Seattle

University

College of

Education

Ju ly 27, 2015

High-Value Leadership: Principals of High-Performing,

High-Poverty Schools

By

Nancy M. Olsten, Ed.D.

Chair

Laurie Stevahn, Ph.D.

Professor, College of Education – Curriculum and Instruction, Seattle

University

Committee

John Chattin-McNichols, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, College of Education – Curriculum and Instruction,

Seattle University

Tim Yeomans, Ed.D.

Superintendent, Puyallup School District

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

What I noticed about students:

*lost a parent

*unstable home

*neglect

*lack of problem solving skills

*inability to learn from the past

Why this topic?

Statement of the Problem

Purpose

Research Questions

Conceptual Frameworks

Pierre Bourdieu

Effects of Poverty

ACE Resilience Research

Nine Characteristics

OVERVIEW

Methods

Findings

Discussion and Conclusions

Questions

OVERVIEW

Statement of the Problem

Poverty impacts brain and social

development

(Baydar, Brooks-Gunn & Furstenberg, 1993; Smith,

Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1997; Lipman, Offord, &

Boyle, 1994)

Poverty serves as a predictor of academic

failure.

(Pagnani, Boulerice, & Tremblay, 1997)

Poverty continues to grow with little

consensus about the cause or solution.

(Reardon, 2011)

PROBLEM

Purpose of the Study

Examine the research on the effects of

poverty on academic achievement

Why do students from lower SES homes struggle

in school?

Use the theoretical work of Pierre

Bourdieu as the framework

Is there a theory that frames these questions

into a coherent whole?

Explore the practices of leaders of

successful high-poverty schools

In spite of poverty predicting academic failure, why

do these schools succeed?

PURPOSE

Significance of Study

Academic achievement gap

between low- and high-income

students is growing

More children live in poverty now

and the rate is increasing

What successful principals of high-

poverty schools do, is increasingly

important to understand and

replicate

SIGNIFICANCE

Research Questions

From the perspective of the

principal, what are the factors that

transform a low-performing, high-

poverty school into a high-

performing school?

To what extent do principals who

lead successful high-poverty

schools share a similar background

and/or personally identify with

their students?

RESEARCH

QUESTIONS

Pierre Bourdieu

Effects of Poverty on Learning Research

Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE)

Resilience Research

Nine Characteristics of High Performing

Schools

FRAMEWORKS

Cultural and linguistic capital

Habitus

The transmission of cultural capital

“is no doubt the best hidden form of

hereditary transmission of capital.”

(Bourdieu, 1986, p. 246)

PIERRE

BOURDIEU:

EDUCATION AS

SOCIAL

REPRODUCTION

Neurocognitive development differs according to SES

Chiefly affected: Linguistic development

Executive function skills

(Noble et al., 2005)

Psycho-Social Development differs according to SES

Poor child is more than three times as likely as a non-poor child to have:

Psychiatric disorder

Conduct disorder

Emotional disorder

(Lipman, Of ford, & Boyle, 1994)

RESEARCH

ON THE

EFFECTS OF

POVERT Y

The Family Policy Council and

Community Networks study (Longhi &

Porter, 2010) cites three factors that

contribute to resilience:

mastery

a sense of belonging

and feeling part of a larger purpose

ACE

RESILIENCE

RESEARCH

1. A clear and shared focus.

2. High standards and expectations for all students.

3. Effective school leadership.

4. High levels of collaboration and communication .

5. Curriculum, instruction and assessments aligned

with state standards.

6. Frequent monitoring of learning and teaching.

7. Focused professional development.

8. A supportive learning environment.

9. High levels of family and community involvement.

NINE CHARACTERISTICS

OF

HIGH-PERFORMING

SCHOOLS

(SHANON & BYLSMA ,

2007)

Overview of Context

Sample Identification

Data Collection

Procedures

Instruments

METHODS

Overview of Context and

Methods

Principals of high-performing, high-

poverty schools in Washington

State

School poverty rate of 70% or more

Successful schools = Schools of

Distinction Award Winners

METHODS

Overview of Context and

Methods

Principals Surveyed for:

1. For their perspectives

2. Their socioeconomic status while

growing up

3. Their ACE score

4. If they are a first generation college

graduate

METHODS

ACE Score Calculator

Childhood SES Ladder

Survey

INSTRUMENTS

Use of Center for Educational Effectiveness Schools of

Distinction rationale:

OSPI has no definition of when a Title I Focus school is

deemed successful

Center for Educational Effectiveness has been consistent in

its methodology and award criteria

Results are publicly accessible

SCHOOL SELECTION

The Center for Educational Effectiveness (CEE) in partnership with:

Association of Educational Service Districts (AESD)

Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP)

Washington Association of School Administrators (WASA)

Washington State School Directors' Association (WSSDA)

and Washington State Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (WSASCD)

In top 5%

highest

improving

schools in

State of

Washington

Considers 5

years of

Reading and

Math

Achievement

CEE

SCHOOLS OF

DISTINCTION

12 Schools of Distinction (SOD)

had FRL% of 70% or greater

-Poverty rates (FRL%) were accessed through

OSPI for each Elementary and Middle School of

Distinction.

55 E lementar y

Schools

22 Middle/Jr

H igh Schools

HOW MANY

2014 SOD

AWARDS?

Demographics

Review of Interviews:

Question 1: Factors of Transformation

Question 2: Shared Background of Principals and Students

Analysis of Results by Theoretical Framework

Bourdieu

Effects of Poverty

ACE Resilience Research

9 Characteristics of High-Performing Schools

FINDINGS

School 1 School 2 School 3

FRL (poverty) 75% 70% 83%

ELL students 38% 15% 0

Diversity (non-White students) 88% 54% 12%

SCHOOL

DEMOGRAPHICS

OSPI Data

School 1 School 2 School 3

Gender

Female

Female

Male

Highest academic degree

Master’s

Master’s

Master’s

Years in leadership

6

23

6

Years at this school

2

3

17a

PRINCIPAL DEMOGRAPHICS

aYears as a teacher at this school = 11 of 17.

Survey Data

Research Question 1:

From the perspective of the principal,

what are the factors that transform a

low-performing, high-poverty school

into a high-performing school?

Trust and Teamwork

Scaffolded Behavioral and

Academic Instruction

Communities of Care

FACTORS OF

TRANSFORMATION

Research Question 2:

To what extent do principals who

lead successful high-poverty schools

share a similar background and/or

personally identify with their

students?

SHARED

BACKGROUND

School 1 School 2 School 3

ACE score

3

1

0

SE ladder

E

E

H

First-Generation graduate

No

No

Yes

PRINCIPAL

BACKGROUNDS

Survey Data

MCARTHUR

SCALE OF

SOCIO-

ECONOMIC

STATUS

Charlotte

Danielson

No Excuses

University

AVID

COMMON

CHARACTERISTIC:

SCHOOL-WIDE ADOPTION OF AN

ACADEMIC FRAMEWORK

CHARLOTTE DANIELSON’S FRAMEWORK

- Rigor

- High

Support

- Clear

behavior

standards

- Reflection - Questioning

teaches

metacognition

& reasoning

NO EXCUSES UNIVERSITY

AVID Advancement Via Individual Determination

Theoretical

Frameworks

Applied to

Instructional

Frameworks

PIERRE BOURDIEU: Habitus

EFFECTS OF POVERTY:

Executive Function

RESILIENCE:

Positivity, Social Connectedness,

Mastery and Part of Larger

Purpose

Habitus Executive Function Resilience

High rigor (1.)

High support (2.)

Clear standards of conduct

(2.)

Teacher reflects on lessons/

student learning:

metacognition (4.)

Connects current learning to

past experience

Students create concept

maps

Project assignments with

menus allowing choice

Focus on reasoning (3.)

Questioning promotes

metacognition (3.)

Students set own learning

goals

Differentiated instruction

Students may adapt an

aspect of the lesson to make

it more meaningful to them

FRAMEWORK: CHARLOTTE DANIELSON SCHOOL 1

Habitus Executive Function Resilience

Culture of universal

achievement

Teach in a way that

prepares all children for

college (beyond HS

graduation)

Promote college through

symbolism (pennants,

posters, school songs)

Create social capital by

partnering with local

colleges

Teaches character

Unified classroom

management plan

Model behavior and

attitudes consistent with

academic success

Teach problem solving

Use rubrics in assessment

Teach specific writing

technique (Six Trait)

Create collaborative

relationships with parents

and community that

surround the students

Students set academic goals

Celebrate student success

FRAMEWORK: NO EXCUSES UNIVERSITY SCHOOL 2

Habitus Executive Function Resilience

High rigor with support

(scaffolding)

Collaborative learning-

constructivist approach

Uses peer influence to

create new ways of thinking

Teach college ways of

thinking and organizing

Directly teaches how to:

Manage time

Organize materials

Manage resources

Plan effectively

Set and achieve long term

goals

Manage self through

reflection

Cornell Note- Taking System

teaches how to:

Record notes

Reflect on notes

Ask questions; pursue

further inquiry

Students taught questioning

leading to empowerment

and self-efficacy

Focus on individual

determination

Peer involvement in

collaboration

FRAMEWORK: AVID SCHOOL 3

Question 1: Transformational Factors

a. Trust and Teamwork

b. Scaffolded Behavioral and Academic Instruction

c. Communities of Care

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND

RESEARCH

Question 2: Shared Background

No pattern seen on:

a. ACE scores

b. SES while growing up

c. First generation college graduate

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND

RESEARCH

School-wide frameworks in each school focused on key areas

addressing:

a. Habitus

b. Executive Function

c. Resilience

These factors added to the 9 Characteristics of High -Performing

Schools (Shannon & Bylsma, 2007)

could be practices that set high-achieving, high-poverty

schools apart.

SUMMARY

Limitations

Small purposeful, sample size

Reliance on principal perceptions

Self-reports on ACE Score and SES

Strengths

Connects strands from research on the social, developmental, and

the neurological effects of poverty and trauma

Places them in a theoretical framework

Uses them to examine the experience of principals of high -

performing, high-poverty schools

STRENGTH OF THE STUDY

Survey all high-poverty schools in Washington state inquiring

about the adoption of school -wide frameworks

Do they have a framework?

Which framework?

Does it cover key characteristics?

Rate framework adoption (beginning, growing, mature)

Compare responses based on:

Rate of Poverty (%FRL)

Academic achievement of students in Math and Reading as

measured by state tests

IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Does a school -wide cu l ture that promotes academic success

for any ch i ld , matter?