. NEW developed these Rubrics for informative

writing, narrative writing, and a response to literature to articulate to teachers and

students across grade levels the criteria for writing standards. As referred to in the

opening vignette, NEW teachers also calibrate their scores on these rubrics, by looking at

actual student work and teacher assessment, to make sure teachers adhere to the same

criteria when they grade students.

Second, teachers use assessment data to drive their planning. Often referred to as

data driven planning, NEW teachers closely scrutinize data from state tests, formative

and summative assessments evaluated using school-wide rubrics, and common

benchmark assessment. Here is one teacher describing how she plans her instruction

based on her assessment data.

Usually what happens when I give the unit assessments and chapter assessments, and I see so-and-so is doing terribly, I try to work just one-on-one and small groups during math time [with that student]. Because most of our day is set up for independent work time, they have the math menus, reading menus, it gives me a chance to call students to the carpet or table, and I just work one-on-one. I’ll also either call home or send a letter home to say, “This person really needs to work on this, please help them.” And, I do tutoring for three students who are my focal students and they are the kids that I think that are on the brink of doing really well, but also on the brink of being able to fall really far below. Two of them now have come up so much more, and one of them is still on the brink...

At the winter retreat, the middle grade teachers looked at their students’ GPA across

sixth, seventh, and eighth grade, breaking it out by both ethnicity and free and reduced

lunch status, to see any larger trends. They also broke out data showing their top ten

eighth grade students and bottom ten eighth grade students’ GPAs in each semester from

sixth grade to eighth grade. They wanted to see if there were any common trends across


those students’ experiences that might inform school wide policies of how they support

struggling an advanced students. This close scrutiny of data informs NEW teachers’ day-

to-day planning for instruction as well as the larger scale planning for new school-wide

practices, structures, and policies.

To cultivate teachers’ capacity to participate in this planning, NEW teachers devote a

whole team, called the PD Team, to developing its program for professional

development. The PD team plans the two-day Winter Retreat described in the opening

vignette to the staff meeting focused on professional development every three weeks,

these sessions. One grade level representative from each Developmental Learning Team

make-up the PD team, and therefore, each grade level has its needs represented with the

team during planning for professional development. Some times the professional

development is split between the K-3 and 4-8 grade levels and other times the whole staff

participates in the same professional development.

One approach NEW uses to organize its professional development is having

teachers participate in cycles of inquiry to expand their professional capacity and improve

their instruction. Here is a teacher describing this cycle of inquiry approach:

We went through a lot of years of professional development cycles, and school vision focus cycles that were related to particular subject areas. We would disaggregate our CST data, and see we were really failing to prepare kids well to do well on standardized testing on reading comprehension. So, for several years, we were just focused in on reading comprehension. We all read Mosaic of Thought (1997). We all read Strategies that Work (2000) that helped us learn how to be good teachers of reading. It was a big, long inquiry cycle. We had assessments that we were using to measure our progress. Lots of teachers were doing little mini-cycles of inquiry in their classrooms related to reading comprehension. We were sort of building collective knowledge as a school about teaching reading comprehensions. We would see general patterns in our data…We all teach reading comprehension in a certain way right now based on that work.


NEW sometimes brings in outside resources through grants to lead teachers through these

cycles of inquiry. For example, NEW had a coach from the San Francisco Coalition for

Essential Schools (SFCESS) provide feedback regarding NEW’s student engagement.

Teachers examine the assessment data about their students or utilize outside resources to

reflect on their practice. SFCESS would observe NEW teachers and give them one-on-

one feedback on the student engagement and lead them through a cycle that helps them

reflect on that feedback and make improvements. NEW teachers use the findings from

these inquiries to make well-research, calculated changes in hopes of improving their

practice. With the cycle of inquiry, NEW teachers are always looking to inform or

improve their pedagogy. Here is one teacher describing the increasing standards NEW

teachers place on themselves, “I and probably other people spend more time thinking

about what we are not doing… I hear we are one of those schools that have made

progress towards closing the achievement gap and I think, ‘Not enough!’”

To summarize, NEW’s leadership uses a number of practices, structures and

policies to build and maintain the professional capacity of their teachers. NEW’s

leadership sets clear and rigorous expectations for their teachers from the time they are

hired, and works to retain those teachers through their network of committees and support

from their Head Teacher. Teacher-to-teacher relationships provide emotional support and

a check on the quality of teacher instruction. Planning for instruction focuses on

objectives and assessment criteria, and pays close attention to data from multiple sources

including assessment data. Also, professional development is a central part of teacher’s

work at NEW, with NEW’s leadership devoting a whole team of teachers to planning


teacher training, and utilizing a cycle of inquiry to help teachers improve their

instruction.

Student Centered Learning Climate It is 30 minutes before lunchtime in a NEW fourth and fifth grade classroom. In

one corner of a classroom, two couches and bookshelves surround a small rug and boxes

of books line the shelves organized with themes family life, science, California, social

studies, and the “Teacher’s favorites.” Six hand drawn posters on one wall list problem-

solving strategies “use words, use objects, act it out, guess and check, write what you

know, write a number sentence, draw a picture.” Students sit around five tables finishing

up some word problems involving fractions in spiral math notebooks. Students work in

small groups talking with each other and sharing the choices they made while solving

problems. The teacher sits at one table with four students guiding the students step-by-

step through problems. The teacher asks these students questions like, “Why do you pay

attention to the denominator here?”

With most students finished with the word problems, the teacher asks the students

to put their math work to the side and watch her demonstration of a fraction card game.

The card game is similar to the card game “War” with each group of four students laying

down a card, the larger fraction winning. Students play in groups of four. As the students

get started playing, some groups play the game by paying attention to the side of the card

that shows the fraction in a picture, and other students refer to the side of the card

showing the fraction as a number. The teacher walks around to each table and encourages

each group to say the name of the fraction that is higher even if the students refer to the

card that shows the picture of a fraction.


After twenty minutes of playing the game, the teacher signals to students that they

should clean-up. Students put materials like pencils and the fraction cards into communal

bins and their math notebooks into their personal cubbies. With five minutes before

recess, the teacher asks the students to turn to their partner at their table and talk about

something new they learned about fractions. The teacher models with two students what

sharing would look like and sound like. Then students turn to each other, and a few

students share they learned how to play war and other students saying they learned about

the numerator.

The teacher dismisses students for lunch. Some students line up at the door with

their lunch card and some students get their lunch boxes from their cubby. Students

choose to sit at any table in the classroom. A Hispanic girl, Hispanic boy, and African

American girl run over in excitement to get their seats at the table with the teacher. The

teacher does not eat and instead spends her time talking with the three students signed up

to each lunch with her. The teacher asks the students to tell her about other games they

play at home, taking off of the fraction game. Other students sit in small groups at tables,

quietly talking to each other, trading items in their lunch, or focusing on eating. As lunch

comes to an end, the teacher helps students put their lunch leftovers in the classroom

compost and motivates the students to clean up by chanting, “I say lunch, you say time,

lunch” and the students say, “time,” and the teacher says, “lunch” and the students say,

“time.” Once the tables are clean, the teacher dismisses students for lunch.

This vignette shows the careful attention paid at NEW to the elements needed for

a student centered learning climate. Figure 30 shows the different structures, practices,

and policies that create a student-centered learning climate in NEW’s classrooms and


throughout the school. At the classroom level, teachers utilize different forms of

instructional scaffolding, or elements that support student learning. NEW teachers center

learning on students by personalizing learning experiences in the classroom. NEW also

focuses on student-teacher relationships in the classroom with policies like having

teachers eat lunch with their students and other policies that develop student-teacher

relationships. School wide, NEW creates a form of “relational accountability” by aligning

expectations for behavior throughout the school, modeling behavior for students, and

holding middle school students more accountable using advisory.

In the classroom, teachers use various forms of scaffolding that reinforces their

instruction. For example, NEW scaffolds instruction by using repetition of experiences.

According to one teacher:

That is another strategy we like to use especially with African American and Latino kids is the value of repetition… [I] had this concept that if you teach something in an engaging, exciting, interesting way, and a kid learns it in that way, that then they’ve got it, just something clicks… I’ve found that that is not necessarily true. Those powerful learning experience are important, but then they need to be reinforced many times sometimes. For most kids, even the second time if you just repeat that same experience there is still that moment of discovery and it feels powerful.

In many classes, teachers repeat the same exercise every morning such as writing a

morning letter to students about the day’s lesson where students become more and more

familiar with the structure of a letter, vocabulary used in the current unit of study, and

upcoming lessons or events of the day. In the opening vignette, the teacher scaffolds her

math instruction with repetition of concepts through the fraction word problems students

worked on in their math notebooks and the fraction game. In a middle school class, a

teacher repeats a lesson on grammar in the same format at the beginning of every class so


students review the grammar rules regularly. Students may also repeat exercises or

practicing skills with one of three para-professionals in one-on-one or small groups

NEW teachers also regularly use modeling, front-loading, and a mixture of

groupings and small group work to scaffold their lessons. In the opening vignette, the

teacher models how to play the fraction game by demonstrating the game while she

explains how to play the game using her words. Another NEW teacher modeled for his

kindergarten and first grade students how to plan a story with a beginning, middle, and an

end. He plans a story out loud about how he learned to do the butterfly stroke. Teachers

also scaffold their lessons by front-loading, which means sharing content that gives

students background knowledge and experience prior to starting a unit. For example, a

teacher front-loaded the project on Romeo and Juliet by reading with students the story of

Pyramus and Thisbe, a Roman myth that has the same plot line as Romeo and Juliet.

NEW teachers also conscientiously group students in multiple ways during lessons.

Figure 31 shows the configuration from the classroom in the opening vignette and shows

how NEW classrooms are set up to facilitate group work with students seated at tables or

groups of desks pushed together. One teacher describes how he uses different groups in

his writing period:

Sometimes I have them at mixed skill level groups as far as grammar and spelling and that kind of thing. Other times I have them grouped by tables so that I can target… [The tables] are usually split [by grade level], and I have low and high performing [students] at all the tables, and mixed by language, too. I try to have at least one and hopefully two strong English proficiency students at each table. Ideally they aren’t in the lead spot. Unfortunately, because of how the room is and the tables we have, there is a head of a table, and I try to not have them be the head because of what that might say about the culture of the classroom. There are times they are grouped by table by skill. My lowest performing group of kids, sometimes I’ll go and have them, we’ll all agree and write one thing together, so we can talk more and share ideas how we do it. I’ll go with them, walk away


do one table and then come back, so that table would get more than the others.

Different mixtures of groups allow students more accessibility to content that may still be

above their grade level and gives students the opportunity to help each other when

learning a new concept. In the opening vignette, the teacher uses small groups to help

students solve word problems involving fractions while she supports one group in

particular that needs some additional instruction. Teachers use student groups to have

students discuss questions prior to discussing the question with the whole class, so more

students get a chance to rehearse what they want to say and test ideas prior to sharing.

NEW’s leadership also uses tutoring and the after school program to scaffold

classroom instruction. They estimate that they provide one-on-one tutoring for over 70

students. Some students come to NEW without preschool or behind grade level in their

skills, and consequently need some remediation to accelerate their learning. Some

teachers volunteer their services, tutoring two or three students on their own volition and

some teachers get paid to tutor students through a grant. Also, NEW has an ExCEL

funded after school program with a lead teacher and an after school coordinator running

the program. They align the after school programming with classroom instruction and

work. Students experience three parts to the after school program: academics that

focuses on students’ homework where students get one-on-one help with their

assignments; enrichment that focuses on extracurricular classes like drumming classes or

art classes; recreation where students participate in structured games and recess.

In addition to scaffolding, NEW puts student learning at the center by having

teachers facilitating learning rather than leading instruction. NEW teacher spend less time

sitting at the front of the classroom lecturing students, and spend more time instructing


students in small group or one-on-one. Teachers focus their lesson around individual,

partner, or small group work time. For example, a NEW teacher used a mini-lesson for

10-15 minutes to show students how to use a graphic organizer to plan the beginning,

middle, and end in their stories. While students worked independently using their graphic

organizers, the teacher checked in with the students having trouble with this concept in

their writing. The teacher crouches on the ground with the students as he meets with them

so he reaches their eye level. He brought one African American boy over to the white

board and drew pictures for the student to help him conceptualize his story. Student-

centered instruction pays off with students feeling more supported and more engaged in

their learning. According to one Hispanic boy, “Teachers are really nice here. You feel

more motivated to do good work.” An African American girl describes the instructional

support she feels from teachers:

If we were in a big school, the teachers would not have the time to help each individual student, but since we are smaller they are able to help us one-by-one. If we are having problems, we won’t fail. In our humanities class, we are doing an informative essay, our teacher is able to help us one-by-one at time on our essays.

Students feel supported by the additional time NEW teachers have to work one-on-one

with students. NEW teachers spend less time teaching to the whole class, and instead help

facilitate learning through small group and one-on-one instruction.

NEW also has policies, practices, and structures that strengthen student-teacher

relationships at the classroom level to support a student-centered learning climate. The

size of the school and the structures developed by the staff encourage teachers to develop

relationships with students, and these relationships help teachers focus their instruction


on student learning. Here is one teacher describing the structures that help her get to

know her students.

Because this school is so small, I do know children. I know every child in the middle school. Some of them I have not taught, but I know them, I know things about them. It makes it easy to connect with kids. Children that I taught in 6th grade, but didn’t teach in 7th and 8th grade, I still talk to them about their work or I’ll go up to them and say I hear this about you… Our Developmental Level Team meets every week and one of the things we do is talk about children. Some of them I know because I see. The hall is not very big. I step out of my room and I can see some things.

Students at NEW call their teachers by their first names and teachers know most of the

students’ names throughout the school. In many classrooms, teachers post their email and

cell phone numbers so students may call them with questions about assignments.

Teachers often share personal anecdotes in their lessons so students get to know teachers.

One teacher jokes about her dog, her new baby, her beauty, and her age saying, “I am not

smarter, but wiser because I am older.” NEW teachers use their relationships with

students to better understand what skill, knowledge, and experiences students bring to the

classroom. Teacher’s strong understanding of students helps them design learning

experiences tailored to their students needs.

As seen in the opening vignette, NEW teachers also develop relationships with

their students by eating lunch with students on a daily basis. Even the secretary has a

gaggle of students in her office during lunch discussing with her everything for what high

school they should choose to sharing the new erasers they bought from a office supply

store.

Teachers also develop close relationships with students by “looping” with their

students, meaning they teach students for two years. NEW has multi-age classrooms

giving teachers even more information about their students they may then use to inform


their instruction. NEW teachers uses multi-grade levels at Kindergarten and first grade,

second and third grade, fourth and fifth grade and sixth and seventh. According to one

teacher:

The real reason for looping [for] teachers is we get the kids for two years. When there is a lot of differentiated in the grade, let’s say a second grader is really high, he gets the benefit or she gets the benefit of being with third graders who are really going to challenge them. My small groups are not done by grade, so they are very grade, they are not always done by ability, but they are very, very mixed. For a third grader who is a little bit standard behind grade level, doesn’t feel so out of place because there are a lot of other second graders. So they can still be a leader maybe in knowing the ropes of the classroom, or showing the classroom culture of the community. Also, maybe they are below by third grade standard, but they are still a better than 10 other kids in the class. So for me the big benefit is having some of these kids for two years. I’ve had some of these kids now for three years because I taught for them in third, 4th, and 5th. That’s great because their families know me, I go to their birthday parties. Our class is such a family. You can see the difference between the fifth graders, the ones I’ve had for three years and the ones I’m having for the first year now. I know their strengths and weaknesses, I know their personality styles, I know what kind of grabs them and they know mine. The first day of school, I’ve had some of these kids it’s their third year, I remember someone walked in and did not say hello to me and [a student I’d had for three years] was the one that was like, “Uh-un, don’t do that. Say hello to her.”

The looping encourages teachers to have close relationships with their students and

families and teachers use that knowledge to tailor instruction to students’ prior skill,

knowledge, and experiences.

With much of their staff being white, the teachers at NEW talk often about race

and ethnicity to try to overcome any bias or stereotype in their relationships with students

and families. One teacher says NEW discusses the question, “What are our personal bias

that are acting as road blocks or assumptions that keep us from serving all the kids well?”

These discussions take place during the Before School Institute and their regular

professional development. One teacher described how NEW is different because the


teachers have the real conversations about race, equity and put it out there among their

staff. Another staff member describes how NEW tracked the characteristics of students

being sent out of class and found that, “the majority of kids sent out of class are black and

brown.” Consequently, NEW instituted a policy where teachers kicking students out of

class to the head teacher’s office had to go through a reflection process that included

answering the questions, “What was the trigger point for the teacher? What did the

teacher say, do, or feel that resulted for a kid behind objected from the class?” This

careful focus on race and ethnicity creates awareness among teachers that their biases

may get in the way of their relationships with students and their ability to tailor learning

experiences to students’ needs.

At the school level, the relationships teachers develop with students also institute

a form of relational accountability, where the student-teachers relationships makes

students feel more accountable for their choices. NEW Teachers make relational

accountability possible by imparting clear expectations for students’ behavior in school.

One staff member describes the way the NEW virtues convey these expectations.

Even if the child just wants to do well to please the teacher that is a start. We teach explicitly what we mean by good behavior. All classrooms have the virtues posted and teach those, sometimes behavior culturally relative. The virtues spell it out.

Teachers refer the NEW Virtues (described in Table 12) in a number of settings. They

use them to highlight behaviors they want students to exhibit. In class meetings and

weekly school assemblies, teachers and students use the virtues to celebrate and honor

students exhibiting these characteristics. For example, in the middle school weekly

assembly, one staff member celebrates a Hispanic male student for showing propriety by

“being a positive, cheerful member of community and a role model.” At the elementary


school weekly assembly, a teacher says she’d like to celebrate her class for showing

community for welcoming new students.

NEW reinforces relational accountability school wide when teachers model

appropriate behaviors for students. For example, the NEW Kindergarten and first grade

teachers model behaviors while students line up. The three teachers lead the students

through a morning song that shows students the behaviors expected in school. Before

entering class, one teacher says, “Think,” and the students say, “You can,” the teacher

says, “Work,” and the students say, “Harder,” the teacher says, “Get,” and the students

say “Stronger.” Teachers also use modeling to reinforce behaviors in the classroom like

having groups of students model for the rest of the class how to put materials away after

an activity. Even in the hallways, NEW staff set the expectation that students have

hallway silence to respect the other classrooms in session.

At the middle school level, NEW uses a structure called advisory that acts as

another form of relational accountability. Each NEW middle school student participates

in an advisory of about 10 students that meets 4 days a week with one teacher. Advisory

provides a check-in for students about their homework in all subjects and the teacher

manages detention around homework using advisory. Teachers also use this time to get

to know students and speak to students more informally about their progress in school.

Advisors act as the point person for contact with students’ families and lead the bi-annual

conferences that families attend. Here, one teacher describes the advantages of advisory:

When advisory works well, what happens is that we have a close rapport with a small group of parents that we can then use that rapport to help the child navigate all the different issues in school. We follow the students for three years, and over that time we get to know what the students strengths and weaknesses are and we also get to know how to handle that with parents and guardians and how best to help the students when they are


having issues and problems. You learn how to get the strong students to help the ones who need help. You have a small group of people that you are able to become an expert at, so that really helps. What can be hard is if you have a lot of kids coming in new and haven’t built up that relationship over time and then you have to start, and also when there is staff turnover, the kids don’t have the same person for three years, so I think it is harder for them to make those relationships.

Teachers use the knowledge they gain about students during advisory to hold students

accountable for getting their work completed and another way to track student learning.

NEW uses many different structures, practices, and policies to keep student

learning at the center of its school climate. At the classroom level, teachers ensure

students’ learning sits at the center of NEW classrooms by organizing their instruction so

that students get the most opportunities to apply new skills and knowledge. They spend

less time instructing students and more time facilitating student learning. Teachers also

facilitate learning by providing multiple forms of scaffolding to their instruction. They

may spend a short time presenting new materials to students, but teachers reinforce and

support those new concepts with repetitive exercises, modeling, front-loading, and small

group instruction. At the school level, NEW uses student-teacher relationships to make

sure students’ learning sits at the center of the school climate. The small size of the

school helps students get to know teachers. Students also develop relationships with

teachers by eating lunch with them and “looping” with them. Teachers also addressing

any bias they may have blocking students’ from learning. NEW institutes a form of

relational accountability by making expectations clear to students, modeling appropriate

behavior, and providing extra layers of accountability for middle school students with an

advisory. In general, NEW creates an environment where student learning has the

potential to flourish.


Ambitious Instruction Spring quarter starts at new School and the 6th and 7th graders students sit in

clusters of four desks reading Act II Scene V of Romeo and Juliet. The teacher

meticulously collects their homework from the previous night, a letter they wrote to

Romeo from Tybalt’s perspective in the Shakespearean dialect. On the white board lists a

table of contents for students’ assignments that students will later place in binders to be

considered for placement in their portfolios with other mastery level work. The

assignments include “KWL,” “Story about the Feuding Clans,” “Readings from

Shakespeare’s Time,” “Summary of Act I, Scene I,” and “Comic of Act I.” Each

assignment has a code next to it like “RJ-9” to signify the page number in their portfolio.

The walls of the class display the comic strips students drew outlining the major events of

Act I. This language arts and social studies project on Romeo and Juliet verses middle

school students in skills such as persuasive and analytical writing.

The teacher asks for volunteers to share their letters by Tybalt. A Hispanic boy

stands and reads, “I do not think you will defeat me and if thou guesses that thee has the

great power to defeat me, you must have been struck my some sort of metal." The

students laugh and clap and the teacher praises the student for attempting to use the

Shakespearean language and facts from the story. The class continues with a discussion

of Act II Scene V where the nurse tells Juliet about Romeo’s plan to marry her. The

teacher asks the students for questions about the scene. An African American girl asks,

“How come Juliet’s parents don’t know what is going on?” and a Hispanic girl asks,

“How come Lord Capulet and Lady Capulet see the nurse leave?” Students add input to

each of these questions with the teacher facilitating the discussion. Students relate the

scene to the “happily ever after” endings in the stories of Cinderella and Aladdin. The


teacher challenges the students to back up their ideas by giving evidence including, “a

line and page number” from the scene. At times, the teacher has students discuss

questions in their cluster of four desks prior to giving answers. The hour and a half block

ends with the teacher assigning the students homework prior to their upcoming break:

each student will memorize a passage and act it out alone or with a partner.

This vignette highlights many important structures, practices and policies that

support the ambitious instruction at NEW. Figure 32 shows the elements that facilitate

the ambitious instruction at NEW. Teacher’s pedagogy at NEW utilizes Project Based

Learning, as seen in the opening vignette highlighting a project on Romeo and Juliet.

Also, teachers at NEW use assessments to inform their pedagogy. NEW teachers shape

instructional content by writing most of their curriculum. To align their instruction, NEW

teachers use an intricate assessment system that incorporates common assessment

standards and an portfolio assessment system that builds off of the communication that

takes place in the committee and team meetings.

To shape their pedagogy, NEW teachers use Project Based Learning (PBL) as the

platform for their instructional program. NEW teachers create units of learning based on

projects where students study topics in depth. Projects have trans-disciplinary

characteristics and usually cover more than one subject, i.e. a project might combine

skills in language arts with science and mathematics. At the elementary level, NEW

students participate in two projects a year with a break in between each project, and at the

middle school level students participate in four projects a year. The elementary projects

focus on science and the middle school level has interdisciplinary projects.


PBL has a number of characteristics that promotes ambitious instruction. First,

PBL provides meaningful experiences for students that inspire and facilitate learning.

Most projects create common experiences among students with hands-on learning that

makes students excited and engaged. Shared experiences at NEW during projects look

like students building boats and launching them in the San Francisco bay or students

listening to bird calls in San Francisco’s Golden Gate park and then studying the different

species of birds in class. Here is one teacher describing a project where students build a

roller coaster together:

They have to build a roller coaster that starts at one corner of a room and all the way around the perimeter of the room only using gravity as its source of energy…In learning that, they have to learn friction, they have to learn acceleration, and they have to learn deceleration… Kids are learning academic vocabulary, and they have a context in which to understand it and learn it and hang onto it.

Here is another teacher explaining why these common experiences are important for

students:

One of the big things that I think causes a big gap between those who do well and those who do not is an experience base. I believe there is a lot of kids that come in with all kinds of experiences that other kids don’t have and they have a lot more to attach new learning to that. I feel like my job is give kids shared experiences that they can then attach more information to...

Other times, teachers design meaningful projects by purposefully relating the topic of the

project to student’s daily experiences in their own lives. For example, one Hispanic girl

that graduated from NEW talked of a project related to nutrition in 6th and 7th grades. He

described learning about fast food and taught her how to eat healthier. “[The] project

showed us what to eat and what’s bad. That we feel sick because you [certain foods.]”

PBL also gives teacher the opportunity to combines culturally relevant content. For


example, one fourth and fifth grade project, students studied the realities of

undocumented works in San Francisco, something some NEW students experience first

hand. The NEW teachers based this part of the project on an event called “El Blazo”

where INS agents raided a local taqueria in San Francisco. These common experiences

and culturally relevant content provides meaningful building blocks for students to use as

they grow their knowledge and skill.

Second, PBL uses elements of the inquiry cycle to structure student learning. The

inquiry cycle looks a little bit different at every project, but it basically starts with student

and teacher questions, presents some background information (referred to as

frontloading), and provides time for studying the questions (through reading, observing

or talking to experts). Students then analyze the information they collect and present the

new information at a public open house. The inquiry cycle also asks students to reflect on

their findings, often times asking them how their findings relate to the larger world and

inspiring them to take action in response to their findings.

Many NEW projects use KWL charts to guide students through the inquiry cycle.

A KWL chart collects questions and comments from students about what they know

about a topic, what they want to know about a topic and what they learned about a topic.

For a project on the Mayans, a teacher collects questions from students where the teacher

pushes students to ask deeper questions than just yes or no questions. One student asked,

“How did they decide who would be king when the present king died?” and another said,

“Who decided who the first king was?” By starting a project with student questions, this

provides multiple entry points for learning considering students may ask questions at the


level where their understanding lies. It also allows students to ask questions about topics

that interest them, which might make them more engaged in learning.

The inquiry cycle also helps students understand the process and purpose behind

learning new skills.

When we were doing [a project with community service], we had a bake sale. Some of the kids were the ones in charge of the baking, other ones like [an African American boy], he is really outgoing and charming, so he might not want to sit down and write his writing, which he’ll do, but if he knows that he’s going out onto Mission Street to try to get people to give him money, he is much more willing to write a persuasive letter about why you should give him money.

The African American boy might not understand the purpose of a persuasive letter in

isolation. Yet, by participating in the inquiry cycle, the boy has the wider content of

asking a personal question, finding compelling information, and writing a letter to

persuade people of his findings prior to selling baked goods to raise money for a cause. In

general, the inquiry cycle provides students with rationale, depth and meaning behind the

steps in the learning process.

Third, PBL develops 21st century learning skills. NEW spelled out these skills in

NEW list of 9 Powerful Ways of Thinking. (See Table 13 for the list and description of

these ways of thinking.) NEW staff reference these ways of thinking by using the

vocabulary on a regular basis and celebrating students when they see them displaying

these ways of thinking. One staff member describes how they hope these 21st Century

skills help them achieve success after school.

I want them to be able to be successful in the job world. Those are skills we want to give them that are usually about writing, and presenting, and articulating. We want them to be able to learn whatever they want to learn. Those are thinking skills. Answer skills of research and discovery…We want kids to be productive, successful, effective members of the democracy and those are the big thinking skills.


A few projects exemplify how an NEW project promotes these 21st century learning

skills. In a second and third grade games project, two students learn how to play

checkers, explain how to play the same using directional language (like moving across,

behind, forward), and write the directions out to post on a website so others can learn the

game. In a fourth and fifth grade zoo project, students analyze habitats, write research

reports, meet with the San Francisco zookeepers that make habitats for the zoo animals,

and give a presentation on their findings.

Fourth, PBL gives students independence in their learning, encouraging them to

take risks, and build confidence in themselves as learners. Here, one Hispanic male that

graduated from NEW describes the independence he felt while doing projects.

We are all doing the same project, but we get to pick what question we’re doing. For science fair, we get to pick a science project we want to do. It is your own thing. It is different than other schools where you might have to all do the same thing, and it’s less fun and you don’t get as into it.

Here is another teacher describing the academic confidence that students build during

Project Based Learning.

I did a project when I was a fourth and fifth grade teacher about birds. It really wasn’t my best project, but kids were really into it. We studied the great blue herons in Golden Gate Park that were nesting that year… I remember talking to a kid in high school who had been in that project. He was very articulate about some animals being generalists and others being specialists and what they could consume. He had all this very detailed scientific knowledge about birds. When kids develop that level of expertise and knowledge, it leverages academic confidence. “I know what it means to know something well.” We want kids to have a familiarity with that feeling, so that when they don’t know something well they are triggered to think, “What do I need to do because I want to know this well.” I think that kids here because of projects they do 9 weeks in one little slice of something, they might develop that feeling, “I’m an expert in this thing. I know more than my parents know about birds, I know more than my parents know about fast food, and I know more than my parents


know about roller coasters.” Whatever it is, it builds a sense of academic confidence that I think is really powerful.

The ownership students have over knowledge plays a role in students’ ability to gain

confidence in their learning. Teachers also promote academic confidence by putting

students in charge of gathering feedback from other students on their work, realizing their

mistakes and then providing students with time to fix their mistakes. According to one

teacher:

[We are] trying to create a culture where making mistakes is acceptable and valued and correcting people is also acceptable and valued, so that other kids can correct and help each other. Making mistakes is not a mark of shame. I want kids to be able to laugh about their mistakes, not in a mean way, and recognize and acknowledge when they are making mistakes.

At the elementary level this might look like second and third grade students slowly

crafting a roller coaster together, testing the coaster as they build each part and revising

the design as they go to meet the desired result. At the middle school level, this might

look like students who fail on a project in math working on a study guide and re-doing

the project, with the middle school teacher then averaging the two grades. In general,

PBL gives students the confidence and the skills to become independent learners.

NEW uses pre-assessments, formative assessments and other assessment from

state tests and district surveys to inform their instruction. For example, the Kindergarten

and first grade teachers set a uniform standard that takes into account the teachers assess

all of their incoming students in June before school started and NEW teachers assess

about 80% of incoming students to way. The assessment mainly consists of

developmental measurements like visual discrimination, number recognition, fine motor,

and other basic information. The teachers develop a kindergarten readiness checklist for


parents to take with them after the assessment. The Kindergarten teachers then use this

data to develop an instructional program that supports students in reaching grade-level

standards.

NEW teachers also use formative assessment to inform their pedagogy. For

example, teachers in the elementary grades use running records that track students’

fluency, accuracy, and comprehension in reading. Teachers conduct these assessments in

a one-on-one setting on a formal basis 4 times a year and informally some additional

times to track students’ progress in reading. This helps them understand what level

students should be reading during small group instruction. The middle school teachers

use another measure of formative assessment to track students participation in class.

Teachers have students’ names written on wooden popsicle sticks hanging on their white

boards. The teachers move the popsicles sticks to signify when a student raises their

hands and participates in class discussions. This assessment gives teachers automatic

feedback to how much students participate in class. The public and visual nature of the

assessment also gives students feedback, letting them know the teacher holds them

accountable for class participation. In some classes, students pay attention to the

assessment so much so that you hear the students remind the teacher move their popsicle

stick if the teacher forgets.

With assessment data and project based learning in mind, NEW teachers tailor the

content of their instruction by designing their own curriculums. NEW argues that many

packaged programs represent the dominant viewpoint of the white, upper-middle class.

To better serve their African American, Latino, and English learner students, teachers

design 60-70% of NEW curriculum or selectively use parts of curriculums or textbooks


deemed appropriate for their student population. Teachers design almost 100% of the

project curriculums. Sometimes they’ll rewrite text to age appropriate levels. For

example, the middle grade math teacher does not use a textbook. She designs class work

that helps students stay engaged, providing necessary definitions and example problems

appropriate to students’ skill level. The math teacher has the class work mirror the

homework, and provides a study guide tailored to each unit. More recently, NEW’s

elementary level teachers adopted the Everyday Math curriculum. Some teacher express

concerns with the new curriculum and whether the students’ math skills suffered from the

change in curriculum. Some teachers continue to supplement the curriculum with other

teacher-created or package curriculums they used in the past. Overall, NEW teachers

author most of the curriculum they use and scrutinize any externally developed

curriculum used in their classrooms.

To align the teacher created curriculums and the different projects students

complete each year, NEW closely scrutinizes student progress by having common

assessment standards. NEW creates assessment tools like rubrics and checklist that

outline the common standards for learning at the different developmental phases. As seen

in the vignette of the winter retreat, NEW teachers spend time calibrating their scoring of

assessment tasks using these common rubrics, and make adjustments to their use of the

rubrics and checklists based on these discussions. NEW teachers check the alignment of

their grading standards and assessment tools by sharing student work in a public forum at

project open house or analyzing of assessment data or work samples during committee

and team meetings.


The strongest example of the assessment system used by teachers at NEW is the

use of performance assessment to set common benchmarks and expectations for students

graduating from 5th grade and graduating from 8th grade. For example, in 5th grade,

students have a portfolio assessment that includes a response to literature essay, a

summary, a narrative, an on demand task, a report of information tied to a project, a

reading fluency test, a response to an article using comprehension strategies, and a math

challenge that has problem solving, a unit test in math demonstrating key math concepts,

and a sample from a math project. According to one teacher, “The biggest part is they

have to present it and reflect on their learning. They have to say how they are ready for

middle school.” The first part of fifth grade focuses on accomplishing the work and

saving the work. Later in the school year, the students pull out the work they

accumulated and start revising what goes into the portfolio. Each piece has a cover sheet

and a written component explaining why the work meets standard as related to a rubric.

Then, the students plan a presentation. Students in 5th through 8th grade compile a

portfolio every year and use these portfolios to help students lead a conference in the

spring with their advisor and families.

One teacher tells the story of a Latino male student (at one point was an English

learner) who gained a lot from the portfolio process:

In the beginning of the year, we had talks about I don’t know if he will go onto middle school next year, he might need to be retained if he does not get it together. He did not take a lot of stuff seriously, but one day he kind of snapped into his portfolio. He was one of those mad scrambles. He was such an amazing person because he had people in the community helping him. I was helping him. All the sudden, [his second and third grade teacher] was helping him… He was getting help in after school with revision. His cousin in the same grade who was already done with her portfolio was helping. He was all over the place finishing his portfolio. In the end, he did it. His work all met standard. It took him a lot of work.


The cool thing about it was the work was his… He started to get proud of his work and really wanted it to be finished. He wanted his family to be proud of him when they came to the portfolio presentation… The good thing about him is it turned the tide on him because he went onto middle school and has not had a lot of problems.

While this student met the standard for his fifth grade portfolio, the public characteristics

of the portfolio process motivated him to do the work. The public nature also exposed

where this student had deficiencies and helped teacher support the student in achieving

the grade-level standards. Without these common standards in the 5th grade and 8th grade

portfolios, it may not be clear whether the student described above may slip through the

cracks and graduate onto sixth grade without the necessary skill and knowledge.

NEW’s propels its ambitious instruction by using a set of practices, policies, and

structures related to their pedagogy, content, and alignment of their efforts. NEW

teachers enhance their pedagogy by using Project Based Learning to make their pedagogy

meaningful and culturally relevant to students, focused on 21st century skills, and to build

students’ academic confidence and independence. All the while, NEW teachers make

adjustments to their pedagogy based on the assessment data they collect. NEW finds

appropriate content by for the most part using teacher-created curriculum. To align their

work, teachers develop common assessment standards and rely on their portfolio

assessment as the important benchmark for 5th and 8th grades.

Relational Trust across a School Community A Hispanic girl organizes her binder of portfolio presentation materials in front of

her fourth and fifth grade classmates, teacher, parents, and other adults from the

community. The girl stands at the front of the class with her classmates sitting at their

desks and the teacher and adults sitting at tables and chairs in the back of the classroom.

Another student hands out two documents to visitors and students: a list of suggested


questions like, “Why did you pick that piece for your proposal?” or “What Powerful

Ways of Thinking did you use?” as well as a rubric that describes the criteria for a 5th

grade portfolio presentation.

The girl shares her portfolio by reciting a speech about how she came to NEW in

4th grade and the journey she went through to create her portfolio. She describes how she

will show the audience she is ready for middle school by sharing a writing sample,

reading aloud a response to literature, and solving an on-demand math problem. The girl

then reads the same presentation in Spanish.

The student reads her response to literature. Afterwards, a student asks her, “Do

you like to write in English or in Spanish?” and her mother asks her, “How do you know

your work meets standard?” The student responds with short responses, with not much

detail. With no other questions, the girl moves on and reads a letter she wrote to the

teacher about something she read. A student then asks, “What made the book

suspenseful? Another student ask, “Why do you ask yourself questions [in your letter]?”

and the girl responds that it helps her find the answers in the story.

Then the student solves an on demand math problem. The teacher reads the

problem, “Five divided by eight.” The student turns to the white board at the front of the

classroom and solves the problem using long division. You can hear a pin drop in the

classroom as the rest of the students watch silently at the edge of their seats. When the

student gives the answer, “0.625,” the teacher asks, “How come you can added zeros to

the end of your answer?” and a student asks, “What was the hardest part of the problem

for you?” The portfolio presentation ends with audience members sharing “celebrations.”

The teacher tells the student that she did a good job entering the classroom community


later and she made a lot of growth in two years. Another NEW staff member said, “Your

voice was comfortable and clear throughout the whole process and that is not easy in

front of a lot of people.”

This vignette portrays the relational trust developed among the NEW community

members that contributes to feelings of safety and security when 5th grader students take

an incredible amount of risk to share their portfolios to a public audience. The Sebring

framework defines relational trust as the relationships supported by feelings of trust that

school communities rely on during the school improvement process. NEW uses its

relational trust developed between students, teachers, parents, and community members

to support structures like its portfolio assessment model. This relational trust at NEW

develops a network of relationships between families and teachers, students and teachers,

and teachers and teachers.

The relational trust that develops at NEW between families and teachers stems

from the schools’ general policy of getting families involved in their children’s

education. According to one NEW teacher:

The most important thing that we’ve identified is that families are involved in the academic progress of their students. Another corollary of that is that they are holding us accountable. The most important thing is that they are involved in the academic progress for their kids. We’ve identified that there can be lots of entry points into that, but that’s what we are looking for in all families, and particularly families from traditionally underserved populations because those families tend to carry with them mistrust of schools which keeps them distant. We’ve done a lot of strategic thinking about how to create a school environment that encourages, celebrates, and supports the families of those students, the traditionally underserved students, to be involved in the academic progress of their kids.

NEW teachers gain this trust by developing relationships with families in various school

settings. According to one teacher, “Doing things together helps.” Teachers and families


have opportunities to get to know each other through NEW’s beginning of the year

barbeque, camping trips with families at each grade level, and fundraisers like a carnival

and pancake breakfast. NEW also develops trust by making expectations for students

transparent through student-teacher-parent conferences, project open house, and portfolio

presentations. They efforts are also meant to make parents feel like they belong and feel

part of the school community. As referred to earlier in the case, the Head Teacher

commented that parents and teachers “develop trust by flipping pancakes together.”

Families also develop trust in teachers by working with one teacher for two years.

Students loop with their teacher in the multi-age classrooms and consequently work with

teachers for two years. Here is one teacher describing the benefits of these long-term

relationship with parents:

It’s getting more and more interesting. Having been here for 7 years, I actually know probably at least half if not more than that, of the parent before their kids come into my class. I think have five kids right now of whose siblings I taught. I still think it goes back to results and outcomes. There can be a lot of talk about having open lines of communication with parents, sending home newsletters, blah, blah, blah, but really the trust is going to be established when they see that their kids are learning, their kids are making progress and growing, and that their kids feel safe and their kids like coming to school everyday.

Teachers get parents involved in the advancement of their children’s achievement by

developing close relationships with them and communicating with parents about their

children’s progress. NEW teachers give out their cell phone and email addresses to

students and families who often call for help with the homework or projects. One African

American female parent talked about liking the access to teachers through their email and

home phone numbers. She said, “I feel bad calling them at home, but it is helpful.”


As parents become aware of the progress their children make through the conferences

with teachers, school events, and phone calls, they develop trust for the NEW teacher’s

work with their children.

NEW also supports relational trust between families and teacher by having two

parent liaisons. As described earlier in the case, NEW teachers hired two parent liaisons

through a grant in the last two years to provide outreach to the Latino and African

American families who traditionally participated less often in the school community.

They hired an African American female to organize outreach activities to the African

American parents like the Saturday afternoon tea (described in the Parent and

Community Ties section). They also hired a Latino female who is a parent of a 4th grader

at NEW with a history of working in community organizing. She coordinates outreach to

the Latino parents through Friday morning coffees, phone calls to parents, and attending

meetings between teachers and families. The parents report that they feel more connected

to the school because of these liaisons. One parent said, “It is important to have people

who speak Spanish at the school.” Another parent reported, “Since the two years that the

parent liaison has been here, she is always calling me and it is making me feel more

connected to the school.” The parent liaisons help ease some families into their

connections to NEW and make the community more inviting for families who for

whatever reason feel intimidated by being involved in school.

Relational trust also grows between the students and teachers at NEW. Signs of

trusting relationships appear between students and teachers in the classroom settings with

some students removing their shoes in the classroom, teachers trusting students to use the

bathroom pass when necessary, students calling the teacher by his/her first name, and


students requesting to play or continue working in the classroom during recess. NEW

teachers also spend a lot of extra time with their students by eating lunch with them,

going on extended day camping trips with them, and in some cases teachers tutor students

on their own time. According to one teacher, “It makes the kids feel loved that we are

involved in their lives outside of school.”

The size of the school helps build relational trust between families and teachers,

and teachers and students. In fact, parents and students often mention the size as one of

the most helpful aspects of NEW for building relationships and trust. One Latino parent

said, “This school is not very big and the meetings help bring people together. It is a

small school and easier for communication to happen with teachers through fliers and

meetings like [the English Language Acquisition Committee].” Here is an African

American girl in NEW’s middle school describing the advantage of working at a small

school:

If we were in a big school, the teachers would not have the time to help each individual student, but since we are smaller they are able to help us one-by-one. If we are having problems, we won’t fail. In our humanities class, we are doing an informative essay. Our teacher is able to help us one-by-one at time on our essays.

The size of the school also allows students to cultivate relationships with other students’

families. With the frequency and high attendance rate of community-wide events, like the

project open-house described in the opening vignette or African American tea described

in the Parent and Community Ties section, students start to recognize each others’

families. Some parents started serving “home-cooked lunch” once a month to the whole

school. According to one parent, “The students recognize us and say to us, ‘That is so-

and-so’s mom.’ The students will give me a hug and say hello.” With so many


opportunities to develop relationships in a small school setting, students, families, and

teacher start to know and come to trust their school community.

Relational trust also develops between teachers. The trust between teachers

creates a security blanket during the trials and tribulations of the on-going school

improvement that takes place at NEW. Teachers need these strong relationships with

each other to weather the challenges they experience along the way. Therefore, NEW

creates a multitude of opportunities for teachers to develop relational trust through their

Beginning of the Year Institute, Winter Retreat, and numerous committees. According to

this teacher, the shared sense of responsibility helps build this relational trust:

This school is really in your face in expecting teachers to jump right in. We have a before school institute, which is two overnights, before school even starts, before your contracts starts, before you are expected to show up to work, you have to go to this retreat. Day 1 you are talking about your cultural experiences, your race, and how that impacts your teaching, and a four-minute monolog. They expect a lot of jumping out of the comfort zone, so I found that very challenging at this school to be new. All of the sudden, I just said hello, didn’t know who anyone’s name is, and all of the sudden had to jump right in, but with that level of expectations in terms of joining, we also get really close to new teachers quickly, being on the other side of it, so that’s good. There is a level of trust that get built over time. Also, because everything is with other teachers, that DLT model, is always together, it’s a lot of shared responsibility, and it is really supportive. My first experience, I was teaching 2/3 and Maya and Tim were the two teachers, I became so close with them so quickly. Everything we did was together. I knew like when we were doing our homework policies, we were doing it together, so I knew I had the support, if I was getting any flack from new parents. [I could say], “This is the way it is done in the other two classes and this is what 2/3 believes in.”

The teacher-to-teacher relational trust cultivated by NEW’s practices, structures, and

policies prepares the school community for unexpected challenges confronted during

school improvement and the sensitive topics covered in teacher discussions. To address

issues like equity and social justice, teachers talk frankly and take risks in front of their


colleagues, and consequently the purpose, process, and structure of the meeting become

important for maintaining the safety and security among the teachers. For example, as

mentioned in the above quote, teachers need to feel safe talking about sensitive topics

like race and culture, and therefore NEW teachers take a lot of time in their meetings

making sure the purpose of the meeting, the process for sharing, and the structure of the

agenda is clear to all. NEW teachers review their meeting norms and culture norms at the

beginning of every committee meeting and they assign roles like process checker and

timekeeper to make sure the meetings focus on the agenda. In general, NEW teachers

strengthen their professional community by putting structures in place that develop

relational trust between their teachers.


Cross Case Analysis

These three effective schools in San Francisco carry out some practices,

structures, and policies that support and challenge the notions set out by the Sebring

framework. Together, the elements shared by these three schools also suggest a set of

hypotheses about the policies necessary to promote effective schools. Four larger themes

appear in the cross case analysis that work together differently than the elements from the

Sebring framework: “leadership as a foundation,” “dynamic instruction and curriculum,”

“relational trust across the school community,” and “alignment of practices, personnel,

and resources based on a shared vision.” As seen in Figure 33, the cross case analysis

sees these four themes reorganizing the elements of the Sebring framework into one

circle. “Leadership as a foundation” sits on the outer ring of the framework supporting

the other three elements. “Relational trust across the school community” and “dynamic

instruction and curriculum” share the middle layer of the framework because they have

similar levels of frequency in the data. Finally, “alignment of practices, personnel, and

resources based on a shared vision” sits in the center of the circle because efforts at

alignment enhance the other three themes. I present the findings from this analysis by

describing an overall definition of each theme, the supportive data from the schools, the

associated elements of the Sebring framework and my hypotheses for which policies

most influence each theme.

Leadership as a Foundation The theme of leadership appears frequently across the three case studies. The

code for leadership is one of the top ten most frequent codes in my analysis of each

school. (See Table 9 for a list of the top ten codes in each case study). The code comes

up more frequently in Xavier and the NEW school, and less so in the analysis of Smith’s


data, but these are only slightly different levels of frequency. (One thought for the

difference might be the Smith principal’s use of alignment as a leadership strategy, which

comes across in other codes such as resources or teacher planning.)

The frequency of these data points suggests a theme titled, “leadership as a

foundation.” This theme is defined as school leaders management of personnel and

organizational management of the school culture and climate for a stable and sustained

period of time. Three common elements surface within this definition that help explicate

this theme:

• Stability: The leaders had been the heads of their schools for 6 to 13 years • Attention to personnel: The leaders paid close attention to the hiring, developing, and

efforts to retain quality teachers • Organizational management: leaders cultivates a feeling of a community and a shared

vision

These elements of “leadership as a foundation” are supported by research that suggests

the importance of personnel management and a principals management of school climate

and culture (Darling-Hammond, et al. 2009; Boyd, et al., 2009; Horng, et al., 2009).

Research also emphasizes the importance of teacher quality and capacity (National

Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996, 2003; National Academy of

Education, 2009). These elements are also represented in the data from the three case

studies as described below.

Stability: The school leaders provide a foundation for the school by being at the

school for a sustained amount of time. For these three schools, the principals and head

teacher lead the school for between 6 and 13 years. All three of the schools in San

Francisco had avenues for which leadership was developed with the school and each have

a plan for succession management. At Smith, Principal Lightheart was originally a


resource teacher, and then became mentored and shaped into a potential leader by the

previous principals at Smith. Lightheart is doing the same type of leadership development

with her current vice principal. Xavier’s principal is the first and only principal for the

school’s 13 years, but she had taught at the NEW School and received training as a

teacher leader in that setting. NEW’s leadership expects each of their Head Teachers to

serve one year as a Head Teacher in training, shadowing and fulfilling some duties for the

current Head Teacher while still teaching during training. The Head Teacher then serves

three years as the teacher that facilitates all the teacher committees and NEW school’s

relationship with the school district. In general, the schools are aware that they need to

cultivate patterns of stable leadership from within and plan for the passage of one leader

to another.

Attention to personnel: The foundation of leadership also sets the tone for hiring,

development, recruitment, retention, and stability of the teachers at the school. The

teachers unions and teacher tenure do play a large role in teacher capacity at a school,

sometimes securing jobs for under-developed and ineffective teachers. Yet, all these case

studies school leaders discussed the influence they have over the process of hiring and

maintaining quality teachers in their school. Teachers are the main actors delivering high-

quality instruction and it takes a high level of professional capacity for teachers to be

constantly juggling, monitoring, and analyzing each of their students needs. In all three of

the schools, the leaders put time and effort into the hiring process, whether it is outlining

the specific expectations to teacher candidates, to having specific hiring criteria aligned

with the school vision. Also, Smith and NEW teachers talk about the squeeze of high

expectations once teachers arrive. Yet, they do describe supports and structures in place


to help teachers reach these goals even with these high expectations. The structures of

grade-level teams supports teachers at all three schools with the principal at Smith, the

instructional coach at Xavier, and in NEW’s case, the other teachers on the committees,

providing a check for the quality of teacher planning and the student work shared during

the planning meeting. Teacher instructional planning was one of the top ten codes for

both NEW and Smith. When done in a structured and aligned way, grade-level team

planning helps school leader check teacher instruction for quality and alignment, and

adjusts and develops teachers’ skills when needed. In the case of Smith, this check and

development of the teacher capacity is also completed in the one-on-one Classroom SST

that happens with each teacher twice a year.

Organizational management: The school leaders support their personnel by

clearly articulating and modeling the school vision in their day-to-day work. For

example, the Smith principal will stop everything to call the parent of an emotionally

charged student to better understand how she can calm the student down and get the

student back focused on schoolwork. At Xavier, the principal clearly articulates the

importance of social justice as a theme at the school during a staff meeting and then

walking from San Francisco to Sacramento to protest budget cuts in education. At NEW,

this means a Head Teacher that reminds her fellow teacher leaders of the current policy

for fundraising in the school and guiding the Lead Team to come up with a policy that

aligns with their school vision.

Lingering Question: Even though the schools pay attention to succession

management, I still wonder what will happen after these principals leave. It remains to

be seen whether Smith, Xavier, and NEW can weather the transition from one principal


to another. NEW already had an issue with succession management, when the teacher in

training tried being Head Teacher for a year, and then decided he wanted to go back to

the classroom, so the former Head Teacher had to come in and take over. This caused the

current Head Teacher at NEW to serve two three year terms rather than one, which may

have benefited the school in the end, but raises some questions about whether their

succession planning works. Also, it is not clear at Smith whether their current vice

principal has enough social capital to handle the transition to principal and keep Smith

teachers on track. Finally, I collected data at Xavier the year Principal Sutter announced

her retirement, and since then, the district brought in a new principal that did not have the

same reputation as Sutter. Consequently, all of these issues raise the question of whether

these schools do enough careful planning for leadership succession.

In contrast to the findings from this study, Sebring describes leadership as a

“catalyst for change” with the leaders spurring improvement that have one coherent

message integrated throughout all elements of the school. Yet, the three cases suggest

that leadership does not just stimulate change, but it also acts as a foundation guiding the

practice, structures, and policies helping to close the achievement gap. This requires

stability and strength, similar to the way the bow of a ship cuts through choppy waters of

school improvement. Table 15 shows how leadership is seen across each element of the

Sebring framework. In these three cases, Sebring’s essential support of “professional

capacity” is embedded in the theme of leadership as a foundation because professional

capacity stems from school leaders’ decision-making about personnel and structures

developed within the school to build teacher capacity. The Sebring framework and the

findings from this study most closely align around the elements of a leader’s


organizational management. The Sebring framework focuses on leaders’ development of

one “message” or vision, which is similar to the findings from this study suggesting

school leaders in effective schools spend time on developing alignment based on a school

vision. Overall, in these schools, leadership acts as the steady foundation for a school

community for building the characteristics needed for school improvement, rather than

the mechanism for igniting the school improvement as suggested by Sebring.

The findings from this cross case analysis suggest certain policies that support the

theme of leadership as a foundation. This study points towards human capital and funding

policies that could support principals’ management of personnel and their organizational

management. Hiring policies should allow schools to align their hiring criteria with the

school’s vision in order to enable the hiring of teachers with a shared vision and teaching

skills that promote that vision. Schools need policies that cultivate teacher capacity and

leader stability, so school leaders and teachers keep coming back year after year and have

opportunities for professional growth at school. School leaders need policies that provide

standards for tying resources and partner efforts to student achievement and student

outcomes.

Relational Trust Across a School Community The theme of trust appears frequently across the three case studies. As seen in

Table 9, the codes related to developing relationships across the school community are

among the top ten most frequent codes in my analysis of each school. The code comes up

more frequently in Smith and Xavier, and less so in the analysis of NEW’s data, which

might mean NEW uses different mechanisms for cultivating relational trust.

The frequency of these data points suggests a theme titled, “relational trust across

a school community.” This theme is defined as the relationships members of the school


community rely on during the school improvement process. Three common elements

surface within this definition that help explicate this theme:

• Student enrollment: Enrollment may support or undermine trust • Relationships with broader community: Leaders cultivate political support, resources • Relationships with parents: School staff cultivate parent ties with the school community • Relational trust across a school community The elements of “relational trust across a school community” are supported by research

that suggests relationships and trust are necessary to encourage school improvement

(Bryk and Sneider, 2002; Meier, 2003). While relational trust alone can not improve

schools because trust does not procure the teacher expertise needed for quality

instruction. However, the relational trust shared between the school leader, parents, and

the broader community may either support or undermine the school improvement

process.

Student enrollment: The three schools in this study reside in San Francisco

Unified School District, a district that puts a lot of emphasis on its student enrollment

policies. SFUSD experienced two lawsuits in 1983 and 1994 that forced the district into a

Consent Decree with two goals: eliminate the segregation and racial identifications of

SFUSD from schools, programs and classrooms, and improved education for all students

as a partial remedy for a history of discrimination and segregation. Stemming from the

Consent Decree, the District now has a controversial assignment system that takes into

account a student’s socioeconomic background, but not race when assigning students to

schools. The race-neutral "diversity index" intends to desegregate schools based on

socioeconomic factors.

All three schools talked about how the district’s enrollment influenced which

students attended their school. Consequently, developing relational trust at Smith, Xavier,


and NEW each looks a little bit different based on the students and parents that chose to

enroll at the school. For example, most parents at Smith and NEW come with a

preconceived notion of trust for the school because they in many cases chose to be part of

the Smith school community. In 2008-2009, Smith had 170 requests for its general

education program in three kindergarten classes and NEW had 147 requests for two

kindergarten classes, whereas Xavier had 85 requests for two kindergarten classes. While

most students attending Smith live in the same neighborhood as the location of the

school, the school staff also reported that some parents that live near other public schools

chose to sign-up to enroll their children at Smith. The staff at Smith describes how

parents chose Smith for its reputation of high academic achievement. Consequently,

Smith benefits from the open-enrollment policy considering parents choosing to enroll

their child at Smith do so for academic reasons rather than the convenience of the school

location, which introduces a form of selection bias. Most of the students enrolling in

NEW come from the neighborhood surrounding the school. Yet, similar to Smith, many

parents chose to enroll in NEW for other reasons aside from convenience. Parents

interviewed for this study talked about hearing about NEW’s reputation for support and

academic achievement from other parents that had children already attending NEW.

While Smith’s and NEW’s staff still has to put effort into developing relational trust with

parents and community members, its reputation throughout the community that lays the

ground work for relational trust.

Xavier’s enrollment characteristics are much different than Smith and NEW, and

consequently Xavier’s staff has to make more of an effort to engage parents and

participate in community outreach. Most of the students attending Xavier do not live in


the surrounding neighborhood. Xavier’s Principal Sutter and parent liaison make strategic

efforts to recruit families from neighborhoods with low-income children of color. They

will host events like parent information nights in San Francisco’s Bayview neighborhood

even though the school is not located in that neighborhood. Over the years, generations of

families from these neighborhoods have attended Xavier and the reputation helps Xavier

maintain its substantial African American and Hispanic populations of students.

However, Xavier’s staff still needs to make extra effort to engage these parents and

develop relational trust whether the staff makes home visits to parents in those

neighborhoods or spends extra time talking to those parents as they pick their children up

from school.

Relationships with the broader community: To provide their schools with an

environment suitable for cultivating trust, the school leaders at the three schools cultivate

political support and additional resources for their school. Politically, these schools

developed relationships with other community leaders like Xavier principal’s relationship

with a city supervisor. They also advocated for district policies like NEW’s support for

San Francisco Unified School District’s Small Schools Policy that provided NEW with

additional autonomy and extra resources. All three schools also developed additional

resources by applying for grants and developing relationships with non-profit

organizations that stem from their own school community, or sit outside of their school

community. Smith’s leadership has developed a very strong bond with a local business

owner that now acts as their benefactor, donating money every year to support Smith’s

Healthy Start Room. Xavier, NEW, and Smith’s leadership take steps to include these

funders in their school community by inviting them to events and having regular


meetings with them that update the funders on their progress. School leaders build

support both politically and financially by maintaining relationships with community

leaders and funding agents that support important programming in their school.

Relationships with parents: To build relational trust, school staff developed close

ties with the parents of their students. At the three schools, the principal or head teacher

run committees of teachers and staff that cultivate ties between the parents and school

community. The schools make daily efforts to communicate with parents, either through

a morning assembly or with regular communication between teachers and parents.

Xavier’s policy of hiring a staff representative of parents’ culture, race, ethnicity, or

language, and Smith and Xavier leaderships’ use of regular classroom teachers to run the

after school programming give parents more reasons and opportunity to develop

relationships with teachers and staff. All three schools have a parent liaison and provide

parents with other structures that support parent involvement in student achievement.

At the three schools, the principals or head teacher play the role of organizing and

managing two of the main structures that incorporate parent participation in the school

community: the school site councils and the committee of parents and teachers usually

referred to as Parent Teacher Associations or PTAs. (At Xavier, the structure is the PFC,

Parent and Faculty Committee.) All three schools utilize a small committee of parents

and staff to form the School Site Council (SSC) to review and approve budget decisions

and represent the voice of parents in school decision-making. Smith’s Parent Teacher

Association comprises a larger meeting, considering the size of the school, and focuses

more on community building events and sharing of school information. For Xavier, the

structure of the SSC and PFC meetings utilizes a variety of formats like small group work


and “Wall Walks” to gain parent and staff input. For NEW, the Head Teacher organizes

the School Site Council and PTA meetings. The Head Teacher structures the meetings in

a similar fashion to Principal Sutter at Xavier and also garnishes parents’ check on budget

decisions as well as the organization of community building events and small fundraisers.

The principals and Head Teacher also manage teams of staff that discuss with

parents services delivered to students and coordinate those services. At Smith, the

Coordinated Services Team discusses the welfare of students, often incorporating

anecdotal evidence from parents and reaching out to parents for meetings related to these

services. The CCOLS committee at NEW and the Care Team at Xavier function in a

similar way.

At Xavier and Smith, the principals lead a morning opening exercise. Xavier

refers to this opening as “Morning Circle” where parents and students form a circle on

the small school playground and the principal gives some general announcements and

rallying calls, sometimes leading students in an alternative pledge called, “Pledge to the

Planet.” Prior to the start of Morning Circle, the principal, staff, and teachers talk

informally with parents and students. Smith’s “Morning In-take” functions in a very

similar way to Xavier’s Morning Circle, but students and parents stand in lines with their

class and teacher, and the principal leads the school in the Pledge of Allegiance. NEW

has formal school-wide assemblies that do not involve parents. Some grade levels have a

morning greeting that has teachers and staff meeting students and sometimes parents in

line outside the school and leads students in morning songs or chants.

Hiring processes at these schools, managed mostly by the principals, but also

influenced by the teachers and staff, also play a role in parent ties to the school


community. All three schools take into considering the race, ethnicity, culture, and

language of their parents when hiring their staff. Xavier staff talks most specifically

about making sure their staff is representative of their parent population. NEW and Smith

school leaders made it a point to hire parent liaisons for their Hispanic and African

American parents that speak the parents’ language and in some cases come from the same

racial/ethnic background.

All three schools utilize teachers as one of the main pathways for communicating

with parents as a means for developing relational trust. For Smith, the parent and teacher

communication takes place during the informal interaction at Morning In-take, but more

emphasis is put on the communication that takes place a the bi-annual parent-teacher

conferences. Xavier’s leadership enhances their communication and relationships

between teachers and parents by having some teachers work in the after school program.

NEW makes communication to parents a priority through bi-annual conferences and

public open houses sharing student projects.

In addition to teachers, the other staff plays key roles in creating ties to parents.

All three schools have parent liaisons. The Xavier principal funds the school’s parent

liaison through its STAR resources and hires a current Xavier parent as the liaison.

Smith principal funds the school’s two parent liaisons through the donation from their

benefactor. One parent liaison speaks Chinese and the other speaks Spanish. NEW funds

two parent liaisons through a grant, one that speaks Spanish, and another African

American female to support both of the parent populations that are traditionally less

engaged in school.


Other positions like the secretaries at Xavier and NEW, and an outreach

coordinator at NEW and two social workers at Smith play important roles in developing

parent ties to the school communities. Most importantly, the secretaries at NEW and

Xavier provide positive first impressions for parents walking through the door. Other

positions like the outreach coordinator at NEW and social workers at Smith help connect

parents to outside organizations and resources that support the welfare of their families.

For example, both Smith and NEW’s staff run a food bank for the school’s families on a

weekly basis on their school campuses. In general, these other staff makes strategic

efforts to connect with parents.

Relational trust across a school community: All three schools build community

throughout the school by cultivating relational trust. The Sebring framework defines

“relational trust” as the relationships supported by feelings of trust that school community

relies on during the school improvement process. The relational trust at these three

schools stems from the strong network of relationships between the students, parents,

staff and teachers, and school leaders. Each of these schools cultivates trust in slightly

different ways, but they have a similar network of trusting relationships situated within

the school community.

Relational trust takes place within Xavier, NEW, and Smith between the

staff/teachers and students, between the staff/teachers and parents, and between the

staff/teachers and principal or school leader. All three schools staff and teachers focus on

developing relational trust with students. Teachers use practices like one-on-one and

small group instruction to personalize instruction, but also develop relationships with

students. Teachers attend extracurricular activities, with many teachers working in both


the regular school day and the after school program where teachers maintain standards,

but also have an opportunity to interact more freely with students. Students at NEW

develop trust with the teachers by eating lunch with them and having small class sizes

where students have more opportunities to interact with the teacher.

As discussed in the previous section, the staff/teachers at Xavier, NEW, and

Smith develop relational trust with parents by cultivating strong relationships with

parents. In addition to relational trust with parents, these schools also develop relational

trust among the staff, teachers, and school leaders as a foundation for taking risks and

making improvements in their practice. The teachers and staff at these schools would

freely communicate their opinions to their school leaders even if their views clashed. At

NEW, the teachers and staff go on two retreats where they participate in relationship

building exercises and intensive instructional planning. Committee work and team

planning also helps build relational trust by providing more opportunities for teachers,

staff, and school leaders to rely on one another. Even with over 30 teachers, Smith’s

principal attends two Classroom SST meetings a year for each class and monthly grade-

level planning meetings. Xavier’s principal attends many of the teachers’ weekly grade

level planning sessions lead by the Instructional Reform Facilitator. This relational trust

among the teachers, staff, and school leaders also encourages teachers to take risks in

front of their peers, invite feedback on their instruction, and provides a safe space for

critical feedback and on-going improvement.

Lingering Question: Aside from “Leadership as the Foundation,” this was

probably the strongest of the three themes in terms of the amount of data points.

However, questions remain over whether these schools are really effective, or if they


come out successful because of the students that select into the school. Selection bias is

one of the largest concerns in effective schools studies, and even though the first tier of

selection for these schools included a rigorous quantitative analysis, it is not clear

whether these schools benefit from the district’s enrollment process. Could it be possible

that the traditionally underserved students selecting into these three schools have

different characteristics than other schools with similar students and lower levels of

achievement?

Table 16 shows where relational trust across the school community is seen across

the Sebring framework. This theme stems directly from Sebring’s definition of the

structural factor of relational trust within a school community, which comes from the

relationships schools use to sustain momentum during the rocky roads of school

improvement. It also comes from Sebring’s structural factor of the Local School-

Community Context. School personnel implement the structures and practices meant to

build relational trust (like the parent liaisons or Elementary Advisors) around the

demographics or needs of the students and parents they serve. This theme also combines

the essential element of Parent-Community Ties from the Sebring framework, as all three

schools emphasized relational trust with parents. To build Sebring’s essential support of a

Student-Centered Learning Climate which includes a safe and secure environment for

student learning, teachers and staff at all three schools worked to build relational trust

with their students so students feel secure and trusting of adults across the school

community.


theme of relational trust across the school community. This study points towards a


communication policy that could support a school leader’s ability to cultivate trust across

the community. Most of the school’s efforts to build relationships stemmed from the

staff’s ability to communicate with the members of their school community. Think about

all the translation that took place at Smith and NEW through the schools’ parent liaisons,

and the Xavier principal’s efforts to connect to the African American community. It

suggests that communication policies should expect schools to develop and execute a

communication plan that focuses on building relationships and trust across the school

community.

Dynamic Instruction and Curriculum Themes related to instruction and curriculum come up frequently in all three case

studies. As seen in Table 9, the codes related to instruction and curricula are among the

top ten most frequent codes in my analysis of each school. The codes comes up more

frequently in the NEW school, and less so in the analysis of Smith and Xavier’s data,

which is possibly because NEW relies on its teachers to create its own curriculum and

relies more of teacher expertise related to instruction and curriculum.

The frequency of these data points suggests a theme titled “dynamic instruction

and curriculum.” This theme is defined as the flexibility provided by the school

leadership for teachers to plan instruction and curriculum based on students’ individual

needs and backgrounds and with high level of intellectual challenge. Six common

elements surface within this definition that help explicate this theme:

• Pay attention to subgroup needs • Facilitate teacher planning • Examine data from multiple measures • Utilize anecdotal evidence • Curriculum with cultural relevancy and multiple points of access • Access higher order thinking skills


The theme of “dynamic instruction and curriculum” is supported by both research and

theory. For example, Elmore (1996) suggests the levers for enhancing school

improvement sit within the instructional core of the teacher instruction, content of the

curriculum, and efforts of students. Vygotsky (1978) suggests that each student has a

certain Zone of Proximal Development or ZPD, which combines the perfect mix of

support from an adult and challenge for the students, and it is the job of a good teacher to

figure out the content and structures necessary to reach the ZPD for each of their

students.

Pay attention to subgroup needs: San Francisco has a district policy referred to as

the Lau Plan, which requires schools to tailor instruction and curriculum specifically to

English Learners. To comply with the 1974 ruling in Lau vs. Nichols, San Francisco

Unified School District developed an action plan to address the instruction of English

learners and hopefully accelerate English learner achievement in San Francisco. The Lau

Plan requires Xavier, NEW, and Smith’s teachers to pay attention to specific instruction

and curriculum in place to support English learners and therefore all three schools

examine assessment data and craft instruction specific to the needs of English learners.

While the teachers talk about individualized learning plans for English learners in

their instruction, Smith teachers talked about it with more frequency during their

instructional planning, possibly because 61% or about 400 students at Smith are

classified as English learners and 7% or 45 students are re-designated as Fluent-English

Proficient (RFEP). Xavier has only 11% or about 24 English learners, and NEW has

about 39% or a little over 100 English learners with both schools having very few RFEPs.


These substantial amounts of English learners combined with the expectations of

the Lau Plan requires that all three schools pay close attention to school-wide policies

related to English learners. The schools provide English learners with two different

options for instruction. Smith’s leadership offers transitional bilingual programs in

Chinese and Spanish as well as a focus on English Language Development (ELD) in all

other classes. Both Xavier and NEW’s leadership maintain policies of inclusion, and

therefore do not isolate English learners in their instruction. All three schools

differentiate instruction by targeting English Learners in additional small group or one-

on-one instruction. The schools also scaffold instruction with additional representations

of new concepts by repeating lessons to English learners, providing visual aids, and other

structures that reinforce new knowledge and skills. Therefore, three schools develop

dynamic instructional plans for English learners similar to the way they do for all

students. In general, the district policies requires schools to have instruction plans for

students, but these three schools take this to heart and execute these plans with vigor

possibly because the focus on dynamic instruction and curriculum for all students.

Facilitate teacher planning: At all three schools, the school leaders encourage

teachers to make dynamic learning experiences for students. This helps schools provide

time for teacher planning on a regular basis. School leaders create agendas for the

planning meetings and organize reports on assessment data. At Smith, Principal

Lightheart leads bi-annual Classroom Student Success Team meetings where they talk

about each student one-by-one. Lightheart also leads monthly grade level team sessions

that make plans for instruction based on analysis of student assessment data and work

samples. At Xavier, the principal utilizes her Instructional Reform Facilitator to organize


weekly grade-level meetings for planning. This grade-level planning allows Xavier

teachers to reflect on their instruction and adjust for students’ individual needs. NEW

teachers use their Developmental Learning Teams at each grade level to examine

assessment data and adjust instruction according to what will help students advance their

skills and knowledge.

Multiple measures inform instruction: Through intensive instructional planning

combined with strategic professional development, Xavier, NEW, and Smith cultivate a

high level of skills and knowledge among its teachers related to analyzing data.

Consequently, teachers have experience analyzing assessment data and using their

findings to make instruction dynamic. Teachers aggregate the assessment data at the

classroom level, but also look at individual students’ outcomes. In all three schools,

teachers look at data from multiple measures including formative and summative

assessments, authentic assessments like project-based assessment tasks solving real-

world problems, standardized test scores, and benchmark assessments. Teachers use

assessment data to figure out what level of instruction will provide just enough challenge

for students and then use one-on-one and small group instruction to target instruction

towards students’ varying needs. The small groups are flexible based on student outcome

assessments with the groups changing on a sometimes weekly and even daily basis to suit

the needs of students.

If teachers see an area in the assessment data where students need additional or

enhanced instruction, the school leadership will plan teacher training during their next

opportunity for school-wide professional development or grade-level team planning

sessions. In the case of NEW, the need for professional development in a certain area


travels up through the Development Learning Team representatives sitting on the

Professional Development Team. At Smith and Xavier, the need for professional

development gets relayed through the grade level representatives on the school leadership

teams. In general, the school leaders and teachers plan school-wide teacher professional

development based on the areas of professional growth that would best support students’

learning.

Utilize anecdotal evidence: Teachers use knowledge of students to make

instruction and curriculum dynamic for students. Each school puts an emphasis on

student-teacher and parent-teacher relationships as a means of collecting anecdotal

evidence about students’ cultural backgrounds, experiences at home, and general skills

and knowledge. All three schools make it an expectation for teachers to know their

students well and have close relationships with them. At NEW, teachers get to know

students by eating lunch with them on a daily basis, and a number of teachers at Xavier

and Smith spend additional time with students by working during the regular day and in

the after school programs.

Teachers at all three schools get to know parents by talking to them on a regular

basis. Teachers hand out their email addresses and cell phone numbers, hold bi-annual

student-teacher-parent conferences, and attend school events. Xavier, NEW, and Smith’s

principal and staff all participate in some sort of opening exercise before school that

allows teachers to mingle informally with parents. Parent-teacher relationships also form

easily in Xavier and NEW because the schools are small and in NEW, teachers loop with

students, teaching the same students for two grade levels.


Teachers use the information from parents about students to inform their

instruction, and develop personalized learning plans for their students. At all three

schools, teachers test their hypotheses about students’ needs by referencing multiple data

sources, weighing both the assessment data and the anecdotal evidence from their

relationships with students and parents. This exploration of multiple forms of data also

takes place in the school teams that coordinate academic and social supports to students

like Xavier’s Care Team, Smith’s Coordinated Services Team, and NEW’s CCOLS.

Teachers then use the anecdotal information from these relationships when they think

about how to best personalize their instruction.

Curriculum with cultural relevancy and multiple points of entry: While the three

schools have different approaches to curriculum, the schools all have a focus on making

the curriculum content culturally relevant and accessible to students from a variety of

backgrounds. The three schools use different approaches when it comes to curriculum.

Smith’s teachers have a common school-wide curriculum, NEW teachers uses mostly

teacher-created curriculum, and Xavier teachers uses a combination of some common

curriculum and some teacher created curriculum. Yet, even Smith teachers makes efforts

to supplement their curriculum with content more relevant to students’ lived experiences.

NEW teachers situate projects in real-world events or problems that students may

experience in their immediate communities or that they can relate to like building a roller

coaster, issues related to immigration status, or paying attention to the food students’ eat.

Xavier’s teachers utilizes its focus on civil rights, diversity, and social justice to make

curriculum content relevant to students’ personal lives and lived experience. Culturally

relevant, real-world content allows students to connect with curriculum on a personal


level regardless of their skill or knowledge. (See Appendix F for more detailed

descriptions of culturally relevant content, real-world applications, and multiple points of

entry.)

Accessing higher order thinking skills: In addition to culturally relevant

curriculum with real-world applications and multiple points of entry, both Xavier and

NEW’s teachers put an emphasis on accessing higher order thinking skills that sit at the

upper end of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) such as analyzing, synthesizing, and

evaluating. At Xavier, this looks like the teacher leading students in a debate over the

best strategy for bargaining with a used car salesman. Students have to analyzing the

mathematical elements of the debate as well as the interpersonal dynamic with the

salesperson, and then synthesize their analysis into a coherent argument against the

opposing debate team. At NEW, this looks like students deconstructing a short story

during their fifth grade portfolio presentation and having other students evaluate the

presentation and provide feedback to their peer about the quality of their short story

analysis based on a common rubric. NEW teachers also emphasizes 21st century skills

through the use of the “Powerful Ways of Thinking” and “Habits of Mind” that articulate

the skills they way students to be able to do when they graduate.

Lingering Questions: While this theme surfaced through a number of specific data

points and themes in each of the cases, it is still not clear whether all students at the three

schools do receive the ideal combination of dynamic instruction and curriculum. Smith is

the best example of this, considering the teachers and the principal questioned whether

they could do a better job adjusting their curriculum, such as Houghton Mifflin, for their

African American students. Smith’s principal spent a lot of time focused on the larger


subgroups of students like English Learners and Hispanic students that greatly influence

the overall outcomes of Smith’s student achievement. Frankly, the incentives for

Principal Lightheart are to only focus on the subgroups that matter to the state’s measure

of academic performance, the API, which is greatly swayed by large subgroups.

Therefore, the question remains whether Smith teachers are truly creating dynamic

instruction and curriculum for a subgroup of students that only makes up 5-7% of their

student body or about 30 out of 600 students. To Principal Lightheart’s credit, she says

that the teachers make it a priority of having their African American and Hispanic

students as focal students during their planning. Yet, what would happen to Smith’s

achievement if African American students started to attend? How would their structures

shift and would it be feasible to accomplish dynamic instruction for each student if you

had 50% of Smith students become African American? Would the curriculums and

materials teachers use represent the students’ culture and would their instruction engage

them the way to does to the majority Hispanic and Asian students currently at Smith?

Also, dynamic instruction and curriculum takes a high level of teacher capacity.

These schools spend a lot of time concentrating of hiring the right teachers and

developing the teachers they do have on staff. However, some teachers did express

concern about the expectations for instruction and curriculum, but in general, felt like

they were supported in order to do this work. The question remains, does dynamic

instruction and curriculum burn out teachers and make it hard for schools to retain

teachers? I would argue these three schools rely on the foundation of their leadership to

keep teachers attracted to working at their schools over a sustained period of time. Keep

in mind, Smith and Xavier had over 50% of their teachers working at the school for 5-10


years, and the teachers all talked about the importance that school leadership plays in

why they stay at the school. However, if dynamic instruction and curriculum became a

district-wide expectation, could each of those schools retain enough of their teachers with

the high pace and large workload expected when personalizing learning?

As seen in Table 17, the theme of dynamic instruction and curriculum resides in

the Sebring elements of professional capacity and ambitious instruction. “Dynamic

instruction and curriculum” borrows from Sebring’s Ambitious Instruction in that

teachers instruct students using an engaging and challenging pedagogy. I put alignment

into a separate category because of the frequency of efforts towards alignment throughout

the three San Francisco schools and efforts at alignment take place at these schools in

other categories aside from instruction. “Dynamic instruction and curriculum” borrows a

little bit from Sebring’s Student-Centered Learning Climate because it is here that

teachers deliver high expectations to students. Yet, dynamic instruction and curriculum

affords space to combine Ambitious Instruction and a Student-Centered Learning Climate

by using anecdotal evidence from strong relationships to inform teachers’ design and

delivery of their instruction at these three schools.


theme of dynamic instruction and curriculum. This study points towards a human capital

policy that provides incentives for schools to cultivate the teacher capacity necessary to

participate in dynamic instruction as well as professional standards that require on-going

training in data analysis and reflective practice. Both of these human capital policies

would help grow teachers’ capacity to participate in the planning, data analysis, and

collection of anecdotal evidence necessary for dynamic instruction and curriculum. This


would be similar to the training Smith teachers received from Partners in Innovation or

the coaching Xavier teachers receive from their Instructional Reform Facilitator. Also,

the findings suggest there needs to be policies related to instruction and curriculum. For

example, these schools had policies that help ensure consist data reporting about each

student from multiple sources like the use of the OARS system at Smith and Xavier.

Schools need policies that support professional standards and on-going training in

practices of personalizing instruction, with special attention to culturally relevant content

and pedagogy as well as higher order thinking skills. All three schools promote practices

like looking at individual data to inform instruction as a means of accomplishing dynamic

instruction, but only Xavier and NEW’s leadership pay close attention to making sure

teachers presented culturally relevant content to their students.

Alignment of Practices, Personnel, and Resources Around a Shared Vision Themes related to alignment come up frequently in all three case studies. As seen

in Table 9, the codes related to the alignment of resources and teacher planning are

among the top ten most frequent codes in my analysis of each school. The codes related

to alignment comes up more frequently in the case studies of Smith and the NEW school,

and less so in the analysis of Xavier’s data.

The frequency of these data points suggests a theme titled, “alignment of

practices, personnel and resources around a shared vision.” This theme is defined as

school leader’s alignment of personnel efforts and the funding received by the school

around a shared vision. Five common elements surface within this definition that help

explicate this theme:

• Sustained leadership with a clearly articulated vision • Align resources with their school vision • Articulate a clear vision to new teachers


• Teams and committees align efforts • Vertical and horizontal alignment of instruction The research on practices of school’s efforts at alignment is somewhat scant and has

mixed findings. Research related to the building of civic capacity, or an organization’s

ability to act together to address a certain problem or goal, suggest these three schools

have a high level of civic capacity (Stone, 2001). Civic capacity may allow the schools to

more effectively address issues related to school improvement than schools with less of

this capacity. The research on school budgeting seems rather mixed with some studies

showing that budgeting autonomy might improve achievement if the school context

supports the practice (Odden, 2001; Hadderman, 1999). The Williams, et al. study of

effective elementary schools in California does find the alignment of district efforts and

evaluation of schools, and alignment of instruction through planning as key structures of

effective schools. While the research on effective schools seems to only begin to

recognize the importance of alignment, the theme of alignment is strongly displayed in

the structures across the three San Francisco schools.

Sustained leadership with a clearly articulated vision: All three San Francisco

schools had school leaders who had long tenures at the school, which allows the schools

to receive steady messaging about a vision and priorities for sustained period of time.

Principal Sutter led Xavier for 13 years. Principal Lightheart lead Smith for 8 years as

principal, and even more years as a resource teacher. Head Teacher Leslie Hammer

guided NEW’s teacher leadership for five years when the expected tenure of a Head

Teacher is three years and had taught at NEW since the early 1990’s.

In addition to having steady leadership, the school leaders also clearly articulate

the schools’ visions to their teachers, staff, parents, and students. Xavier’s focus on civil


rights, Smith’s focus on the whole child, and NEW’s focus on strong minds and hearts

reverberated throughout the comments of the school leaders, teachers, and staff. The

school leaders’ emphasis on the vision matched the comments and actions of teachers and

staff. For example, all of the Smith teachers referred to the focus on the whole child. At

Xavier, without being prompted to discuss the vision, teachers would bring up civil rights

as the focus of their school and redirect conversations that strayed from that vision

whether in front of a district official or their fellow colleagues. The vision statement at

NEW was only developed in the last two years, so teachers did not recite the exact

phrases of “strong hearts, strong minds, strong individual, strong community,” but they

all referred to NEW’s Virtues and the Powerful Ways of Thinking, the key tenets that

underlie the school vision. Teachers and staff could articulate the goals and objectives

laid out by the vision of the school and how their actions would help them achieve that

vision.

Align their resources with the school vision: School leaders align their resources

from the district and outside resources through grants and donations to make their work

towards their vision even more robust. San Francisco Unified School District instituted a

district-wide budgeting policy called “Weighted Student Formula” that distributes funds

to schools weighted by the number of students at each grade level, receiving Special

Education services, classified as English learners, and socio-economic status. School

leaders receive lump sums based on the weighted allocation, and can decide to spend that

money on staff and non-staff items. The central office administrators check schools’

budgets, but also rely on school leaders to get their budgets approved by their School Site


Councils. The Weighted Student Formula gives school leaders budgeting autonomy, and

allows them to allocate resources according to their school vision.

The three schools in this study all use the budgeting autonomy afforded by the

Weighted Student Formula to align resources with their school vision. For example, when

Smith classrooms had the majority of their struggling readers at fourth and fifth grade,

Smith’s principal reallocated the school’s funding for its para-professionals and focused

their para-professionals’ efforts towards the fourth and fifth grade classes. NEW allocates

less money to the salary of their school leader in order to afford a part time person that

focuses on instituting school reform measures and teaching Algebra. In one year,

Xavier’s principal saw so many budgets cuts that she had only 32 cents left in the

school’s budget for school supplies after allocating all of the funding towards its staff.

Xavier, NEW, and Smith school leaders also fulfilled their vision by raising

additional funding that support practices and structures aligned with their school vision.

The school leaders used those funds to hire personnel and buy supplies that support the

shared vision. For example, the annual donation from a benefactor received by Smith

funded many of the staff in the Healthy Start Room and the resources at Smith that help

the school address the social and emotional well-being of students. NEW teachers applied

for grant funding to hire their two parent liaisons. Xavier’s school community raises

money through its Parent Faculty Committee (PFC) to fund dinner and childcare during

the School Site Council and PFC meetings to attract parents to meetings that might not

attend without those resources. Alls of these additional funds are specifically targeted at

fulfilling their vision. For Smith, the teachers could not achieve their vision of the Whole

Child without the work of the Healthy Start Room. For NEW, the strength of the school


community would not materialize unless they had outreach through their parent liaisons

that reach parents traditionally disengaged from school. This is similar to Xavier whose

principal uses her extra funds to empower parents to be able to attend meetings, and get

involved in their child’s education.

Articulate a clear vision to new teachers: School leaders at Xavier, NEW, and

Smith pay special attention to the teacher hiring process. While NEW has some

autonomy in hiring through the district’s Small Schools Policy, union contracts dictate

hiring at Xavier and Smith, and therefore put some constraints on which teachers they

can hire. Even in the face of these constraints, each school made efforts to articulate the

school vision and expectations for teachers during the hiring process and especially once

they are hired. The three schools relied on their grade-level team planning and committee

work to reinforce new teachers’ understanding of the school vision and hold teachers

accountable for reinforcing that vision within their instruction. By clearly articulating the

vision, new teachers have “something to hang their hat on” or a very simple and straight

forward way of hearing and hopefully understanding what this school is all about. At

Smith, a focus on the whole child means new teachers can expect social and emotional

support for their students as well as support for students’ academic achievement. At

Xavier, a focus on civil rights means teachers’ work supports the rights of all students to

an education and fulfills that right through their daily instruction as well as the activism

modeled by Principal Sutter and the other teachers at Xavier.

Teams and committees align efforts: All three schools in San Francisco had teams

and committees that focused the efforts of teachers and staff on common goals and

objectives aimed at the school vision. For example, Smith’s leadership uses its Positive


Management Team to align efforts towards improving student behavior school-wide,

which helps them achieve the social and emotional support needed to fulfill their vision

of educating the whole child. Xavier’s Care Team and NEW’s CCOLS committee

coordinated efforts by staff to deliver social, emotional, and academic resources in

support of student learning. These efforts calm the distractions of students’ social and

emotional realities and help teachers deliver students their civil right of education. The

CCOLS committee aids NEW in achieving its vision of “strong hearts” and new students

display the NEW virtues.

Teams and committees meet on a weekly and monthly basis. School leaders

(including the Head Teacher at NEW, the principal and IRF at Xavier, the principal, vice

principal, and social worker at Smith, the IRF at Xavier) attentively manage these teams

and committees. The three schools shared certain meeting practices and structures like

sending out agendas ahead of the meeting, setting meeting norms, structuring meetings

with small group work, jigsaws, voting, and formal presentations, examination of data, as

well as distributing follow-up meeting minutes.

These teams and committees also keep staff accountable for pursuing the school

vision. The team and committee meetings encourage teachers and staff to review their

purpose and alignment with the school vision. In general, teacher and staff will often

remind each other of the vision, with Xavier teachers protesting a decision based on the

fact that they are a “civil rights academy” and NEW teachers reviewing their meeting

norms prior to every meeting that help steer teachers towards the school vision. Smith’s

grade-level team meetings have a specific agenda that outlines the intended outcomes of

the meeting (as seen in Appendix C).


Vertical and horizontal alignment of instruction: Xavier, NEW, and Smith

teachers do not share one approach to instruction, but they each had practices, structures,

and policies that helped align their dynamic instruction both horizontally across a grade

level and vertically across the span of all grades in the school. Smith’s principal uses a

school-wide English language arts curriculum, Houghton Mifflin, to align the curriculum

and instruction in the school’s ELD classrooms and their bilingual classrooms. This also

gives grade level teams access to the same materials so they can plan lessons around the

same content. School wide, Smith teachers also use the Everyday Math curriculum,

FOSS, and Harcourt’s social studies curriculum. For Xavier, the curriculum funded by

Reading First provides common materials and benchmark assessments that keep Xavier

teachers working on similar content. NEW teachers uses projects across grade levels,

and uses common rubrics within the portfolio assessment system, so grade-levels focus

on common standards. While these curricula are not necessarily always representative of

their vision, teachers create their own curricula as is the case with NEW, or adapt these

curricula to align the content with the school vision. This is especially true of Xavier,

whose teachers are always enriching the standardized curriculum to focus on civil rights

and social justice issues. For example, one teacher re-framed a focus on our systems of

government in social studies around the current election issues in California including

Prop 8, which had voters deciding whether gay marriage should be legal.

Lingering Questions: Two questions arise in this cross case analysis when

discussing alignment and resources, one related to funding and the other related to

personnel. First, I wonder whether Smith, Xavier, and NEW principal and teachers could

achieve the same results without the additional funding they receive. In the case of


Smith, the school receives funding from the benefactor, and the amount of funding

received continues to go up and up. Xavier’s principal receives additional funding from

the STAR program, and strategic resources such as their Instructional Reform Facilitator

and parent liaison, two personnel key to helping them align their work and reach out to

parents. Also, NEW’s teachers receive additional professional development days from the

district as part of the Small School Policy. These resources are crucial to the practices and

structures that support these schools’ efforts. In general, both Xavier and NEW are at

risk of losing these resources because of budget cuts during the 2010-2011 school year

where San Francisco has to cut 20% of its budget. All three schools are at risk of losing

funding through the Consent Decree ,which affords them flexible funding and personnel

like the Elementary Advisor. Will these school staff be able to fulfill their vision, align

their work, and achieve dynamic instruction and curriculum without these resources?

Also, I wonder whether democratic decision-making at both NEW and Xavier

slow the school improvement process. NEW takes a long time to make decisions,

especially related to school wide policies. A stall in a policy decision could potentially

perpetuate a problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. This lag in

decision-making is also experienced at Xavier, where teachers frequently voice their

opinions at meetings. At times, teachers would come into Principal Sutter’s office, and

Sutter would drop what she was doing to listen to the teacher. This consumed a lot of

Principal Sutter’s time and consumed a lot of time at meetings at Xavier. Often times,

these diverse and strong opinions among Xavier and NEW teachers would make it

challenging to align instruction and curriculum because the teachers each had different

opinions about how certain topics should be taught. At Xavier especially, teachers in the


past were known to “do their own thing” even when a district-mandated curriculum was

introduced. Smith’s leadership on the other hand seemed to have a much easier time with

alignment and decision-making considering the governance structure rested firmly in

Principal Lightheart’s purview. While democratic decision-making may develop a sense

of ownership and teacher buy-in to decisions, it is not clear whether the benefits outweigh

the cost of the additional time it takes to make decisions. The question stands then of

whether democratic decision-making helps or hinders a school in the school improvement

process.


theme of the alignment of practices, personnel, and resources around a shared vision.

This study points towards policies related to instruction and curriculum like providing

school schedules that allow for regular planning, partnering, and professional

development. All three schools had blocks of time devoted to teacher planning and

scheduled monthly events like Xavier’s families or the NEW school’s student assemblies

that help align the school community in their efforts. These schools need human capital

policies that allow criteria for hiring teachers related to the school vision. All three of the

schools leveraged the hiring of teachers to the best of their ability to make sure the

teachers joining the community aligned with the school vision. School leaders need

funding policies that provide autonomy for them to align budgets with student needs and

standards for aligning partner efforts with student achievement.

Table 18 shows the theme of alignment across the Sebring framework, which

appeared within almost every element of the Sebring framework aside from relational

trust. The theme of alignment of practices, personnel, and resources around a shared


vision borrows from a bit of all of Sebring’s themes, except for relational trust.

Alignment especially emphasizes Sebring’s theme of leadership as a catalyst because it

centers of a leader’s ability to clearly articulate a school-wide vision and developed a

shared understanding and acceptance of that vision. The theme also hinges on a school

leader’s ability to strategically manage resources so they align with the general vision of

the school. The school leader’s management of personnel, like the hiring of teachers, use

of para-professionals, and guidance for all school staff plays a role in developing the

alignment. This themes also borrows a little bit from Sebring’s theme of Ambitious

Instruction and Professional Capacity because it hinges so much on whether the principal

can build the capacity within the teachers to participate in dynamic instruction and align

teacher efforts related to the instructional goals.

Further exploration of this new framework: While these themes share some

distinct characteristics, each theme relates closely to one another other and sometimes

even shares certain characteristics. Therefore, you will not find these themes working in

isolation in an effective school, and each theme seems to feed off of the other themes and

keep the other theme in check. For example, if a teacher becomes too focused on

dynamic instruction and curriculum similar to the way Xavier functions, the alignment of

teacher efforts through the weekly grade level planning with the instructional coach and

the school principal brings that teacher back to examining data at the student, classroom,

and school levels. Or, if Smith’s teachers spend too much time focusing on the structures

necessary for alignment, they may find through their data that they need to individualize

their instruction even more for African American students. Therefore, Smith teachers and


staff needs to develop the relational trust necessary to reconnect with those students and

build up more anecdotal evidence by talking to parents and talking to students to figure

out what steps need to be taken to re-engage those students in learning.

When examining these larger themes, this cross cases analysis takes into account

the policy context distinct to San Francisco. These policies influence the practices and

structures at each school, therefore influencing the school inputs and outcomes. In fact,

each theme aligns with a district policy that affects the schools in the district for

substantial periods of time. San Francisco’s policies related to English Learners influence

the theme of dynamic instruction and curriculum by encouraging schools to look closely

at the achievement of their English learners. San Francisco’s school budgeting policies

influence the alignment of personnel, practices, and resources by giving school leaders

more autonomy to align resources with the school vision. San Francisco student

enrollment policies influence the relational trust built among the school community by

shaping who attends the school.


Implications for Future Research

These case studies and this cross case analysis present hypotheses about what

characteristics and policies make elementary schools in San Francisco effective at closing

the achievement gap. For example, the theme of dynamic instruction and curriculum

suggests human capital policies that might cultivate the teacher capacity necessary to

participate in dynamic instruction like standards for teachers related to their ability to

analyze data. Cuban (1983) criticizes studies of effective schools by arguing that they

point out the characteristics of effective schools, but do not describe how to

operationalize those characteristics. For the most part, I would agree with Cuban. I would

argue that the research on effective schools should be coupled with research on

operationlizing these characteristics of effective schools. These three case studies reveal a

set of hypotheses about the practices, structures, and policies that make these schools

effective. I want to compliment these findings by discussing future research that might

capture what steps other schools could take to help achieve the characteristics of effective

schools in this and other studies.

Measuring the impact of policies: I wonder if it was just a coincidence that some

of the most prominent policies in San Francisco show up in the data of these case studies

and align with the themes of the cross case analysis. Therefore one area of future research

should be an evaluation of the impact of San Francisco policies on the academic

productivity of its schools. Policies have intended and unintended consequences, and it

would be helpful to know through research which policies increased academic

productivity. Also, effective schools studies would benefit from a better understanding of

district policies that positively influence the effective school’s characteristics. This


implies that researchers will be able to measure the impact of the policies. It seems like

through statistical modeling and proper survey measures, this type of measurement could

be accomplished. The year after the collection of data for this study, San Francisco

district leaders attempted to measure the impact of the student assignment policy prior to

redesigning the policy and had three researchers examine the data to inform the policy

decision. Given the apparent influence of the Lau Plan, the student assignment policy,

and the weighted student formula, I want to see more research on the impact of the

various policies on effective schools in San Francisco. For example, future research could

address the question were their certain policies that especially helped or hindered these

effective schools in San Francisco?

Learning more about capacity building at school sites: At these three schools, the

school leaders played a roll in developing the professional capacity of their teachers on

site. The leaders had a set of competencies that helped them with this professional

development like Principal Lightheart’s ability to coach her teachers during the monthly

team planning and NEW’s use of the Head Teacher to mentor new teachers. I have a

hunch that these characteristics have to do with a principal’s organizational management

skills. Similarly, Dufour (2002) talks about developing learning leadership rather than

instructional leadership. Capturing and analyzing the on-site capacity building at these

schools would help further our understanding of “leaders as the foundation.” My

hypothesis is school leaders set the tone and climate for teacher learning through

practices like using a cycle of inquiry and structures like team planning, however this

needs to be tested with further research.


Examining the professional capacity needed for dynamic instruction: I outlined

the features of dynamic instruction, and also talked about the high expectations these

three schools had for teachers for producing quality instruction. Further research could

reconcile these two features by examining the necessary teacher competencies needed for

achieving dynamic instruction. These three schools presented teachers with the

expectations of achieving quality instruction, but struggled with teachers burning out with

such large workloads. Further research could explore the necessary capacities and

knowhow teachers need to achieve dynamic instruction, like an understanding of data

analysis that informs instruction or culturally relevant pedagogy. For example, why do

some teachers crumble under the workload of dynamic instruction? What factors help

teachers sustain their careers as teachers while continuing to perform dynamic

instruction?

The impact of culturally relevant pedagogy and higher order thinking skills: The

performance of students in the United States has more recently been compared to the

performance of students from other countries. Darling-Hammond (2010) points out that

higher achieving nations have different assessment systems that promote 21st century

skills and other elements of schooling like higher levels of teacher professionalism.

Considering the prevalence of culturally relevant pedagogy and higher order thinking

skills in these three schools, I think further research is needed to explore the impact these

strategies and theories have on a school’s academic productivity. The first step might be

developing measurements for these pedagogical elements possibly through survey

measures or by testing teaching interventions.


More research on policies and behaviors that promote trust in schools: Trust

seems to be the black box of school improvement because the recipe for trust seems to

vary across school contexts. Bryk and Schneider’s (2002) research suggests that trust

does matter, so what should school leaders do to build trust? How do school leaders

assess the trust they have? What policies at the school and district level and what

behaviors build trust or tear trust apart? Future research about trust could help the three

effective schools understand what they do that promotes trust, and help all schools gain

the trust they need to support the school improvement process.


Tables

Table 1: Characteristics of Effective Schools Studies with Sebring Framework

Leadership Ambitious Instruction

Professional Capacity

Student Centered Learning Climate

Parent and Community

Ties

Edmonds (1979)

− Principals that are instructional leaders

− A broadly understood focus on instruction

− Teachers with high expectations

− Teachers that study data on a regular basis and change their instruction based on that data

− A safe orderly climate conducive to teaching and learning

Calkins, et al. (2007)

− Mission driven decision over resources

− Secure, leverage resources

− Personalized instruction

− Shared responsibility

− Collaboration

− Job embedded learning

− Address poverty

− Student-teacher relations

− Secure, inspired

− Flexible, inventive to unrest

Williams, et al. (2005)

− District alignment

− Evaluation on alignment, achievement

− Experienced principals

− Planning, alignment focused on instruction

− Data drives all planning

− Experienced, certificated teachers

− Planning time funded

− High expectations

− Data on subgroups

− Struggling student resources

Vasudeva, et al. (2009)

− Principal recruitment, mentoring

− Mission-driven

− Coherent standards-based


− Analysis of student work, data


− Academic culture

− Commit to parent outreach


Table 2: Timeline, Data, and Methods of Studies related to Effective Schools Study Author Year Sample Method used for analysis

Coleman 1966 National data, surveys, test scores

Case study: correlation, regression analysis

Edmonds 1979 20 Detroit ES, survey, test scores

Outlier study: matched pair and regression analysis

Rutter, et al. 1979 12 HS in London, over 6 years, surveys, test scores

Outlier study: rank-order correlation

Marzano 2000 Examined about 150 citations

Synthesis study: Meta-analytic review

Cahill, et al. 2007 Examined about 300 citations

Synthesis study: narrative review

Williams, et al. 2005 257 ES in CA w/ high # of low income students, surveys, test scores

Case Study: regression analysis

Vasudeva, et al. 2009 45 small schools compared to 100 older schools

Case Study: ethnographic study and value-added analysis


Table 3: Timeline in San Francisco of Superintendent’s Tenure and Policies Superintendent Timeline Reforms Nature Description

Dr. Steven P. Morena 1974 Lau Plan Legal Schools provide EL access to equal opportunities

1975-1985 Strategic Plan Reconstitution of 6 schools, Phase One of the Consent Decree initial plan

Dr. Robert F. Alioto

1983 Consent Decree

Legal “Diversity Index” assigns students to schools including race, school desegregate

Carlos V. Cornejo 1985-1986 Ramon C. Cortines 1986-1992

1992-1999 Comprehensive School Improvement Plan

Strategic Plan Reconstitution of more schools, decentralization

Waldemar Bill Rojas

1999 Consent Decree

Legal Eliminate race from “Index,” re-segregation

Dr. Arlene Ackerman 2000-2006 Excellence for All

Strategic Plan − STAR Schools − Weighted

Student Funding

− DREAM Schools

− School Closures

Carlos Garcia 2008-present

Beyond the Talk

Strategic Plan Three goals: − Equity/Access − 21st Century

Learning − Accountability


Table 4: Alignment between SFUSD Policies and Sebring Framework Lau Plan Consent Decree Excellence for

All Beyond the

Talk Leadership Monitoring,

evaluation, and updating

Accountability for results; training in data analysis

Goal 1: Access and equity

Ambitious Instruction

Instruction of ELs; Access to effective programs

Increase in academic excellence

Achievement for all students; STAR

Goal 2: Achievement

Student Center Learning Culture

Identification and placement of ELs

No racial group beyond 40-45% enrollment of a school; increase access

Weighted Student Formula – equitable distribution of resources

Goal 1: Access and equity

Parent & Community Ties

Parent Outreach Diversity index Goal 3: Accountability


CLAD certification for all teachers

Focus on PD around instruction, data

Goal 2: Achievement

Structural Factors: Trust, Local Context

Goal 3: Accountability


Table 5: Profile of Three Effective Schools Closing the Achievement Gap Productivity

Subject 5 Yr 2008 GR # of ST

%AA (#)

%His (#)

%FRL (#)

% EL (#)

% RFEP

(#) ELA 0.09* -0.17* Smith Math 0.09* 0.13*

K-5 633 5% (32)

27% (171)

71% (449)

61% (400)

7% (45)

ELA 0.16* 0.04* Xavier Math 0.04* -0.01 K-8 217 34% (74)

24% (52)

54% (117)

11% (24)

0% (0)

ELA 0.13* -0.07* NEW Math 0.11* 0.07*

K-5 275 12% (33)

40% (110)

60% (165)

39% (100)

0% (6)

*p< 0.05

Productivity Key Highly Productive Average Less Productive Table 6: Three Effective Schools in San Francisco API School-wide and by Subgroup

Sch 2003

Sch 2008 + His

2003 His

2008 + FRL 2003

FRL 2008 + EL

2006 EL

2008 +

Smith 769 853 84 609 768 159 765 842 77 806 857 51

Xavier 665 772 107 NA NA 610 748 138 793 772 -21

NEW 673 802 129 646 749 103 637 782 145 NA NA NA


Table 7: Alignment of Data, Research Questions, and Conceptual Framework Observations Interviews Focus Groups Document Question 1 Practices Policy, Structure Policy,

Structure Practice, Policy

• Leadership • Staff meetings • Principal • Vice principal

• Teacher leaders

• School mission, handbook

• Ambitious Instruction

• Classroom observations • Assessments,

exhibitions

• 5-7 teachers whose classes are observed

• Lesson plans, materials

• Student Centered Learning Climate

• Classroom observations (8-10) • Personalization

structures

• Secretary, nurse, counselor, volunteers

• Students (middle school only)

• SST materials

• Parent and Community Ties

• PTA meeting and other school events

• Parent liaisons • External support

providers

• Parent groups (SSC, ELAC)

• Website • New student

materials • Fliers,

handouts • Professional

Capacity • Professional

development • Teacher

collaboration

• Interview coaches • New teacher materials

• Trust/Context • School events • Surrounding

community

• Parents, teachers, principal

• Bulletin boards

Question 2: Common Themes Common Themes

Common Themes

Common Themes

Table 8: SFUSD’s Goals and Objectives with Sebring framework

SFUSD Balanced Scorecard Objectives Chicago Essential Supports Goal 1 “Access and Equity – Make social justice a reality” − 1.1 Diminish the predictive power of demographics − 1. 2 Center professional learning on equity − 1.3 Create an environment for students to flourish − 1.4 Provide the infrastructure for successful learning

Essential Support 1: “Leadership Acting as a Catalyst for Change” Essential Support 4: ”Student Centered Learning Climate”

Goal 2 “Student Achievement – Engage high achieving and joyful learners” − 2.1 Ensure authentic learning for every child − 2.2 Prepare the citizens for tomorrow − 2.3 Create learning beyond the classroom

Essential Support 3: “Professional Capacity” Essential Support 5: “Ambitious Instruction”

Goal 3 “Accountability – Keeping our promises to students and families” − Provide direction and strategic leadership − Create the culture of service and support

Essential Support 2: “Parent and Community Ties” Structural Factors: “Relational Trust” and “Local School Community Context”


Table 9: Top 10 Most Frequent Codes during Data Analysis for Each Effective School Code Frequency Smith prom_support 108 prom_connectcomm 62 sj_instruct 62 joy_instructprog 61 sj_posclimate 57 sj_instructell 54 sj_resources 48 lead_gen 46 prom_strategicplan 43 joy_tchplan 39

Xavier prom_support 111 joy_instructprog 81 lead_gen 62 sj_instruct 61 sj_gen 59 sj_posclimate 57 prom_connectcomm 54 sj_instructaa 47 sj_stutchrelation 39 sj_resources 38

NEW joy_instructprog 166 sj_instruct 124 prom_connectcomm 119 sj_posclimate 101 lead_gen 72 sj_stutchrelation 71 joy_tchplan 66 sj_resources 40 joy_profdevgoal 34 sj_hiring 32


Table 10: Components of Smith’s After School Programs supported by Organizations Name of Organization Parts of the After School

Program Estimated Dollar Value

ExCEL / SFUSD Professional Development, Personnel for academic support

$170,000

San Francisco Food Bank Food Bank Community Service Project

$10,000

Sports4Kids Tutoring and Physical Activity

$10,000

Bay Area SCORES Soccer and Poetry $20,000 Children’s Power Play! Nutrition, Exercise NA Young Audiences Theatre & Dance $8800 Performing Arts Workshop Kung Fu $7800 Streetside Stories Literacy and Computer

Skills $4,000

Tree Frog Treks Science Enrichment $1,200 Kidstock Theatre Arts $10,000 Nutrition Education Project

Cooking equipment, resource material & some lesson collaborations

NA


Table 11: NEW Committees Committee Description Members Developmental Level Team (DLT)

Grade level teams that discuss individual students and issues that arise in classes

Representatives from different grade levels: K-1, 2-3, 4-5, Middle School

Lead Team Team members report back from DLT about policy issues, makes decisions or brings issues to staff meetings

Representatives from each DLT, Head teacher

Professional Development (PD) Team

Team members report back from DLT related to PD, the vision of the school, and how to allocate resources

Representatives from each DLT, Head Teacher

Staff Meetings Divided into three parts: business, critical friends, and PD-focused meetings

All SLC teachers and some staff

Care Team Manages behavior management issues related to the yard

All staff working on the yard

Caring Coordination of Learning Support (CCOLS) Team

Manages social, emotional, and academic issues of individual students, SST meetings

Resource teachers, school counselor, Elementary Advisor, Head Teacher, After School Coordinator

Middle School Task Force

Provides students input into NEW events and policies

Middle school student representatives from each advisory


Table 12: NEW Virtues Virtue Definition Harmony

− Works to get along with other kids − Uses Conflict Resolution to solve problems

Truth

− Takes responsibility for actions − Shows honesty

Justice − Is fair to others Propriety

− Does the right thing at the right time − Puts things in their places − Works before plays − Stands up for what is right

Balance − Makes choices to stay calm Respect

− Respects differences in people − Responds appropriately to all adults

Community − Helps others − Actively participates in the classroom and makes the community

better − Takes care of our school

Perseverance

− Keeps trying when something is hard − Shows special improvement


Table 13: NEW Powerful Ways of Thinking Way of Thinking

Definition

Focus − Concentrate − Know your goals and work towards them

Question − Ask about the way thing are − Wonder why thing happen − Investigate your questions

Plan − Think about how you are going to do something Communicate − Share your ideas so that people can understand them

− Explain ideas in different ways Use Evidence − Find and use reasons to support and explain what you say and think Create − Make something

− See things he way they are and imagine how they might be different

Synthesize − Make connections between ideas and things that happen − Put ideas together

Empathize − See feel and think about things the way someone else would Reflect − Learn from what you do and what happens

− Know yourself Table 14: NEW Discretionary Funding Sources and Grants, 2008-2009 Grant Amount What it funds Zellerbach Foundation

$65,000 Parent Liaisons

State/District - Weighted Student Formula

$200,000 Lead Teacher, and half time algebra/Systems Coordinator

(Granting agency?)

$200,000 Teacher meetings twice a week, two retreats, 5 paid working days for teacher in summer, outreach coordinator

(Granting agency?

$40,000 Project supplies and planning, home cooked lunch supplies camping

English Learner Acquisition Program

NA Tutoring

Project OLE NA Garden, garden teacher and playground Parent Action Committee

NA School wide events


Table 15: “Leadership as a Foundation” at Three SF Schools across Sebring Framework

Context Leaders as Catalyst

Parent Ties


Student Centered

Ambitious Instruction Trust

Xavier

• Budgeting autonomy

• Sustained • Shared

vision • Resources

support vision

• Morning circle

• SSC and PFC

• Hiring criteria related to civil rights

• Leader in planning

• Home visits • Care Team • One-on-one

work with students

• Provide culturally relevant materials (books, etc.)

• Sets tone for trust

NEW



vision • Grants

support vision

• SSC and PTA

• Hiring criteria

• Committees and teams

• CCOLS • Advisory

• Also teachers a class


Smith



vision • Leader in

planning • Grants,

benefactor support vision

• SSC, ELAC, PTA

• Hiring criteria


• Attending training with teachers

• Leader models relations with students

• Coordin. Services Team

• Utilizes common curriculums across the school

• Encourage teachers to supplement curriculum


Table 16: Relational Trust at Three SF Schools across the Sebring Framework

Context Leaders as Catalyst Parent Ties Professional

Capacity Student

Centered Ambitious Instruction Trust

Xavier

• Benefits w/ open-enroll

• Political support

• Principal, secretary, parent liaison manage ties

• Representative Hiring

• Balance of trust with all people

NEW • Benefits w/

open-enroll • 50%+ local

students

• Small schools policy

• Manage ties w/ school leader, parent liaison


Smith

• Benefits w/ open-enroll

• 50%+ local students

• Benefactor • Healthy Start staff, principal, Parent Liaisons



Table 17: Dynamic Instruction, Curriculum at Three SF Schools across Sebring Framework

Context Leaders as Catalyst

Parent Ties


Student Centered


Xavier

• Attention to EL w/ inclusion

• Parent- teacher relations

• Morning circle

• Use of data in planning to guide pedagogy & PD

• Student-teacher relations

• Inclusion • Family

atmosphere

• Personalized instruction

• Multiple Pts. Of Access

• Culturally relevant

NEW

• Attention to EL w/ inclusion

• Parents- teacher relations

• Morning greeting



• Scaffold • Teacher

facilitator

• Project-based learning

• Teacher-created curriculum

Smith

• Attention to EL w/ bilingual programs

• Parents- teacher relations

• Morning In-take



• Adjust instruction based on data (i.e., English Learners)

• Supplements to curriculum

Table 18: Alignment around Shared Vision at Three SF Schools across Sebring Framework Context Leaders as

Catalyst Parent Ties


Student Centered


Xavier

• Weighted Student Formula

• Sustained leadership

• Shared vision

• STAR puts focus on instruction

• Resources support vision

• Care Team

• Expectations for hiring related to civil rights

• Care Team

• Elem. Advisor

• Reading First: Universal Access

• Connection to after school

NEW



• Shared vision

• Focus on instruction

• Grants support vision

• CCOLS

• Expectations for hiring

• Cycle of inquiry

• CCOLS • Elem.

Advisor • Relation.

Account.

• Common assessment standards with portfolios and presentations

Smith



• Shared vision


• Grants, benefactor support vision

• Coordin. Services Team

• Expectations for hiring

• Cycle of inquiry

• Positive manage. Team

• Tribes • Coordin.

Services Team

• College Bound

• Elem. Advisor

• School-wide curriculum

• Grade-level team planning

• Connection to after school

• Connection to home


Figures

Figure 1: Sebring’s Framework for Effective Schools

(Sebring, 2006, p. 10)

Figure 2: The Equation Used to Measure Academic Productivity Student achievement in subject = Prior year's achievement in same subject + Prior year's achievement in same subject (cubed) + student demographic characteristics (ethnicity, gender, EL, poverty) + grade of test + student retained + school fixed effect

€

Test^

yij = B0 + B1Test(y−1)ij + B2Test(y−1)ij3 + (Demyij )B3 + B4TestGradeyij + B5Retainedyij + FEyj


Figure 3: Smith Student Ethnicities, 2001-2008

Figure 4: Smith Student Demographics, 2001-2008


Figure 5: API score growth for Smith from 2003-2008

Figure 6: Smith’s Governance Structure in 2008-2009


Figure 7: Smith’s Structures Enabling Parent and Community Ties

Figure 8: Smith’s Structures Enabling Professional Capacity


Figure 9: The Steps in Smith’s Cycle of Inquiry

Figure 10: Map of Smith Library, Organized for a day of Professional Development

Door Door

AF, WF, AF, WF, WF, AF

HF, WF, WF, WF, WF, WF, AF, WM, AF

AAF, AF, HF, AF, WF, WM, WM, AF

HF, AF, AF, AAF, WF, WM

WM, AF, WF, WF, WF, AAF, AF

WF, AF, AF, WF, HM, WF

Projector, Chart paper ST

AG

E

Boo

ks, f

ood

Books, computers, windows

Librarian’s desk, books


Figure 11: Smith’s Structures Building a Student-Centered Learning Climate

Figure 12: Map of a Smith Classroom

Computers, Cubbies

Teac

her’

s D

esk

Desks, 4 students

Desks, 6 students

Desks, 4 students

Desks, 5 students

Book boxes, student work, hand written posters, tables, carts with supplies

Cha

lk B

oard

, pho

nics

cha

rt

Boo

kshe

lves

, tea

cher

m

ater

ials

Win

dow

s

Door

Door

Rug

Desks, 4 students

Desks, 4 students


Figure 13: Smith Structures Facilitating Ambitious Instruction

Figure 14: Xavier Student Ethnicities, 2001-2008


Figure 15: Xavier Student Demographics, 2001-2008

Figure 16: Xavier API Growth Score 2002-2008


Figure 17: Xavier’s Governance Structure in 2008-2009

NOTE: The dark rectangles represent full-time positions.


Figure 18: Xavier’s Structures Enabling Parent-Community Ties

Figure 19: Xavier’s Structures Enabling Professional Capacity


Figure 20: Xavier’s Structures Building a Student-Centered Learning Climate

Figure 21: Xavier’s Structures Facilitating Ambitious Instruction


Figure 22: Map of Xavier Third Grade Classroom

Figure 23: NEW Student Ethnicities, 2001-2008

Door C

ubbi

es

Cub

bies

Rug

Calendar, Maps, books, writing

TV, c

ompu

ters

, boo

ks, w

indo

ws

Pillows, Word Work

Kidney table, leveled reading group

Teacher desk 6 students

6 students

6 students, fluency

6 students

Boa

rd, m

arke

rs

Clo

set


Figure 24: NEW Student Demographics, 2001-2008

Figure 25: API score growth for NEW from 2002-2008


Figure 26: NEW’s Governance Structure in 2008-2009

*Positions in shaded boxes are considered full time positions Figure 27: NEW’s Structures Enabling Parent-Community Ties


Figure 28: One of Two pages from the NEW School Persuasive Writing Rubric


Figure 29: NEW Structures Building Professional Capacity


Figure 30: NEW Structures Building a Student Centered Learning Climate

Figure 31: Map of an NEW Fourth and Fifth Grade Classroom

White Board

Rug Door Door Storage

AAF, AAF, AAM, HF

Teac

her d

esks

, sto

rage

, stu

dent

cub

bies

Boo

k B

oxes

HM, AF, HF

AAF, AAF, AF, AF

AF, AM, AF, WM

HF, WF, HM, WM

HF, AF, AAM Couch Rug

Cou

ch

Textbooks, book boxes, computer, printer


Figure 32: NEW Structures Facilitating Ambitious Instruction

Figure 33: Four Shared Themes in the Three Cases with Leadership as the Foundation


Appendix

Appendix A: General Interview Protocol

I. School Description (3 pages) a. Background

i. What is your position at this school? ii. How did you come to work at this job? How long have you worked here?

b. Development i. Tell me about the history of this school ii. What changes have you seen at this school while working here? iii. In your opinion, what caused those changes? iv. In your opinion, what is the reason for this school’s success?

c. Community Context i. Describe were the school is located. What is the neighborhood like? ii. Describe the community that the school serves and the students that the

school serves. iii. What are the strengths that families and the community bring to your

school? How does the school build on those assets? iv. What are the challenges that families and the community bring to your

school? How does the school address those challenges? II. Making Social Justice a Reality

a. School Vision i. What is this school’s vision?

b. Governance i. How do the leaders at this school describe the school’s vision? ii. What is the hiring process at this school? iii. How are the sources of funding managed at this school?

c. Student policies towards African American, Latino and ELs i. How does the school create a positive learning climate? ii. How is this school organized to cultivate student/teacher relationships? iii. How does this school ensure they are meeting the instructional needs of

African American, Latino, and English learning students?

III. Engaging High Achieving and Joyful Learners a. Curriculum, instruction, and assessment

i. What is the instructional vision/program at this school? ii. What curriculums does it use and how are they chosen/created? iii. How do you assess student learning? iv. How do students at this school connect their learning to the outside

community? v. How do teachers make learning meaningful for their students?

b. Professional development goals i. What are the professional development goals for this school? ii. How are the professional development needs assessed?


c. Time allocated for collaboration and planning i. What opportunities do teachers have to work together to share what they

know about students, plan instruction together, and learn from each other?

IV. Keeping Our Promises to Students and Families (4 pages) a. School’s relationship with the community and families

i. How is this school connected to its surrounding community? ii. What ways does this school show they support parents? Families? Other

stakeholders? b. Support for students and their families

i. What types of services (supports and resources) does the school offer or refer students and their families for?

ii. How does the school provide these services?


Appendix B: Codes uses during analysis of effective school data and code definition # Code Definition 1 descr_demo School Demographics (ethnicity, SES, EL, SPED) in a

chart 2 descr_comm Community Description 3 descr_history School History 4 descr_api Student Academic performance 5 joy_instructprog What is the instructional vision/program at this

school? 6 joy_curricuse What curriculums does it use? 7 joy_curricchoice How are the curriculums chosen/created? 8 joy_assess How do you assess student learning? 9 joy_connectcomm How do students at this school connect their learning

to the outside community? 10 joy_instructprog Discussions of the instructional program 11 joy_meaning How do teachers make learning meaningful for their

students? 12 joy_profdevgoal What are the professional development goals for this

school? 13 joy_profdevassess How are the professional development needs

assessed? 14 joy_tchplan What opportunities do teachers have to work together

to share what they know about students, plan instruction together, and learn from each other?

15 lead_gen codes about leadership in general 16 lead_sj codes relating to leadership and social justice, equity,

and access 17 lead_joy codes relating to leadership and joyful learners,

academics 18 lead_prom keeping our promises and accountability to families 19 prom_connectcomm How is this school connected to its surrounding

community? 20 prom_support What ways does this school show they support

parents? Families? Other stakeholders? What ways does this school show they support families? What ways does this school show they support stakeholders? What types of services (supports and resources) does the school offer or refer families for? How does the school provide these services? What types of services (supports and resources) does the school offer or refer students for? How does the school provide these services?

21 prom_trust general codes around families trusting the school 22 prom_safe general codes around families feeling safe at the

school 23 prom_strategicplan Discussion of supporting families in the context of the


strategic plan 24 sj_gen General discussion of social justice, access, and equity 25 26 sj_race General discussion about social justice and race 27 sj_vision What is this school’s vision? 28 sj_vision_lead How do the leaders at this school describe the school’s

vision? 29 sj_hiring What is the hiring process at this school? 30 sj_funding How are the sources of funding managed at this

school? 31 sj_resources Data related to discussions of resources 32 sj_posclimate How does the school create a positive learning

climate? 33 sj_stutchrelation How is this school organized to cultivate

student/teacher relationships? 34 sj_instructaa How does this school ensure they are meeting the

instructional needs of African American students? 35 sj_instructlatino How does this school ensure they are meeting the

instructional needs of Latino students? 36 sj_instructell How does this school ensure they are meeting the

instructional needs of English learning students? 37 sj_instruct General discussion about social justice and instruction 38 ving Vignette (related to equity, instruction or school

culture)


Appendix C: Smith’s Grade Level Meeting Log


Appendix D: Smith’s Reporting Form for Data Used during the Classroom SST

÷


Appendix E: Curriculum Used at Most Elementary Schools in San Francisco Houghton Mifflin (HM): A curriculum in English Language Arts for kindergarten through sixth grade students. The Houghton Mifflin curriculum has a reputation for leaning towards a balanced curriculum with both skills-based and knowledge-based instruction. However, it could also be considered a scripted curriculum with teacher reading from the teacher’s manual and having students just fill out worksheet. HM creates curriculums in other subjects including math. With few exceptions, schools in San Francisco utilize the English language arts Houghton Mifflin curriculum throughout the elementary level with some schools utilizing it more as a scripted curriculum and other teachers loosely following the pacing guide, referring to it more as a resource and reference. Full Option Science System (FOSS): FOSS is a science curriculum for grade Kindergarten through eighth grade created by the promoting learning where students have hands-on activity, with each curriculum coming from extensive kits and materials. FOSS also is inquiry-based with each unit focused around student question and includes formative and summative assessments in each unit so teachers track students’ progress. Everyday Math (EM): Everyday Math is a math curriculum developed by the University of Chicago for grade Kindergarten through sixth grade. EM centers its curriculum on real-life problem solving, a balanced between whole-class and self-directed learning, and emphasis on communication with strong connections to home and technology. EM moves away from how schools have historically taught mathematics where teachers impart skills and knowledge to students rather than letting students build mathematical knowledge from their own experiences and connections. Rigby Curriculum: Rigby is a Kindergarten through 5th grade curriculum that provides teachers with materials for assessing and instructing students in language used for academics. San Francisco purchased this curriculum district wide to be used by their elementary teachers on a daily basis with their English learners.


Appendix F: Curriculum, Instructional Strategies at Three Effective SF Schools Culturally relevant content or pedagogy: Ladson-Billings (1995) outlines a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy, which describes the meaning of culturally-relevant pedagogy. The criteria include helping students to be academically successful, culturally competent, and socio-politically critical. However, more broadly, this set of terms means the ways teachers systematically include student culture in the classroom as official knowledge. Culturally relevant content is not just the representation of certain subgroup during token holidays, but an integrated approach to teaching students with certain standards for cultural understanding similar to what Banks (1993) describes as transformative academic knowledge and what Sleeter (1996) refers to as centering the curriculum by teaching several narratives. Authentic tasks: Students participate in classroom activities that have deeper meaning than just choosing or filling in the correct answer to a question. According to Darling-Hammond, et al. (1995), authentic tasks “focus students energies on challenging, performance-oriented tasks that require analysis, integration of knowledge, and intervention – as well as highly developed written and oral expression” (p. 2). They are considered authentic because the nature of the task is not very different what an adult might do in the work place or out-of-school. Real-world content, applications, and connections: The content of the curriculum and instruction is connected to what Darling-Hammond calls, “real life applications, which help sustain student interest and involvement in difficult tasks.” (p. 255). For example, a Smith teacher had student who needed to do a writing assignment write a letter to Barack Obama advising him on what he should do as president instead of following the traditional writing prompt from the standardized Houghton Mifflin curriculum. 21st Century Skills: This is a set of skills acknowledged both internationally and nationally by both the business and education communities that students will need to know to be success in the workplace in the 21st century. There are various lists of these skills, but two influential lists are the list put out by the partnership for 21st century skills: life and career skills (flexibility and adaptability, initiative and self direction, social and cross cultural skills, productivity and accountability, and leadership and responsibility), learning and innovation skills (creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, communication and collaboration), and information, media, and technology skills (information literacy, media literacy, ICT literacy). Higher Order Thinking Skills: These are the skills of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation that sit at the upper end of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956). These skills are often highlight in project-based, more authentic tasks, and are also highlighted by the push for 21st Century Skills. Standardized tests are often criticized for not asking students to use higher order thinking skills, and instead just ask students to recall and recite information. Project-Based Learning: Often referred to as PBL, project based learning is a form of learning by doing (Barron, et al., 1998) where students participate in activities where they


are asked to apply learned knowledge and skill to a broader task or set of tasks like building a roller coaster or holding a mock political campaign. Most of the time, the projects ask students to learn about one topic in great depth. Personalized instruction: Teachers use data and evidence from relationships with parents and students to inform instruction and consequently differentiate learning experiences for students based on their prior skill, knowledge, experiences, and background. This type of instruction banks on the teachers and staff at the school knowing their students well, and also relies on the professional capacity of teachers to adjust instruction to meet students individual or “personal” needs. Multiple points of access: This terms stems from Gardner’s (1993) theory of multiple intelligences. Gardner argues that people have eight different intelligences, like the interpersonal intelligence or the kinetic intelligence, and people are stronger in some intelligence and weaker in others. To have multiple points of access to a curriculum means the presentation of the content takes place through tasks representing different intelligences. Therefore, students who are stronger in one of the intelligences over another can still have access to the skill and knowledge presented with that content, only through different points. For example, the example of the NEW school student that did not like writing a persuasive essay during a project, but could access the topic of the project once the fundraising started and he could to be a spokesperson on the street raising money. Learning “centers” or “Universal Access”: All three schools used learning centers with Xavier highlighting this practice with their use of Universal Access. With centers, a teacher puts students into small groups, and students rotate through a set of four of five activities. Sometimes students will rotate with their small groups to each center during one class period and other times they will complete one center each day of the week. The teacher designs some of the center tasks so that students can accomplish them independently. At more challenging tasks, the teacher or a teacher’s aide leads a small group students through the task. Scaffolding: Scaffolding is a set of instructional strategies that provides a tiered set of support for students while learning a new activity. It stems from Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of the Zone of Proximal Development that attempts to describe the continuum of support needed by a student from an adult to learn a new concept. Scaffolding can take many different forms, with teachers scaffolding instruction by using small groups, visual aids, or strategically repeating activities. Teachers as facilitators: For many years, teachers have been viewed as what Freire (1995) would describe as “banking” knowledge into an empty vessel of students’ minds. Teachers stand at the front of the classroom and present new skills and knowledge to students, and teacher sit as the central agents in classrooms. This fit the way schools were run in the 20th century, where schools were designed to develop graduates with the skills necessary to work in factories and support a manufacturing economy. As we move into the 21st century and more and more teachers aim to develop students with 21st


century skills, many schools have adopted the approach that teachers are facilitators of student learning rather than implanting learning into the brains of students. Teacher will plan curriculum and instruction based on projects where students need to be agents of their own learning, and teachers will need to facilitate those activities rather than lead the activities. Often times, teachers as facilitators position their desks in the back of the classroom, and are often seen working in small groups rather than standing at the front of the classroom. Modeling: Modeling is pedagogical strategy used to scaffold instruction. Teachers will act out how to do a new skill or demonstrate steps in a process for students prior to student trying the new skill or process independently. Portfolios: Portfolios are a compilation of student work primarily used for assessment purposes. Teachers present a set of assessment criteria within key subjects and student present work samples that demonstrate mastery of those criteria. Most schools have a unique system for reviewing portfolio work, and the expectation that students present or even defend their work to the broader school community. A set of teachers examine the portfolio work to see it meet the criteria.


References

Allen, J. and Landaker, C. (2005) Reading History: A Practical Guide to Improving Literacy. Oxford University Press.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, &

National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Authors.

Banks, J. (1993). The Canon Debate, Knowledge Construction, and Multicultural Education. Educational Researcher, 22(5), pp. 4-14. Barron, B., Schwartz, D.L., Vye, N.J., Moore, A., Petrosino, T., Zech, L., & Bransford,

J.D. (1998). “Doing with Understanding: Lessons from Research on Problem- and Project-based Learning.” The Journal of Learning Sciences. V. 7, No. 3/4, Learning through problem solving. P. 271-311.

Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M. and Templeton, S., Johnston, F. (1999) Words their Way:

Word Sorts for Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling Instruction, 2nd Edition. Prentice Hall.

Becker, H. (1996). The Epistemology of Qualitative Research. In R, Jessor, A.

Colby, & R. Shweder (Eds.) Ethnography and Human Development. Chicago: University of Chicago. pp. 53-71.

Biegel, S. (2010) “San Francisco Unified School District Desegregation.” Retrieved on March 7th, 2010 from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/edlaw/sfrepts.htm

Bowles, S. and Levin, H.M. (Winter 1968) “The determinants of scholastic achievement

– an appraisal of some recent evidence.” The Journal of human resources. V. 3, No. 1, p. 3-24.

Bloom, B. S., ed. (1956). “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, by a committee of college and university Examiners: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain.” Longman, New York: Longman.

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Wyckoff, J. (May 2009). “The

Influence of School Administrators on Teacher Retention Decisions.” Teacher Policy Research. Retrieved on March 21st, 2010 from http://www.teacherpolicyresearch.org/TeacherRetention/tabid/99/Default.aspx

Brookover, W. B., & Schneider, J. M. (1975). Academic environments and elementary

school achievement. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 9(1), p. 82–91.

Brookover, W. B., & Lezotte, L. W. (1979). Changes in school characteristics coincident


with changes in student achievement. East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 181 005)

Byrk, A. S., and Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. New York: Sage. Bryk, A. S. and Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in Schools: A core resource for improvement.

New York: The Russell Sage Foundation. Cain, G.G. and Watts, H.W. (April 1970). “Problems in making policy inferences from the Coleman Report.” American Sociological Review. V. 35, No. 2, pp. 228-242. Calkins, A. Guehther, W., Belfiore, G., Lash, D. (2007).The Turnaround Challenge: Why

America’s best opportunity to dramatically improve student achievement lies in our worst performing schools. Mass Insight Education & Research Institute. Prepared through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Carter, P. (2005) Keepin’ It Real: School Success Beyond Black and White. New York:

Oxford University Press. Childress, S. and R. Peterkin. (2007). “Pursuing Educational Equity at San Francisco

Unified School District.” In Childress, S., R.F. Elmore, A.S. Grossman, S.M. Johnson. Managing School Districts for High Performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Clark, Reginald M. (1983.) Family life and school achievement: Why poor black children

succeed or fail. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfield,

F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Cotton, K. (1995). Effective schooling practices: A research synthesis. 1995 update.

School Improvement Research Series. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Cuban, L. (June 1983) “Effective schools: A friendly, but cautionary note.” Phi Delta

Kappan Phi Delta Kappa International. Vol. 64, No. 10, pp. 695-696. Curtis, C. P. (1997) The Watson’s Go to Birmingham – 1963. Yearling. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The Flat World Education: How America’s Commitment

to Equity Will Determine Our Future. New York: Teachers College Press.


Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., and Falk, B. (1995) Authentic Assessment In Action: Studies of Schools and Student at Work. New York: Teachers College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. Rustique-Forrester, E., & Pecheone, R. (2005) Multiple Measures

Approaches to High School Graduation. The School Redesign Network at Stanford University.

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M. and Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership study: Developing successful principals (Review of Research). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

Edmonds, R. R. (October 1979). “Effective schools for the urban poor.” Educational

Leadership, 37, p. 15–27. Edmonds, R.R., & Frederiksen, J.R. (1979). Search for effective schools: The

identification and analysis of city schools that are instructionally effective for poor children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Elmore, R. (Spring, 1996) “Getting to Scale with Good Education Practice.” Harvard

Education Review, Vol. 66, No. 1. Epstein, Joyce L., and Susan L. Dauber. (1991). “School programs and teacher practices

of parent involvement in inner city elementary and middle schools.” Elementary School Journal, 91(3): 289-305.

Fraga, L., Erlichson, B.A., Lee, S., (1998) Chapter 4 “Consensus Building and School

Reform: The Role of the Courts in San Francisco.” Stone, C. ed. Changing Urban Education. Lawerence: University of Kansas Press.

Freire, P. (1995). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic

Books. Geertz, C. (1973). "Thick Description, "The Interpretation of Cultures. New York:

Basic Books. pp. 3-30. Hadderman, M. (Oct. 1999). “School Based Budgeting. ERIC Digest Number 131.”

ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, Eugene, Oregon. Retrieved on April 3rd, 2010 from http://www.ericdigests.org/2000-2/budgeting.htm.

Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (1972). “On the value of Equality of Educational

Opportunity as a guide to public policy.” In F. Mosteller & D. P. Moynihan (Eds.), On equality of educational opportunity (pp. 116–145). New York: Random House.

Harvey, S. and Goudvis, A. (2000) Strategies that Work: Teaching Comprehension to

Enhance Understanding. Stenhouse Publishing.


Heckman, J., & Neal, D. (1996). “Coleman’s contribution to education: Theory and research styles and empirical research.” In J. Clark (Ed.), James S. Coleman (pp. 81–102). Philadelphia: Falmer. Horng, E.L., Kalogrides, D., and Loeb, S. (November 2009) “Principal Preferences and

the Uneven Distribution of Principals Across Schools.” School Leadership Research Report No. 09-2. Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice, Stanford University. Retrieved on February 28th, 2010 from http://www.stanford.edu/group/irepp/slr/docs/Principal%20Preferences%20%28revised%29.pdf

Institute for Student Achievement and the National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching. (2007). “Cleveland Schools that are Making a Difference.” The Cleveland Foundation and the George Gund Foundation. Irmsher, K. (March 1996) “Block Scheduling.” Clearinghouse on Educational Policy and

Management. College of Education, University of Oregon. ERIC Digest 104. Retrieved on April 1st, 2010 from http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest104.html

Jencks, C., Smith, M. S., Ackland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D., Grintlis, H., Heynes, B., &

Michelson, S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.

Jencks, C. and Phillips, M., Eds. (1998). The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington,

D.C.: The Brookings Institute. Kappan, R.S. and D.P. Norton. (January-February, 1996) “Using the Balanced Scorecard

as a Strategic Management System. Harvard Business Review. Keene, E. O. and Zimmerman, S. (1997) Mosaic of Thought: Teaching Comprehension in

a Reader’s Workshop. Heineman.

Lareau, Annette. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education. London: Falmer Press.

Lezotte, L.W. and Bancroft, B.A. (Summer 1985). “School Improvement Based on Effective Schools Research: A Promising Approach for Economically Disadvantaged and Minority.” The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 54, No. 3, Successful Schooling Policies, Practices, Programs, p. 301-312. Marzano, R. (2000). A New Era in School Reform: Going Where Research Takes Us. Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. McCormack-Larkin, M. and Kritek, W. (1983) “Milwaukee’s Project RISE.” Educational


Leadership. V. 40, p. 16-21. McLaughlin, M. and Talbert, J. (January, 2006) Building School-based Teacher Learning

Communities: Professional Strategies to Improve Student Achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.

Meier, D. (2002) In Schools We Trust: Creating Communities of Learning In An Era of

Testing and Standardization. Boston: Beacon Press. Merriam, S. (2002). Introduction to Qualitative Research. In S. Merriam & Associates (Eds.) Qualitative Research in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp. 3-17. Miller, D. (2002) Reading with Meaning. Stenhouse Publishing. Muller, Chandra. 1993. “Parent involvement and academic achievement: An analysis of

family resources available to the child.” In Barbara Schneider and James S. Coleman (Eds.) Parents, their children, and schools. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press: p. 79-109.

National Academy of Education. (November 2009). Teacher Quality: Education Policy

White Paper. Suzanne Wilson, Ed. Retrieved on March 21st, 2010 from http://www.naeducation.org/Teacher_Quality_White_Paper.pdf

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (September, 1996). What

Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future. New York: New York. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (January, 2003). No Dream

Denied: A Pledge to America’s Children – Summary Report. Washington, D.C: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Retrieved on March 21st from http://www.nctaf.org/documents/no-dream-denied_summary_report.pdf

Odden, A. (Sept. 2001) “The New School Finance.” The Phi Delta Kappan, V. 83, N. 1.

Pp. 85-91. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. “Overview: Framework for 21st Century Learning.”

Retrieved on May 25th, 2010 from http://www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=120

Peshkin, A. (1991). "Appendix: In Search of Subjectivity -- One's Own," The Color of

Strangers, The Color of Friends. Chicago: University of Chicago. pp. 285-295. Purkey, S. C., and M.S. Smith. (1983) "Effective Schools-a Review." Elementary School

Journal 83: p. 427-52.


Reeves, D. B. (2000). The 90/90/90 Schools: A Case Study. In Accountability in Action: A Blueprint for Learning Organizations, 2nd edition.

Rosenholtz. S. J. (May, 1985). “Effective Schools: Interpreting the Evidence.” American

Journal of Education, Vol. 93, No. 3 p. 352-388 Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimer, P., & Ouston, J. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours:

Secondary schools and their effects on children. London: Open Books. San Francisco Unified School District. (June 2008). Beyond the Talk: Taking Action to

Educate Every Child Now, Version 1. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Unified School District.

San Francisco Unified School District. (September 2008). San Francisco Unified School

District’s Services to English Learners: The New Lau Plan. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Unified School District.

Sebring, P.B., Allensworth, E. Bryk, A. S., Easton, J.Q., and Luppescu, S. (September

2006). The Essential Supports for School Improvement. Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago. Retrieved on November 8th, 2008 from http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/EssentialSupports.pdf

Sleeter, C. (1996). Multicultural Education as Social Activism. Albany, New York:

State University of New York Press. pp. 91- 115. Stone, C. (2001) “Civic Capacity and Urban Education.” Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 36,

No. 5, p. 595-619.

Taylor, S., & Bogdan, R. (1998). "Working With Data," Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods. (Third Edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 134- 160.

Vanneman, A., Hamilton, L., Baldwin Anderson, J., and Rahman, T. (2009).

Achievement Gaps: How Black and White Students in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, (NCES 2009-455). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Vasudeva, A., Darling-Hammond, L., Newton, S., Montgomery, K. (2009). Oakland

Unified School District, New Small School Initiative Evaluation. Stanford, California: School Redesign Network.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for

school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249–294.


Weber, G. (1971) Inner-city children can be taught to read: Four successful schools. Washington, D.C.: Council for Basic Education.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding By Design. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (2005). Similar Students, Different Results:

Why Do Some Schools Do Better? A large-scale survey of California elementary schools serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

Documents

EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ADDRESSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP …ch689zj1589/wentworth_dissertation_sm2...the widest achievement gap when comparing its district average with scores of its lowest