California State University,

Fullerton

SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS IN JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES:

A CASE STUDY

A Dissertation

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

in

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
(Concentration: Pre K-12 Leadership)

by

Helen E. Mozia

Dissertation Committee:
Dr. Ron Oliver, Chair
Dr. Lee Brown, CSUF
Dr. Lien Truong, Expert Practitioner

2011
 UMI Number: 3472529

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI
Dissertation Publishing

UMI 3472529
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

uest
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
The dissertation of Helen Mozia
is approved and is acceptable in quality and
form for publication on microfilm and in digital formats:

Approved by:

Expert Practitioner

Professor

Professor ^<QiU^
Committee Chair

California State University, Fullerton

2011
School Effectiveness in Juvenile Detention Facilities: A Case Study

(2011)

By Helen E. Mozia

iii
 ABSTRACT

Although there is an abundance of research on school effectiveness,

there is a paucity of studies focused on non-traditional schools within juvenile

detention facilities. This dissertation employed a case study methodology to

determine how to understand and articulate the issue of school effectiveness in

three juvenile hall schools (JHSs) in the context of No Child Left Behind. The

researcher is grounded in social constructivism, the concept of effective schools,

systems thinking, and network theory.

Data collection involved surveys, semi-structured follow-up interviews, and

document reviews. Overall, the findings demonstrated that two correlates of

effective schools are evident in all three JHSs (safe and orderly environment and

strong instructional leadership). Others are evident in only one or two JHSs (high

expectations for student success, clear and focused mission, and frequent

monitoring of student progress). The results also indicated that human and

material resources are not uniformly coordinated across all three JHSs.

The major conclusions are that the three JHSs have strong leadership and

supportive environments from which to launch authentic school improvement

efforts, especially in the areas of focused mission, assessment, and "systems

thinking." Recommendations for changes in theoretical constructs, public policy,

educational and hiring practices were made. In this regard, the findings of this

study are relevant to administrators, teachers, and policymakers.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT iv

LIST OF TABLES viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix

DEDICATION x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....1

Background of the Problem 1

Problem Statement 5
Primary Problem 5
Secondary Problem 8
Purpose of the Research 10
Significance of the Study 11
Research Questions 14
Definition of Terms 14
Limitations of the Study 15
Delimitations 15
Limitations 16
Organization of the Dissertation 17

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 18

Theoretical Foundation 18
Conceptual Framework.. 19
Effective Schools 19
Systems Thinking 31
Network Theory 32
Summary and Implications .....34
Summary 34
Implications 34

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 36

Context 36
Site Locations 36

v
 Site Characteristics 36
Research Design 42
Participants 44
Role of the Researcher 46
Instrumentation and Data Collection 48
Data Analysis and Interpretation 51
Data Analysis 51
Data Interpretation 54
Validity 54
Chapter Summary 56

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS 57

Introduction 57
Research Questions 58
Research Question 1 58
Research Question 2 80
Research Question 3 89
Chapter Summary 97

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 100

Review of the Study 100
Conclusions 101
Conclusion 1 101
Conclusion 2 102
Conclusions 102
Conclusion 4 103
Conclusion 5 103
Conclusion 6 103
Relationship of the Findings to the Literature 104
Strengths, Weaknesses, and Limitations 105
Implications 109
Future Scholarship 109
Practitioners 109
Recommendations 110
Theoretical Constructs 111
Public Policy 112
Educational Practice 114
Hiring Practices 115
Summary of the Study 115

REFERENCES 117

vi
APPENDIX A: CONSENT LETTER TO CERTIFICATED STAFF AND

ADMINISTRATORS 128

APPENDIX B: STAFF AND ADMINISTRATOR SURVEY 131

APPENDIX C: PROTOCOL: FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS. 134

APPENDIX D: FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 136

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Research Participants by Site 45

2. Correlate 1: Safe and Orderly Environment 60

3. Correlate 2: Climate of High Expectation for Student Success 64

4. Correlate 3: Clear and Focused Mission 69

5. Correlate 4: Strong Instructional Leadership 73

6. Correlate 5: Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress 77

7. Composite Survey Responses across JHSs as a Single Learning

Organization 91

8. Extent of Coordination of Material and Human Resources 94

VIII
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge those who helped to make this

dissertation possible. While all interpretations, conclusions, and

recommendations in this dissertation are my sole responsibility, the merit of this

work is, in large part, a result of others' efforts. In particular, gratitude is due to

my dissertation committee chairperson, Dr. Ron Oliver, and committee members,

Drs. Lee Brown and Lien Truong. They read every word that I wrote during the

preparation of this manuscript. I thank them for their guidance and support as

well as their insightful and timely feedback.

I am also grateful to all members of my family, friends, and loved ones,

far and near. Without your understanding, patience, and good wishes, this

research might never have been. I feel honored by your presence in my life.

IX
 DEDICATION

To my spouse, Timothy, for his unwavering support through all the

challenges of a doctoral program: research, writing, deep reflections, editing,

defending, and completion. You are also a friend indeed!

To my two sons Teejay and Etan, for "keeping their lives together" in a

way that freed me to undertake this endeavor.

Finally, to my parents, Jemide and Doris Menejurun, for choosing to give

me life and for nurturing the "can do it" spirit within me.

I love you all. And I honor you with this dissertation.

x
 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides an introduction to, and an overview of the

dissertation. The chapter begins with the background of the problem, followed by

the statement of the problem, purpose of the research, significance of the study,

Research Questions, definition of terms, and limitations of the study. The

chapter concludes with an overview of the dissertation.

Background of the Problem

School effectiveness and education are no longer just about what

happens in classrooms and schools but, rather, increasingly about state and

federal rules and regulations (Sykes, Schneider, & Ford, 2009). Thus, although

there is no mention of public education in the United States Constitution, the

federal government has historically exerted its influence by using federal funds

for public school reform (Cooper, Cibulka, & Fusarelli, 2008). Along with these

funds have come federal rules and regulations to guide and direct local schools

in their agenda to improve and to address social issues such as equity and

access (Ellis, Cogan, & Howey, 1981). Whereas the federal government's

participation in public education has invigorated the focus on school

improvement, critics would argue that some of its mandates, especially the

assessment and accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB,

2001), have inadvertently redefined school quality and effectiveness in

 2

reductionist terms that seriously undermine the rehabilitative purpose and

legitimacy of short-term juvenile hall schools (Leone, Krezmien, Mason, & Meisel,

2005).

These schools need to be understood against the historical background of

school effectiveness. The concern over school effectiveness can be traced to

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. Through the

ESEA, the federal government provided funds for compensatory educational

programs to improve the pattern of chronic underachievement among minority

and low-income students, English language learners, and students with

disabilities (National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP], 2005). With

respect to juvenile hall schools, the federal government became more involved

through the provisions of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans

with Disabilities Act of 1973 (Rider-Hankins, 1992). The Education for All

Handicapped Children Act of 1975 also extended services to incarcerated

persons under the age of 21 by requiring correctional educational administrators

to pay greater attention to the special education needs of handicapped offenders

(Lewis, Schwartz, & lanacone, 1988). Yet, according to the NAEP, these

minority children continue to lag behind their non-minority counterparts in rates of

graduation, proportion attending college, and participation in academically

rigorous programs.

This disturbing trend led to the Equal Educational Opportunity (EEO)

Survey commissioned by the U.S. Congress in 1966. Conducted by Coleman et

al. (1966), this study was published as The Coleman Report. The Coleman
 3

Report essentially concluded that, "when it comes to the education of minority

and poor children in America, schools do not make a difference" (Lezotte, 2001,

p. 10). Rather than school, the report credited a student's family background as

the principal factor responsible for academic achievement.

The reaction to this conclusion became the major impetus for much of the

school effectiveness research (Sammons, Hillman, & Mortimore, 1995). School

effectiveness research set out to challenge and to undermine the findings of

Coleman et al. (1966) by identifying and describing schools that were effectively

educating poor and minority students.

Unfortunately, this pursuit was short-lived. A Nation at Risk, by the

National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE, 1983), portrayed the

nation's educational system as fraught with mediocrity and ineptitude to a degree

that threatened national security. It implied that U.S. public schools were

ineffective when compared to their foreign counterparts. Although vigorously

challenged by the work of Berliner and Biddle (1996), this report triggered many

well-intentioned efforts by the government to support and reform public schools

(Popham, 2002).

Notable among these efforts was the enactment of the Individuals with

Disability Education Act (IDEA, 1997), through which the federal and state

governments continued to support juvenile correctional education. Additionally,

NCLB, broadly viewed as an extension of ESEA, was intended to improve the

academic achievement of disadvantaged children and to close the achievement

gap between these children and their affluent counterparts. President Obama's
 4

Race To the Top initiative of 2009 reflects the most recent federal endeavor

aimed at improving school effectiveness through programs designed to foster

substantial gains in student achievement, close achievement gaps, improve high

school graduation rates, and prepare students for success in college and

careers.

Whereas the intentions of these federal initiatives may be noble, NCLB's

narrow means (test scores) of defining school quality undermine any claim of

effectiveness by short-term juvenile hall schools. Unlike traditional schools with

relatively stable student populations, short-term juvenile hall schools are

characterized by high student turnover. In this circumstance, longitudinal

assessment and evaluation are questionable, at best. The academic and social

needs of incarcerated students are far more complex and diverse than ordinal

test scores are able to indicate. In fact, the literature indicates that the majority of

youths in short-term juvenile hall schools have had negative school experiences

and dismal academic achievement (Archwamety & Katsiyannis, 2000; Foley,

2001; Kollhoff, 2002; Leone, Meisel, & Drakeford, 2002), and approximately 34%

have been diagnosed with disabilities (Quinn, Rutherford, Leone, Osher, &

Poirier, 2005). Many feel alienated from mainstream institutions and, thus, do

not perceive schooling to be valuable (Harris, Baltodano, Artiles, & Rutherford

(2006). Moreover, they are not eager to focus their efforts on academic

achievement while incarcerated (Keith & McCray, 2002).

This lack of motivation renders test results useless for assessing the

effectiveness of juvenile hall schools (JHSs). Nevertheless, JHSs have a

 5

responsibility to articulate their effectiveness. The desire to foster an

understanding of school effectiveness in JHSs inspired this research and serves

as the background for this study.

Problem Statement

This study addresses two problems of practice in three juvenile hall

schools in Southern California: a primary and a secondary problem. The narrow

focus on high-stakes tests as the central indicator of effectiveness, according to

NCLB, is not appropriate for JHSs. By NCLB standards, these schools do not

"make the grade." Consequently, it is imperative that these JHSs articulate their

effectiveness in ways that affirm their legitimacy. How they do so embodies the

problems of inquiry in this study.

Primary Problem

The primary problem to be investigated is how to understand and

articulate the issue of school effectiveness in three JHSs under NCLB

requirements. As currently operated, two factors seriously impact their

effectiveness: policy and contextual limitations.

Policy-induced problems. Apple (2001) and Giroux (2003) have

described the mandatory state and federal "one-size-fits-all" standards-based

curriculum and assessment as preventing schools from differentiating instruction

and assessment, resulting in loss of the ability to effectively address the complex

academic, social, and emotional needs of all of their students. The adage "the

most unequal thing you can do is to treat unequal people equally" becomes

relevant here. Lezotte and Snyder (2011) summed up the compelling case
 6

against the NCLB "uniform" standard by reminding us that simply

"acknowledging differences among students of the same age demands that the

sameness standard be abandoned" (p. 14).

Nevertheless, in their quest to be compliant, the three short-term JHSs

selected for this study responded to the NCLB's policy requirements by aligning

curriculum, assessment, and accountability measures with state standards and

federal mandates. Classroom instruction was transformed into the standard-

based model that emphasized the preeminence of academic competence. In

addition, formal state assessments such as the California High School Exit

Examination (CAHSEE) and the California Standards Test (CST) were

administered to incarcerated students, as required by the state. Further, these

schools voluntarily participate in standards-aligned self-study processes to earn

regional accreditation.

Although these responses to federal and state educational policy

mandates are arguably meritorious, they fit the traditional school model that

Manning and Baruth (1996) characterize as "a culprit that induces and places

students further at risk of failure" (p. 239). The work of several researchers

(Archwamety & Katsiyannis, 2000; Foley, 2001; Kollhoff, 2002; Leone et al.,

2002) validates this characterization. Collectively, these researchers have stated

that the operational educational policy in short-term JHSs replicates those in

which students have typically experienced past academic failures in mainstream

school settings. As a result of these past negative school experiences, the

majority of youths in JHSs feel alienated from mainstream institutions and, thus,
 7

do not perceive schooling to be valuable (Harris et al., 2006). Consequently,

they avoid school because it is too demanding, frightening, or punishing (Crist,

1991).

These policy requirements constrain the administration of short-term

JHSs, limiting their flexibility to effectively address the needs of their students.

Foley (2001) summed up these needs as "a variety of interrelated academic,

social, emotional, health and behavioral [issues]" (p. 248). Arguably, these

needs are more complex and diverse than can be measured through high-stakes

test scores. For this reason, Leone and Drakeford (1999) declared this policy-

induced rigidity as a "bad fit for at-risk youths" (p. 89). By overemphasizing the

academic aspect of schooling and neglecting the behavioral and social

components, state and federal policy regulations create problems that seriously

challenge the effectiveness of short-term JHSs.

Contextual problems. In addition to the barriers posed by policy-induced

uniformity in curriculum and assessment practices, school effectiveness in the

three schools being studied is also compromised by contextual limitations: the

high transiency of students in short-term JHSs. Although this transiency is an

aberration in most traditional schools, it is the norm in the three JHSs included in

this study. Students are frequently removed from the classroom for reasons

unrelated to education. Frequently, students are transferred from one JHS to

another due to court orders, medical reasons, or even safety and security

concerns of the probation department. Compounding the problem, multiple

agencies and service providers compete for, and eventually encroach on, the
 8

time for student learning. As a result, a student incarcerated for 30 days may

attend school for only an average of 11 days or fewer, a situation that further

exacerbates the already fragmented educational history of the students attending

JHSs.

This contextual limitation poses a considerable hindrance to steady

academic growth and behavior modification of the youths in attendance at JHSs.

When this problem is coupled with the growing public demand for accountability,

the three JHSs included in this study are confronted with a significant dilemma of

practice embodied in the desire to address the academic and behavioral needs

of students, and simultaneously comply with the standards and test-driven

emphasis of the NCLB accountability mandates. In other words, the schools

included in this study are seriously challenged by the need to balance their

rehabilitative purpose with state and federal policy demands.

Secondary Problem

The secondary problem of practice investigated in this study is the extent

of connectedness between the three JHSs included in this study. This is an

important structural problem worthy of exploration. Although governed by the

same central office administration, these three schools are physically and

geographically separate and, to some extent, operationally distinct in terms of

site administration, vision, and goalsthe Expected School-wide Learning

Results (ESLRs). The ESLRs represent what each school believes all its

students should know and be able to do by the time that they exit the school.

The geographic and operational differences among the three JHSs have
 9

the potential to result in the provision of fragmented educational services to their

students. To the extent that the three schools included in this study share the

same students (due to frequent court-ordered and probation discretionary

transfers from one school to another), it stands to reason that they need to be

"connected" and collaborative in their operations. Although the concern about

disjointed education is recognizable at all three JHSs, its resolution is probably

too large for each school to handle on its own. Therefore, to understand how

these three schools ensure continuity of the educational services provided, it

becomes imperative to investigate the degree of cohesion in their programs and

practices. Moreover, exploring the extent of connectedness of these three

schools, in terms of shared teacher talents, ideas, information, and other

resources, serves as an additional basis for a deeper understanding of the issue

of school effectiveness in the context of this research.

Addressing the primary and secondary problems of practice identified

above requires an understanding of how these three short-term JHSs assess and

address the needs of their at-risk student population during incarceration. This is

especially critical in the wake of a recent article (January 13, 2010) published in a

local newspaper. This article alleged the award of a diploma to an illiterate

student by a long-term juvenile correctional school. Although the schools

involved in this study are short-term, an allegation of this severity poses a serious

concern that justifies the need to investigate and understand the environment as

well as the processes that support student learning in JHSs as a whole. It is to

this task that this study is directed.

 10

Purpose of the Research

The purpose of this research is twofold. Its primary purpose is to identify

which of Lezotte's (1986) correlates of effective schools are evident, as well as to

determine the strength of their presence in each of the three JHSs included in

this study. The research will also investigate the perceptions of participants

regarding to the presence and strength of each of the correlates, and utilize

these correlates, in combination with systems thinking and network theory, to

explore the extent of collaboration and coordination of educational services,

resources, and teacher talents (connectedness) between the three JHSs

included. The secondary purpose of this research is to utilize the information

gathered from the primary purpose to suggest policy and structural reforms to

short-term JHSs in ways that support and optimize their effectiveness.

Undertaking this study is potentially beneficial for four reasons. First,

conducting research enhances the reflective capacity of the researcher.

Reflecting on the extent to which these schools identify and address the

academic and behavioral needs of incarcerated youths becomes valuable for

understanding the effectiveness of short-term JHSs.

Second, investigating the issue of school effectiveness in the

unconventional environment of JHSs requires recognition that factors beyond the

control of these schools significantly affect education and limit the ability of these

schools to assess learning, as prescribed by NCLB. Specifically, the challenge

posed by the needs of these students, exacerbated by sporadic school

attendance, has prompted some scholars to argue for a more "sensible system
 11

[of education] that [implements and evaluates] inputs, process and outcomes,

rather than just focusing on the last" (Torres & Heertum, 2009, p. 233). As

Bernhardt (2004) reminds us, school processes are "what produce school and

classroom results" (p. 136). Consequently, reflecting on the policy, context,

structure, processes, and practices that are prevalent in the three JHSs is

beneficial as a means of understanding school effectiveness in short-term JHS

settings.

A third potential benefit of undertaking "insider" research of this nature, as

described below, is its empowering and pragmatic attributes. For this

researcher, this study engenders a sense of "ownership" of the problem and

provides an opportunity for a solution. It also allows alignment and unification of

the researcher's moral and professional obligations for the care and education of

incarcerated youths.

Finally, this researcher stands to gain the respect of other stakeholders as

a potentially effective and "attuned" educational leader rather than as a traditional

"heroic" figure. As a member of the school's leadership team, undertaking this

study provides the researcher with the opportunity to determine a means of re-

shaping the schools' processes for optimal effectiveness.

Significance of the Study

Beyond its potential benefit to the researcher, this research is important

and will make significant contributions to the field of educational leadership in

multiple ways. First, it holds the potential to contribute to the literature on

effectiveness of short-term JHSs. Although there is a great deal of research on

 12

school effectiveness, the literature reviewed revealed a paucity of studies that

specifically address short-term JHSs with highly transient student populations.

Findings from this study could therefore broaden professional knowledge of

school effectiveness in these nontraditional educational settings. This

understanding could potentially promote a shift in professional perceptions of

education in short-term JHSs in a way that serves to enhance the legitimacy of

these schools.

Second, this study supports an emerging paradigm shift in education

leadership. This shift is toward a leadership style characterized by a reduction in

hierarchy and formal status, along with increased emphasis on voluntary and

reciprocal relationships (Danzig, Blankson, & Kiltz, 2007). Spillane, Halverson,

and Diamond (2001) summed up the essence of this paradigm in the term

"distributed" leadership, which is a collaborative approach to leadership that

enables capacity building in ways that support and further empower educational

administrators. Thus, by offering support for this research, leadership in these

three short-term JHSs has embraced the concept of distributed leadership and

has demonstrated respect and value for the ideas of teachers.

Third, this study promotes research in a concrete setting: a practice that

lends to authenticity, internal validity, and the potential for immediate problem

resolution and school improvement. Internal resolution of problems is

fundamental to overall school effectiveness and exemplifies a major focus in the

field of educational leadership. It also encourages reflection and promotes

confidence as this researcher becomes more articulate in discussing educational

 13

issues, especially as they relate to the dual role of research practitioner and

educational leader. This approach merges educational practice with research,

which represents another paradigm shift in the field of educational leadership.

Fourth, this research is relevant because it draws attention to the issues

of leadership in the context of short-term JHSs. This focus is especially

important because leadership is an inherently complex and context-dependent

undertaking (Murphy, 2003). Hence, regardless of the fact that effectiveness in

short-term JHSs cannot be measured by test scores alone, leadership has a

responsibility to articulate and justify a continued investment in human capital,

when returns on investments are not easily quantifiable.

Leadership also requires the moral fortitude to resound the words of John

Dewey: "A good society treasures its dissidents and mavericks alike" (Noddings,

2008, p. 38) and therefore must educate all its citizens for the survival of

democracy. Herein lies the convergence of the professional and moral dilemmas

that continue to plague leadership in the complex environment of the short-term

JHSs within which they operate.

Finally, this study is significant because it is timely, based on its emphasis

on school quality and effectiveness in current political and educational

environments. In this context, the study has the potential of contributing to a

research base for understanding the effectiveness in short-term JHSs in ways

that support authentic reform.

 14

Research Questions

The research questions that this study investigated are:

1. What correlates of effective schools (Lezotte, 1986) are evident, and

what is their strength of presence in the three short-term JHSs in this study?

2. What are the perceptions of teachers and administrators in the three

JHSs in terms of the presence and strength of the correlates?

3. To what extent or "how" are the identified correlates of effective

schools, resources, and teacher talents coordinated across all three JHSs for

optimal organizational effectiveness?

Definition of Terms

Connectedness. This is the degree of cohesion between the three

schools in this study with respect to correlates of effective schools, resources,

ideas, information, and teacher talents.

Effectiveness. This refers to the notion that school process, environment,

and structure can make a difference in student achievement (Witte & Walsh,

1990).

Expected School-wide Learning Results (ESLRs). These represent what

the stakeholders of a school believe that all students should know, understand,

and be able to do by the time they transition from the JHS to their home district.

Incarcerated youths. This term refers to youths having several risk factors

that likely interfere with graduation from traditional high school (Slavin, 1989).

They are also wards of the court, attending short-term JHSs.

Juvenile detention facility. This refers to a temporary secure placement

 15

used for holding youths who have not yet been adjudicated delinquent or who

are awaiting court-mandated placement in a long-term facility (Krezmien,

Mulcahy, & Leone, 2008).

No Child Left Behind (NCLB). This is a reauthorization of the ESEA

established in 1965. President Bush signed this federal legislature into law on

January 8, 2002.

Shared Decision-Making Council (SDMC). This council is a joint planning

body consisting of school site administrators and all other stakeholders working

collaboratively to improve student learning.

Short-term JHSs orJHSs. As used this study, these are interchangeable

terms that refer to schools operating within secure juvenile detention facilities.

They are mandated by law to provide short-term education for incarcerated

youths.

Stakeholders. These are certificated staff (teachers, administrators) at the

schools that are the focus of this study.

Regional accreditation body. This is a professional organization that gives

professional accreditation to educational institutions in the United States.

Limitations of the Study

Delimitations

The scope of this embedded single-case study is limited to three JHSs in

Southern California. It does not include alternative community schools, charter

schools, or even schools in juvenile camps. Thus, its findings may not be

generalizable to these other schools or camps.

 16

To protect the identity of the district and the three JHSs that constitute

the context of this study, the choice was made to grant anonymity.

Consequently, neither the names of the schools nor the regional accrediting body

are included in the reference section. In-text citation of their self-study reports

are referred to as the document "produced by the school." Additionally, other

documents (California Standardized Tests Results, letter of support of research

from the district office) containing potentially identifying information are not

included in the appendices.

Interviewees were limited to administrators and teachers with the longest

teaching experience at each of the schools under investigation. This was a

deliberate approach, as these participants are considered the ones most likely to

provide the deepest insight into the research problem.

Limitations

A possible limitation to this study is that students were not included as

participants. As incarcerated minors, they are protected under California Penal

Code section 13102 and California Welfare and Institution Code 827.

Nevertheless, their perceptions were culled from recent self-study reports to the

regional accreditation body. Other stakeholders such as parents and probation

staff were also excluded due to their limited knowledge of the inner workings of

the schools' processes and practices.

Another likely limitation is that only five of Lezotte's seven correlates of

effective schools were explored in this study. The two correlates excluded were

(1) opportunity to learn/student time on task, and (2) positive home-school

 17

relations. These were excluded because, as discussed above, they are

outside the control of the school. Therefore, the focus of this study is on the

other five correlates. These five correlates are discussed in detail in subsequent

chapters.

Yet another limitation may arise from the researcher's association with the

research context. As a teacher at one of the schools being investigated, I believe

that this association could carry with it some significant professional bias as well

as some unforeseen personal consequences. To mitigate the potential adverse

effects of this association, a deliberate effort was made to utilize objective data

tools to create distance between the researcher and the data, thereby ensuring

that data "speak for themselves" and that findings are reported with objectivity.

Organization of the Dissertation

This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1

introduced the problem statement, purpose of the research, significance of

the study, research questions, the definition of terms used in the study, and the

limitations of the study. Chapter 2 presents the theoretical foundation as well as

the conceptual frameworks that guide this study respectively. It also includes a

critical review of the literature pertaining to the Research Questions. Chapter 3

presents the methodology of the study, which concerns the research context and

design, including participants, role of the researcher, instrumentation, and data

collection and analysis. Chapter 4 presents the findings, and Chapter 5 contains

the conclusions, their implications, and recommendations for future research.

 18

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter presents a review of the literature related to the purpose of

the study and its research questions. It is organized into three sections. The first

section presents the theoretical foundation, including the rationale for the choice

of this worldview. The second section presents the literature on the conceptual

frameworks of this studyeffective schools, systems thinking, and the network

theory. This section examines the correlates of effective schools, the evolution of

effective school research, classical and contemporary studies, the assumptions

and criticisms of effective school research, as well as the principles of systems

thinking and the network theory, including the role of networks in school

improvement. The third section contains the main points of the chapter and an

explanation of how the study will contribute to a deeper understanding of

effectiveness in short-term JHSs.

Theoretical Foundation

The foundation of this research is the social constructivist/interpretative

epistemological worldview. Vygotsky (1978) pioneered the idea of social

constructivism, which holds that meaning and understanding are socially

constructed by groups. More recently, Creswell (2007) described social

constructivism as a worldview that allows "individuals [or groups] to seek

understanding of the world in which they live and work" (p. 20).
 19

The researcher considers social constructivism worldview to be the

most appropriate foundation for this study. Social constructivism embraces

individual or collective construction of meaning in a given context. This flexibility

in meaning-making is critical to understanding school effectiveness in the

unconventional and complex environment of short-term JHSs. Essentially, this

study seeks to answer the "what" and "how" questions. These types of questions

make the fundamental assumption that, in general, reality is subjective and that

the meaning ascribed to a phenomenon in a given context is seldom objective.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for this study is grounded in two areas: the

correlates of effective schools and systems thinking, which is associated with

network theory.

Effective Schools

The effective schools concept includes the following core beliefs: all

children can learn, the school control enough variables to ensure that all students

do learn, and the internal and external stakeholders of the individual school are

the most qualified and capable people to plan and implement the changes

necessary for the school to make progress toward the learning-for-all mission

(Lezotte, 2006). Lezotte and Snyder (2011) noted that, although the effective

school concept has evolved since initial research efforts began in the late 1960s;

these core beliefs align with the visions of Thomas Jefferson, who sought to

ensure that quality education is accessible to all Americans, not just the wealthy.

The correlates of effective schools. The correlates of effective schools

are the set of school factors that Edmonds (1974), Lezotte (2001), Marzano

(2003), and other researchers have identified as having the most beneficial

impact on student achievement. Based on a review of the literature, Edmonds

(1979), one of the foremost scholars of effective school research, identified five

school-based characteristics that are most commonly evident in effective

schools: instructional leadership, clear and focused mission, safe and orderly

environment, climate of high expectations for success, and frequent monitoring of

student progress. They form the basis for program evaluation and effectiveness

by implicitly acknowledging the "belief and argument that school process,

environment, and structure can make a difference in student achievement" (Witte

& Walsh, 1990, p. 188).

Over the years, these five correlates have been refined and expanded to

include two more characteristics: opportunity to learn/student time on task and

positive home-school relations (Lezotte, 2007). These seven descriptors of an

effective school are articulated by Lezotte (1986, 2011) as follows:

1. Safe and orderly environment There is an orderly, purposeful,

business-like atmosphere that is free from the threat of physical harm. The

school climate is conducive to teaching and learning.

2. Climate of high expectations for success. Staffs believe and

demonstrate that all students can master the essential school skills and that the

staff has the ability to help all students attain that mastery.

3. Clear and focused mission. There is a clearly articulated mission,

through which the staffs share an understanding of and a commitment to the

 21

instructional goals, priorities, assessment procedures, and accountability.

Staff accepts responsibility for students' learning of the school's curricular goals.

4. Strong instructional leadership. The principal acts as an instructional

leader and effectively and persistently communicates the mission to the staff,

parents, and students. The principal understands and applies the characteristics

of instructional effectiveness in management of the instructional program.

5. Frequent monitoring of student progress. Student academic progress

is measured frequently using a variety of assessment procedures. Results are

used to improve both individual student performance and instruction.

6. Opportunity to learn/student time on task. A significant amount of

classroom time is dedicated to instruction in essential skills. For a high

percentage of this time, students are engaged in whole class or large group,

planned, teacher-directed learning activities.

7. Positive home-school relations. Parents understand and support the

school's basic mission and are given the opportunity to play an important role in

helping the school to achieve the mission. Lezotte (2009) cautions that this

correlate needs to be contextualized.

Lezotte (2007) noted that most research on effective schools has

concluded that these correlates are critical to effectiveness because they

represent the "leading organizational and contextual indicators that have been

shown to influence student learning" (p. 7). The events that led to the formulation

of these correlates are discussed below.

Evolution of the effective school research. According to Edmonds

(1979a, 1979b), Lezotte (1986), Brandt (1987, 2002), Eubanks and Parish

(1992), Murray (1995), Sammons et al. (1995), and Sammons (1999), the major

impetus to North American and British school effectiveness research is the

unpopular interpretations of the findings from research by Coleman et al. (1966)

and Jencks et al. (1972). As noted, Coleman et al. conducted the EEO Survey.

The purpose of the survey was to evaluate the status of education among

minority children in the U.S. The Coleman Report concluded that, "when it

comes to the education of minority and poor children in America, schools don't

make a difference" (Lezotte, 2001, p. 10). In other words, a student's family

background rather than school was the principal determinant of academic

achievement. The implication was that family factors such as low socioeconomic

status, parents' level of education, and other environmental conditions prevented

students from learning, regardless of school factors and that schools could do

very little to diminish the adverse effects of these background factors on student

achievement.

The Coleman Report was not universally accepted as conclusive

(Mosteller & Moynihan, 1972). Although educators acknowledged that

background factors are important, they still found the conclusions of this report

disturbing. Not only did it impart a sense of hopelessness in regard to poor

children (Marzano, 2003), it also undermined the effectiveness of schools and

lent credence to the notion that schools that serve poor and minority children (a

category to which the three schools included in this study belong) are not able to

make a difference (Lezotte, 2001).

 The classic studies. The core of effective school research (ESR) is

the classic studies that set out to challenge or refute the Coleman Report (Taylor,

2002). These are scholarly works that support the premise that all children can

learn and that schools control enough of the factors necessary to assure student

success, regardless of the hindering effect of poor family background.

Consequently, early ESR focused on the school and the processes within the

school (subsystems) that had the most impact on student achievement.

Early ESR was accomplished in two overlapping phases. Phase 1, the

identification phase (1960s to mid-1970s), involved the identification of schools

that seemed to make a difference for poor and minority children (Lezotte &

Snyder, 2011). Pioneering works in this phase include those of Weber (1971)

and Edmonds, Lezotte, and Ratner (1974). Using on-site observations and

interviews, Weber (1971) studied four inner-city schools in New York, Los

Angeles, and Kansas City. In contrast to Coleman's findings, Weber found

schools that had been successfully educating poor and minority children for

many years, even in neighborhoods where most students would have been

predicted to perform at low levels.

Edmonds et al. (1974) analyzed the academic performance data of a

random sample of 2,500 students from 20 elementary schools in Detroit. The 20

schools selected represented a mix of high-and low-achieving schools. In

contrast to the findings of the Coleman Report, Edmonds et al. found that

differences in socioeconomic status (SES) could not explain the differences

between high- and low-performing schools.

 Although the search for, and identification of, effective schools for poor

and minority children (ESR Phase 1) captured the interest of the research

community, Lezotte (2001) noted that educational practitioners were more

interested in how these schools differed from the underperforming schools

serving low-SES student population.

This curiosity led to phase 2, the descriptive phase (1970s to mid-1980s)

of ESR. This phase focused on the inner workings of effective schools in order

to determine why they were effective in educating poor and minority children

(Lezotte, 2011). The works of Brookover and Lezotte (1977), Brookover, Beady,

Flood, Schweitzer, and Wisenbaker (1978), Edmonds and Fredericksen (1978),

exemplify typical research in this second phase of the ESR.

In a joint venture with the Michigan Department of Education, Brookover

and Lezotte (1977) conducted a longitudinal study of student performance on

criterion-referenced standardized tests in mathematics and reading. Data from

eight elementary schools were used to determine schools that were improving or

declining and the responsible factors. Of the eight schools, six were found to be

improving in terms of student achievement in mathematics and reading, and two

were found to be declining in mathematics and reading. Based on

questionnaires and interviews, the researchers were able to identify several

characteristics that were most relevant to student achievement and that

distinguished improving from declining schools: a clear vision and mission among

the staff, a safe and orderly environment, a strong instructional leader, high

expectations for student achievement, and close monitoring and alignment of

instructional program using assessment procedures.

Brookover et al. (1978) conducted a study that built on Weber's (1971)

research. Utilizing only low-SES schools, the research focused on identifying

and analyzing the relationship between the social systems operating within the

schools and student achievement. Three social systems were considered: (a)

social compositionSES and ethnicity of students, (b) social structurestudent

grouping practices and time on instructional task, and (c) social climate of the

schoolstudent and staff perceptions. Brookover et al. found that student

achievement was greatly influenced by the social systems within the school.

Specifically, the more positive and supportive the social systems are, the better

the student achievement. They also found that student achievement improved

with students' perception of self-efficacy, time on task, high expectations from

teachers and principals, reward, and reinforcement.

Edmonds and Frederiksen (1978) re-examined the actual EEO survey

data used in the Coleman Report to understand the effects of schools on children

of various background. Upon close scrutiny of the data for 55 effective schools,

the researchers found no difference in the background factors of children in

instructionally effective and ineffective schools. Instead, Edmonds and

Frederiksen found that effective schools shared some common attributes

namely: strong leadership, a culture of high expectations, an orderly and flexible

environment, an emphasis on student acquisition of basic skills, proper use of

school resources, and frequent monitoring of student progress. These attributes

became an integral part of what is currently known as the correlates of effective

schools.

Contemporary studies. In their study, Robinson, Stempel, and McCree

(2005) found that, although schools are often alike in structure and

characteristics, the differences between schools are important to student

learning. The researchers triangulated data from seven public high schools, four

of which were "high impact" and three of which were "average impact." The high-

impact schools were so designated because they produced accelerated growth

among students who entered high school significantly behind their peers. The

researchers reported that, despite the many common characteristics between the

high- and average-impact schools, the former exhibited some subtle but

significant characteristics that accounted for their effectiveness, including a

cultural norm of high expectations, academic focus, personal and academic

support, positive teacher attitude, leadership style, time, and resources.

Chenoweth (2007) used data from Education Trust, an organization that

identifies schools where poor and minority children perform better than their

peers in other schools, to identify high-performing schools with predominantly

poor and minority children. The 15 schools selected for the study included those

that were "big and small; integrated and racially isolated; high-tech and low-tech;

urban, rural, and suburban" (p. 213). Other differences between the schools

involved facilities, parent and community involvement, calendars, district support,

and school improvement models. Among these high-performing schools, the

researcher found the following common characteristics: standards-based

curriculum and teachers acquainted with them, high expectations, data-driven

 27

instruction, student-centered focus, safe and orderly environment, shared

leadership, and shared values. These characteristics closely align with Lezotte's

seven correlates of effective schools.

Vaughn, Gill, and Sherman (2007) conducted a study of eight middle

schools in East Texas to determine whether there was a relationship between

principals' and teachers' perceptions of the presence of correlates on their

campus and the schools' accountability rating. Analyzing survey data, they found

a positive strong correlation between teachers' and administrators' positive

perceptions of the presence of the correlates and their ratings on the Texas state

accountability scale.

Assumptions and criticisms of effective school research. Significant

in ESR is the notion that schools control enough of the variables to assure that all

students learn and that the schools are accountable for all measured student

achievement. Also relevant is the notion of "equity in quality," that disaggregating

student achievement data assures that all students, regardless of gender, race,

ethnicity, or socioeconomic status, are successfully learning the intended school

curriculum (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011).

Stedman (1985) believes that ESR "exaggerated the influence of schools"

(p. 300), basing his assertion on the work of Purkey and Smith (1983), Rowan,

Bossert and Dwyer (1983), and Ralph and Fennessey (1983), who argued that

the findings of ESR were not actually different from those of the Coleman Report.

Purkey and Smith, for instance, stated, "New studies do not find that there are

overall large differences in achievement among existing schools" (p.428).

Rowan et al., based on their work in California elementary schools, noted that

schools account for only a small percentage of the variance in individual student

achievement.

Another common criticism relates to the issue of context. The contention

raised by Friedkin and Necochea (1988) is that early ESR limited its focus to

small samples of urban elementary schools with similar social and organizational

context to the exclusion of suburban, rural, middle and even high schools in a

different context. Friedkin and Necochea conducted a study using data from the

California Assessment Program to investigate how the effects of a district context

affect the internal organization of a school. They found that district size has a

strong negative effect among low-SES districts but a positive effect among high-

SES districts and schools. In other words, the larger the district, the less

effective it is for schools serving poor and minority children but the more effective

it is for high-SES schools. The implication is that the issue of context cannot be

ignored in any discussion about school effectiveness.

Based on their research, Hannaway and Talbert (1993) argued that ESR

has paid little attention to factors in the external environment of schools that

support or inhibit effective internal conditions. They stated that the early or first-

generation ESR simply illuminated internal differences and neglected to assess

the role of the school's context in shaping their success. After analyzing national

survey data, they found a pattern of distinctive characteristics for schools in

urban, suburban, and rural settings. Essentially, there was a different pattern in

each school setting. They consequently challenged the effective school

researchers to broaden their scope to be more inclusive of the diversity seen

in U.S. school environments.

In summary, there were several criticisms. One was the notion that ESR

suffers from a model bias, meaning that the pioneers studied schools in which

they were certain to find factors related to effectiveness (e.g., Clark, Lotto, &

Astuto, 1984). Others included the fact that such research was based on

comparatively small samples of elementary schools, case studies with no

standardized rigor, outlier schools that do not necessarily represent a broad

spectrum of schools, and a narrow definition of achievementachievement on

standardized tests only. It is necessary to point out, however, that the definition

of achievement has broadened to include the idea that each school must

determine its own accountability measures that align with the purpose of the

school (L. W. Lezotte, personal communication, 2009).

In response to these criticisms, the 1980s witnessed replication studies

conducted in multiple and varied school settings with students of different SES.

Research was also was conducted on school effectiveness, based on ethnicity,

special education, and English-learner status as well as on staff characteristics

(Uline, Miller, & Tschannen-Moran, 1998). In all cases, researchers found the

correlates to be generally consistent across effective schools.

Researcher's position on effective schools research literature. A

review of the literature established that school factors make a difference in the

academic achievement of minority and poor children. What has not been

determined is what makes a school effective, and many researchers hold that
there is no agreement on this (Reid, Hopkins, & Holly, 1987). Rather,

effectiveness must be defined in context.

For the purposes of this study, the notion of effectiveness is conceived as

that which "connotes a belief and argument that school process, environment,

and structure can make a difference in student achievement" (Witte & Walsh,

1990, p. 188). This recognition is crucial for understanding effectiveness in the

unconventional environment of the three short-term JHSs that are the focus of

this study.

It is also important to point out that, despite the criticisms leveled against

ESR, the effective school movement is still "alive and well," and "the original

correlates [have] become expanded descriptions of what works in school reform"

(Taylor, 2002, p. 376). The alignment between the correlates of effective schools

and the indicators of effectiveness, as established by the Regional Accreditation

body, supports Taylor's (2002) assertions. This alignment provides a rationale

for utilizing Lezotte's (1986) correlates of effective schools as the "professional

meter" for probing for clarity and understanding of school effectiveness.

Despite its potential for reforming schools and optimizing their

effectiveness, the effective school concept is continually challenged by change in

district and site leaderships. This is especially true to the extent that school

leadership function involves providing direction and exercising influence. Thus,

whenever a change in leadership occurs, significant changes also occur in the

continuity of well-established school processes and practices. In view of this,

advocates of the effective school concept place increased emphasis on teacher

 31

buy-in.

Systems Thinking

This study is also based on the principles of systems thinking and

associated network theory. Deming (1993) defined a system as "a network of

interdependent components that work together to try to accomplish the aim of the

system" (p. 51). This synergistic way of thinking and operating is what Senge

(1994) referred to as systems thinking, which he defined as a "conceptual

framework, a body of knowledge and tools . . . developed to make full patterns

clearer and to help see how to change them effectively" (p. 7). Expressed

another way, systems thinking represent a way of looking at or thinking about

things in an interconnected and interrelated manner. Pertaining to learning

organization, systems thinking acknowledge the contributive capacity of all

components of a school (process and program) and supports the harmonious

and integrated working relationships of all parts (subsystems) of organizations to

achieve optimal effectiveness.

The three JHSs included in this study qualify individually and collectively

as a system. This is because, upon incarceration and from the moment of

enrollment to the day that students are released, they "encounter several

components that constitute the school as a system" (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011, p.

29). These components include enrollment; intake academic assessment and

class placement of regular, English-language learner, and special education

students; and psychological and mental health services. Other related

components include living arrangements, academic and behavior expectations,

court orders, and case disposition. Given Deming's definition, the presumption

is that each of these separate components is working together to accomplish the

aim of the schools, that is, student achievement of the ESLRs.

Network Theory

Network theory is a form of systems thinking that serves as a conceptual

framework for understanding the complex interdependence of the seven

correlates of effective schools and the extent to which their presence affects

school effectiveness. Mandell (1999) characterized a network as "a group of

organizations working together to solve problems or issues of mutual interest that

are too large for any one organization to handle on its own" (p. 7). Clearly, the

three problems that this study seeks to address, namely, uniform curriculum and

assessment practices, contextual limitations, and inherent structural barriers,

represent issues of mutual interest that are too large to be resolved alone by any

one of the three JHSs in this study. Wohlstetter and Smith (2000) noted the

relevance of networks, stating that, if schools would work together in a

collaborative effort, they would be more effective than would individual schools

working independently.

In describing networks, Barabasi (2002) posited that nothing happens in

isolation, that most events and phenomena are connected. In this context, he

defined networks as complex patterns of interaction that are self-organizing,

much like a "web without a spider." Reeves (2006) described networks as a

"non-linear distributional system of information, ideas, people or products

characterized by nodes, hubs and superhub" (p. 34). Within an organization

such as JHSs, a node represents one individual; [a] hub is a node with

multiple connections to other nodes . . . [and] superhubs are those rare nodes in

a network to which an exceptionally large number of other nodes and hubs are

connected" (p. 34).

Networks essentially connect and link isolated entities. As noted above,

the three JHSs are geographically and operationally separate in terms of

leadership, vision, and goals. Sharing the same students, however, creates a

mutual problem of practice-fragmented educational service. To mitigate this

problem, it is imperative that they are connected in terms of sharing ideas,

teacher talents, and resources. Network theory therefore provides a relevant

framework for exploring the extent of connectedness among the three schools in

a way that deepens understanding of school effectiveness in the context of this

research.

The role of networks in school effectiveness. The core principle of

networks, collaboration, plays a significant role in school effectiveness.

Wohlstetter, Malloy, Chau, and Polhemus (2003) noted that many school districts

have applied the principles of network theory, through information and resource

sharing, to successfully enhance effectiveness. The principles of the network

theory serve as a tool for exploring the extent of cohesion between the three

JHSs. Determining the extent to which these three schools share goals,

resources, ideas, effective instructional practices, and classroom behavior

management strategies should provide valuable information about school

effectiveness in the environment of JHSs. Based on the principles of the network

theory, the more that these three schools communicate and collaborate, the

more effective they are as a learning organization.

Summary and Implications

Summary

The social constructivist/interpretative epistemological worldview provided

the theoretical foundation for this research. The choice of this worldview was

based on its flexibility in meaning-making, which is critical to understanding

school effectiveness in the complex environment of short-term JHSs.

The chapter presented the concept of effective schools, systems thinking,

and the network theory as the conceptual frameworks of this research. The

correlates of effective schools were used as the "professional meter" for gauging

school effectiveness. Systems thinking and network theory served as the basis

to explore the degree of connectedness of the three short-term JHSs.

The literature yielded several descriptors of effective schools. From these,

Lezotte's (1986) seven correlates capture the essence of them all. It should

however be noted, as cautioned by Levine and Lezotte (1990), that the presence

of the correlates is not indicative of school success. Rather, it is suggestive of

the prerequisites for attaining a high level of success for all students in all

schools, including the three JHSs.

Implications

Much of the literature reviewed concerned school effectiveness in

conventional elementary and secondary school settings within urban and rural

areas. There is a paucity of such research, however, on alternative secondary

education, specifically JHSs. To the extent that context is related to school

effectiveness, there is an important gap in the literature. The goal of this study

was to bridge this gap by identifying the correlates of effective in JHSs so as to

expand the knowledge base of this field and to recommend policy and structural

changes that can potentially increase effectiveness in JHSs.

This literature revealed that most school effectiveness studies focused on

academic achievements as the preferred outcome for measuring school

effectiveness. Additionally, due to the unconventional environment of JHSs,

academic achievement cannot appropriately measure the effectiveness of these

schools. This further validates the need for alternative ways of assessing their

effectiveness. In this regard, Lezotte's (1986) correlates of effective schools are

a useful tool. Although the presence of these correlates does not assure

effectiveness in terms of student outcomes, they are, nevertheless, the

set of school factors identified as having the most beneficial impact on student

achievement (Edmonds, 1974; Lezotte, 2001; Marzano, 2003).

 36

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methodology used in the study. The chapter

begins with the research context and includes the site locations and site

characteristics. This is followed by a discussion of the research design, including

participants, the role of the researcher, instrumentation and data collection

procedures, data analysis and interpretation, and validity. The chapter concludes

with a chapter summary.

Context

Site Locations

This case study was conducted in three short-term JHSs in three juvenile

detention facilities located in two urban cities of Southern California. For the

purpose of confidentiality, the schools in this study are referred to as Schools A,

B, and C. School A is located in an unincorporated township within a large urban

city in Southern California. School B is located in the same large urban city as

School A but in a different subdivision. School C is the only one located in a fully

incorporated urban city in Southern California.

Site Characteristics

As gathered from the documents produced by the school (2008; 2011),

various buildings in the three schools were constructed from the early 1900s

through the early 2000s. School A is the oldest of the three JHSs and educates
students needing outside medical treatment as well as those who will be tried

in adult courts. The maximum school capacity is approximately 440 students,

and the duration of school attendance is 23 days or fewer. School B is the most

modern and the largest of the three schools. Students who await transfer to

"camp" placements attend School B. The maximum student capacity is 675, and

the duration of school attendance is 24 days or fewer. School C is the smallest

of the schools. In addition to pre- and post-adjudication youths, School C also

educates status offenders, including all hearing-impaired students. Student

capacity is approximately 421, and the duration of school attendance is 16 days

or fewer.

In addition to the schools, each juvenile detention facility has an

administrative area, gymnasium, pool, medical observation building, kitchen, and

chapel. Juvenile courts are also located on-site at each of the juvenile detention

facilities. Students in disciplinary confinement and those with challenging

behavioral or mental health needs reside in the Special Handling Units (SHUs).

Students are generally housed in either single or double rooms, although there

are a few units with one or two larger rooms that accommodate three to seven

youths.

When not in school, the incarcerated youths are supervised by the staff of

the County Probation Department. The probation staff ensures that all youths

are fed, provided with a safe place to sleep, given clean clothes to wear, and

escorted to and from various locations including school. Probation staff

essentially acts in locos parentis status while the youths are incarcerated. In this
 38

capacity, they also serve as the youths' advocate in educational matters and

discipline. Medical and mental health services are provided by contract with

external agencies. Most maintenance of the detention facilities, including the

school buildings, are performed by a separate county agency.

Site demographics. The socio-cultural environment of these JHSs is

diverse. According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau (2000), the Hispanic or

Latino population represents the dominant ethnicity (at least 60%) of the total

population of the communities surrounding all three schools. On average, the

remaining 40% or less is shared disproportionately among Whites (17%), groups

classified as "some other race" (15%), Asians (5%), African Americans (2%), and

American Indians, native Alaskan, Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander ethnic

groups (1%).

In regard to educational attainment, all three school communities are well

below the national average. For example, although data from the U.S. Census

Bureau (2000) showed that at least 80% of Americans 25 years or older possess

a high school or higher diploma, for the communities surrounding Schools A, B,

and C, the percentages are much lower, at 36%, 61%, and 68%, respectively.

This pattern is also evident among those with a baccalaureate degree or higher:

7.3%, 12.8%, and 14.7%, respectively, when compared to the national average

of 24.4%.

For the community surrounding School A, almost 30% of families and 33%

of individuals are "below poverty level," as compared to the national average of

9% and 12%, respectively. Most residents are also renters, and home ownership
is significantly lower (30%) than the U.S. average of 66% (U.S. Census

Bureau, 2000). The same data source indicates that the communities

surrounding Schools B and C have a higher SES than the community

surrounding School A. Specifically, in the communities surrounding Schools B

and School C, the percentage of individuals living below poverty level is

comparable to the U.S. average of 12%.

School demographics. Despite the diversity in the demographics of the

surrounding communities, the demographics of the student population across all

three JHSs are relatively uniform. In general, students range in age from 11 to

19. Occasionally, 9- and 10-year-olds are also enrolled in the schools. However,

a typical student is male, 16 years old, and Hispanic or African American.

These students have performed very poorly on state assessment

measures such as the High School Exit Examination. Performance data, as

reported by the Educational Testing Service (ETS), show very poor performance

on the state High School Exit Examination for three consecutive school years

(2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010) across all three schools of interest. The

ratio of students who passed to those who failed the English Language Arts

(ELA) and/or Math sections of the exit examinations is 1 to 3.

Very poor academic performance is also evident in the state standardized

tests results (2007-2008, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010). Nearly 85% of all

students who took the state standardized test ranked in the Below Basic

category, predominantly in the Far Below Basic group. Information culled from

the documents produced by the schools( 2008, 2011), as well as the single plan
for student achievement (Title 1 -SPSA) reports, indicate that about 75% of the

students at the three schools read, write, and compute at or below the 4th or 5th

grade level. In addition, prior school attendance is irregular or truncated, and at

least 60% of the students have been suspended or expelled from their home

school districts. Student surveys from 2010, conducted for accreditation

purposes, categorized approximately 20% of the students as special education,

30% as English learner, and the remaining 50% as mainstream or regular

education. It is important to point out that these numbers fluctuate on a daily

basis due to the high transiency rate of students across all three JHSs. Thus,

these numbers represent cross-sectional data collected for specific purposes

such as accreditation, and may not exactly reflect the demographics of the

students currently in attendance.

Gang affiliation, drug use, and multiple arrest histories are common

among the students at all three schools, and recidivism is nearly 70%. As many

as 15% of the students are either already a parent or about to become one.

Nearly 90% have been accused of truancy and habitual disregard of authority as

well as criminal allegations such as murder and sex offence violations (Welfare

Institution Codes 601 and 602). In addition, all students appear to have

experienced significant life stressors such as poverty, neglect, abuse, and

homelessness prior to incarceration. Consequently, 100% of the students qualify

for and participate in programs that satisfy the intent of the federal antipoverty

Title 1 Initiative.

School operations. The three schools are accredited by the appropriate

accrediting body of the region. They are public schools instituted to provide

short-term education for both pre-and post-adjudicated youths, including those

awaiting placement or transportation to a youth camp and some who have

returned from unsuccessful placements or camp stays. The daily operations of

the three schools are overseen by the same governing board.

In all three JHSs, an average of 50% of the classrooms are situated in

newly-constructed housing units, either in specially designated rooms or in open

common-use areas known as "dayrooms." The other 50% of the classrooms are

located in much older buildings. In general, most classrooms (90%) are

equipped with one or several modern technologies such as telephones,

televisions, computers, projectors, and multi-function printers. Fully functional,

high-efficiency smart boards are available in 50% of the classrooms at all three

JHSs.

Like their traditional school counterparts, curriculum, assessment, and

accountability measures are guided by state standards and federal mandates.

Classroom instruction is standards based and stresses academic competence.

Formal state assessments, such as the high school exit examination and the

state's standardized tests, are also administered to students, as required by the

state. Bell schedules and master calendars are also structurally aligned with the

traditional school model at all three school locations. School is continuously in

session for 12 months of the year, 300 minutes per day, for a total of 247

instructional days.

Unlike most traditional high schools, the student population is highly

transient at all three schools. Students are frequently transferred from one

school to another due to court orders, medical reasons, or probation concerns

during the duration of incarceration. Occasionally, some students are released

within hours while others remain for months or even as long as a year due to

court orders and placement interviews. As a result, the schools' population

fluctuates even throughout the day as students are moved between the three

schools for various reasons. Thus, although located in three separate areas,

these three schools share the same student population.

Research Design

A qualitative methodological approach is appropriate for this study.

Creswell (2007) defined a qualitative methodology as "any research approach

that begins with assumptions, a worldview, the possible use of a theoretical lens,

and the study of research problems inquiring into the meaning individuals or

groups ascribe to a social or human problem" (p. 37). In this study, the

perceptions of the research participants are critical to a deep understanding of

school effectiveness. A qualitative methodology is also appropriate for research

that is exploratory, as is this research, particularly because a qualitative

methodology is flexible and permits the interpretation of the phenomenon of

inquiry (school effectiveness) within its real-life context. Finally, social

constructivism is the lens through which the information gained through this study

is understood.

This study used an embedded single-case design. Yin (2003) defined a

case study as "an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary

 43

phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries

between the phenomenon and the context are not clearly evident" (p. 13). A

case study supports the use of multiple sources of data for triangulation,

analyzing data for description and themes, and interpreting and reporting

descriptions and themes for context-specific results (Merriam, 1988). The case

study research approach is also non-experimental and flexible, which is useful for

accomplishing an in-depth exploration of a bounded system, in this case, the

three JHSs.

Yin (2009) further distinguished four types of case-study designs. They

include: holistic single-case study, embedded single-case study, holistic multiple-

case study, and embedded multiple-case study. As noted, this study is an

embedded single-case study, meaning that, although focused on a single case of

interest (school effectiveness), attention was given to exploring this issue in

multiple sub-units of analysis, i.e., the three JHSs.

The embedded single-case study design approach had advantages over

the holistic single-case study design in that it supports meaning-making and the

illumination of tacit knowledge of school effectiveness at a deeper level than a

holistic single-case study design would allow. In this regard, Scholz and Tietje

(2002) stated, "In an embedded case study design, the starting and ending points

are the comprehension of the case as a whole in its real world context" (p. 2).

Another benefit of the embedded single-case study design is that it

addresses the issue raised by critics of case studies. Yin (2009) termed this

issue "shift," explaining that it is "a situation in which the implemented research
design is no longer appropriate for the research questions being asked" (p.

52). According to Yin, the embedded single-case study design is much more

sensitive to the problem of "unsuspected slippage" or shift than is the holistic

single case study design because the former has a set of subunits that serve to

buffer against shift and to anchor and offer more depth to the inquiry.

Participants

Participants and sites were selected by purposive sampling so that they

could "purposefully inform an understanding of the research problem and central

phenomenon in the study" (Creswell, 2007, p. 125). For example, teachers were

included as a means to learn more about curriculum and instruction issues.

Administrators were included to provide a perspective on leadership, and

external policy mandates. This strategy is advantageous for eliciting varied and

multiple perspectives. The convergence of these multiple perspectives permits a

fuller understanding of school effectiveness.

Marshall and Rossman (2006) noted four aspects of purposeful sampling:

event, setting, actors, and artifacts. This study utilized all four aspects by

including multiple and heterogeneous participants (teachers, administrators),

multiple sites (three short-term JHSs), and the review of only relevant documents

namely: Self-study reports, Title 1 reports, SDMC Governance document, and

professional development calendar.

Procedures. A web link for the survey questions was sent via email to

110 prospective participants (103 teachers and 7 administrators). A total of 89

participants responded, for a response rate of 81%. The breakdown by site is

 45

shown in Table 1. A total 53 respondents (59.6%) are regular education

teachers, 18 (20.2%) are special education teachers, 4 (4.5%) are English

Language Learners teachers, and 8 (9%) are Title 1 teachers. Additionally, 6

(6.7%) are site administrators. Follow-up interviews were conducted with one

site administrator, and one teacher at each of the three JHSs. The teachers

interviewed had at least 11 years of teaching experience at the school site where

they worked or at the district.

Table 1

Research Participants by Site

Location Teachers Administrators n %

School A 31 2 33 37

School B 21 2 23 26

School C 31 2 33 37

Total 83 6 89 100

Overall, participants are primarily male (58%), ethnically diverse (30.3%

African American, 27% White, 21.3% Hispanic, 21.4% Asian and other races),

well educated (92% have a post-graduate degree), experienced teachers (74%

have been teaching for at least 11 years), and at least 40 years old (80%). At all

three JHSs, all teachers are appropriately credentialed for the subjects they

teach, and are designated as Highly Qualified under the guidelines of NCLB. In

addition, all teachers possess the English Language (EL) certification necessary

to teach English language learners.

Access to participants. To gain access to participants, the researcher

 46

informed an administrator at her work-site, School C. The administrator, in

turn, informed the assistant superintendent of educational programs at the district

office about the proposed study. The researcher then met with the assistant

superintendent to further discuss the research topic and scope of the study.

Once approval was received from the district level personnel, information about

the research was presented to other gatekeepers, including other district-level

personnel and site level administrators, via email sent under the directive of the

assistant superintendent.

The researcher then sent a formal letter of invitation to prospective

participants via email (Appendix A). This letter briefly described the study and

their potential involvement, reiterating that their participation was voluntary. As

required by the Institutional Review Board (IRB), this letter constitutes part of the

informed consent process designed to provide sufficient information so that

potential participants can make a reasoned decision about participation. All

informed consent documents included a statement noting that refusal to

participate carried no penalty and that participants may have discontinued

participation at any time during the study without fear of retribution. The informed

consent documents were written in simple, straightforward sentences using

commonly recognizable terms. The researcher also disclosed to participants any

limits of confidentiality that reasonably could be expected during the informed

consent process.

Role of the Researcher

In this study, the researcher was also the key research instrument, as the
researcher serves as the tool for collecting field data (Creswell, 2007) as well

as the lens through which information is filtered. In this capacity, the researcher

culled data from surveys, follow-up interviews, and document reviews, using the

case study protocol.

Researcher concerns and bias. The researcher's undertaking of this

study created tension over the need to balance the researcher's role as the key

research instrument with practicing discretion as an employee. Another dilemma

concerned the researcher's ideological orientation. This researcher is a social

constructivist, believing that the goal of education is the growth of students as

they cope with their environment and construct meaning in a social context. In

this paradigm, learning extends beyond proficiency measurements (NCLB

accountability measures) and into the affective domain of learning, which

"encompasses the important concept of motivation" (Eby & Kujawa, 1994, p. 72).

In contrast, education at the three JHSs is heavily oriented toward NCLB

and its test-driven emphasis. Given the complex needs of the students attending

these schools, the focus on pure academic pursuit results in neglect of the

affective and social needs of students. In this regard, Baker (2007) stated,

"Accountability tests have swung education strongly toward institutional goals

and away from those of the individuals" (p. 309).

As a teacher working at one of the schools under investigation, this

researcher is extremely familiar and in constant interaction with the research

environment. According to Grbich (2009), this relationship has the potential for

inserting subjective (the researcher's), and inter-subjective (the reconstruction of

views through interaction with others) bias.

Nevertheless, Yin (2009) explained that research bias does not

necessarily diminish the quality of the research or make it less scientific.

Specifically, Yin noted that the best research is often achieved by those who

declare their own biases and try to stand outside themselves with as much

objectivity as possible.

Therefore, to mitigate potential researcher bias, careful attention has been

given to the design, conduct, and reporting of the research data. In particular,

multiple and varied sources of data were utilized to enhance objectivity.

Instrumentation and Data Collection

Data collection was accomplished using three data sources: surveys,

semi-structured follow-up interviews, and document review. Each source is

discussed below.

Survey. The survey consists of 30 questions guided by five of Lezotte's

(1986) correlates of effective schools (Appendix B). The survey was used to

collect data on the perceptions of teachers about the presence and strength of

the correlates of effective schools in short-term JHSs. This data source is

relevant because it is targeted and "focuses directly on the case study topic" (Yin,

2009, p. 102).

With the permission of the district office, the surveys were electronically

delivered to all participants. Forty percent of the participants completed the

surveys on-line at www.esrealitycheck.com, an online survey tool developed by

Lezotte (2003). The remaining 60% of participants completed the survey

manually, and their responses were manually entered into the esrealitycheck"

database. Subsequent to the collection and analysis of the data from the survey,

follow-up interviews (Appendix C) were arranged.

Semi-structured follow-up interviews. A total of six participants, one

administrator and one teacher from each of the three school sites, were

purposefully selected and interviewed. The choice of an administrator as an

interviewee is based on the notion that they are best positioned to provide insight

into leadership and into some of the survey responses. The teachers selected

for interview are among those with the longest teaching experience at each

school site. The assumption is that these veteran teachers are not only

knowledgeable but also in a position to offer the best insight into the issue of

school effectiveness at their respective school sites. The approximate length of

each interview was 30 minutes. The interviews were conducted at the office of

the administrators or a pre-arranged venue within the school campus.

The interview protocol (Appendix C) was developed based on the

guidelines of Creswell (2007). Creswell's protocol requires that participants are

informed about the time, date, place, duration, purpose, format, number, and

interviewer prior to the interview. Accordingly, the follow-up interviews were

arranged with the consent of the participants prior to the interview. In addition,

interviewees (administrators and teachers) were alerted that the interview would

be audiotaped, labeled, coded, and transcribed. After the interviews, transcripts

were returned to interviewees for their review and validation.

With respect to the follow-up interview questions (Appendix D), the

researcher prepared expository questions. During the interviews, the

researcher and the interviewees received and gave information freely, asked

clarifying questions, probed for details, and validated responses, all of which

provided a deeper understanding of the survey responses.

Review of documents. The documents reviewed included the most

recent self-study reports, Title 1-SPSA reports, SDMC governance documents,

and the professional development calendar of the three schools under

investigation. These documents were obtained with the permission of the site

administrators. They (documents produced by the school) are important data

sources that reflect the core beliefs of the school. They also contain useful

details about many longitudinal, current or intended school processes and

programs. Yin (2009), affirmed their relevance by describing these documents

as "stable, unobtrusive, e x a c t . . . and broad coverage" (p. 102). These

descriptors suggest that these documents constitute a reliable data source that

can provide stable and accurate information about the schools. Moreover, they

can be reviewed repeatedly. The fact that these documents were created

independent of this research renders them even more reliable and valid as a data

collection instrument.

Throughout this study, data collection was accomplished through a linear

but iterative process (Yin, 2009). This approach involved planning, designing,

preparing, collecting, analyzing, and sharing information. These steps were

repeated as often as necessary to accomplish the purpose of this study: a deep

understanding of the issue of school effectiveness in short-term JHSs.

 51

Data management. All collected and recorded data were stored in a

locked cabinet located in the researcher's home office. The computerized survey

data are stored in the researcher's personal computer, protected by a password.

For practical purposes, all electronic data are backed up on the researcher's

personal computer and on private external hard drives stored in the secured

cabinet. Hard copies also were made to accommodate unforeseen electronic

glitches. For the purpose of anonymity, no participant identifiers were collected.

Throughout the data collection process, all information provided by participants

was treated confidentially by ensuring that all data collected were coded to

prevent unintentional disclosures.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Data Analysis

Data analysis in qualitative research consists of preparing and organizing

the data for analysis, reducing the data into themes through a process of coding

and condensing of codes, and, finally, representing the data in a discussion

supported by figures, tables, or other forms of data displays (Creswell, 2007).

Although different genres of qualitative research subscribe to distinctive ways of

analyzing data, there is consensus among proponents that qualitative data

analysis entails three generic stages (Huberman & Miles, 1994; Madison, 2005;

Wolcott, 1994): preliminary, interim, and thematic data analysis.

Preliminary data analysis. Preliminary data analysis is the researcher's

first engagement with the data, collected in a way that enables the researcher to

gain an understanding of the values and meaning inherent in the data (Grbich,
2007). The purpose of this stage is to reduce raw data into meaningful

segments and to assign names to the segments. This involves developing a

coding system to organize, sort, and unitize the data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007;

Lincoln & Guba, 1985). These units of information, defined by Merriam (1988),

as "a phrase, a sentence, or a paragraph" (p. 132) eventually serve as the basis

for defining categories.

Interim data analysis. Interim data analysis refers to the process of

collecting and analyzing additional data and reapplying the codes, or revising the

codes that were previously developed, to the new data collected. This step

permits initial codes to be grouped into broader coding categories such as

settings or contexts, participant perspectives, processes, activities, events,

strategies, social relationships, social structures, narratives, and methods

(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). This phase enabled the exploration of relationships

between and among the categories to determine whether there are hierarchical

arrangements based on frequencies of occurrence. Overlapping or co-occurring

codes are also condensed at this stage.

Thematic data analysis. Thematic data analysis is the final step of the

data analysis process in qualitative research. It involves the identification of

emergent themes by the researcher. During this phase, similar categories or

patterns emerging from the interim data analysis phase are combined and

developed into a holistic, broad view of the findings themes.

With respect to this study, preliminary data analysis was accomplished as

follows: Survey response data were disaggregated by school site. Subsequently,

taped follow-up interview responses were transcribed into word processing

files. The transcriptions were then checked for accuracy and read multiple times

to ensure familiarity with the text. Preliminary data analysis involved reading

every line of the collected data in search of key phrases, sentences, or units of

information. Each identified unit of key information was then coded using codes

generated by making marginal notes in the texts, such as abbreviations, key

words, or short phrases culled from either the texts (in vivo) or from the literature

(a priori). This process was repeated until data saturation (i.e., no new codes

emerged from the analysis) was achieved. Through this hand-coding process, all

data were segmented into initial codes and labeled. These codes were then

used to create a qualitative codebook for use with new information, if any, as it

arises.

Interim analysis of survey data was accomplished by performing

descriptive statistical (calculation of percentages, means, and standard

deviations), and two-way intersection analysis. For the interview responses, this

intermediate phase of data analysis was done by laying out all the coded data in

a search for regularities, patterns, and topics emerging from the data. The

technique of pattern-matching was utilized to link repeated words, phrases,

concepts, and categories. Through an "enumeration" technique (the use of

qualifiers such as many, some, few), the frequency and consistency of the

identified categories were used to spot emergent themes and their relative

strengths. The same technique was used in the analysis of the data culled from

the documents reviewed. This process of identifying emergent themes, or the

thematic analysis, marked the last phase of data analysis in this study. All

data analysis was performed manually by the researcher.

Data Interpretation

This is the process of "making sense" out of the emerging themes. It

involves ongoing reflection about the meaning to be ascribed to the emergent

themes in the data. Stake (1995) advocates four forms of interpretation: (a)

categorical aggregation, whereby the researcher seeks to aggregate pieces of

information from the data in the hope of constructing meanings that are relevant

to the phenomenon under investigation; (b) direct interpretation, whereby the

researcher draws meaning from a single piece of information, disregarding

multiple evidences; (c) establishing patterns, whereby the researcher looks for

correspondence between two or more categories; and (d) generalization,

whereby the researcher constructs naturalistic generalizations and presents an

in-depth picture of the case using narratives, tables, and figures.

In this study, all four types were utilized for data interpretation. The

categorical aggregation approach was used for interpreting interview data, direct

interpretation was used to interpret the documents reviewed, establishing

patterns was used for interview and survey response data, and generalization

was utilized to draw conclusions from all three data sources and to make

recommendations for enhancing school effectiveness in JHSs.

Validity

In qualitative research, validity generally refers to the quality,

trustworthiness, and accuracy of a study's findings. Angen (2000) described it as

a "process" rather than a "verification," which has a quantitative overtone.

Qualitative researchers recognize that not all possible accounts of research

participants are equally useful, credible, or legitimate and that no technique

consistently yields sound conclusions. Whittemore, Chase, and Mandle (2001),

organized multiple approaches to validation into primary and secondary

validation criteria. The four primary criteria include: credibilityare the results an

accurate interpretation of the participants' meaning? (b) authenticityare

different voices heard? (c) criticalityis there a critical appraisal of all aspects of

the research? and (d) integrityis the investigator self-critical? Secondary

criteria included explicitness, vividness, credibility, thoroughness, congruence,

and sensitivity.

Integrating the criteria of Whittemore et al. (2001) with other acceptable

validation techniques, this study employed the use of multiple validation

strategies, including data triangulation, member checks, and peer debriefing.

Data triangulation refers to the process of using multiple and different sources of

data as corroborating sources of evidence to shed light on a phenomenon. In

this study, triangulation was achieved using data from the surveys, follow-up

interviews, and document review. Member checks involve taking data and

interpretations back to the participants and asking them whether the results are

accurate (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Merriam, 1988; Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Member checks were consistently performed throughout this study by presenting

preliminary analyses of follow-up interview data to interviewees for their opinion

and confirmation (Creswell, 2007).

 Lincoln and Guba (1985) defined the task of peer debriefing as playing

"devil's advocate." The individual not only listens but also asks the researcher

questions about the design and interpretations of the research. Utilizing this

strategy, this researcher sought out the critical but constructive comments of a

trusted colleague on the findings of the research as they emerged. This helped

to foster an objective check of the research process so as to enhance overall

validity (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992;

Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1988).

Chapter Summary

This chapter presented the methodology, including the research context.

The context consists of three JHSs located within three separate juvenile

detention facilities. These three JHSs provide short-term education for a highly

transient student population consisting of incarcerated delinquent and neglected

youths who are awaiting adjudication of their case(s). Although the three schools

are geographically separate, due to court-ordered transfers and probation

discretion, they share the same students.

Also included in this chapter was a presentation of the participants, the

multiple roles of the researcher, the instruments used for data collection, and

data analysis and interpretation. Protocols for collecting and managing data also

were discussed. Finally, researcher bias and practice dilemmas were identified,

and validity and ethical considerations were addressed.

 57

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

This chapter presents the findings of the study. The chapter begins with

an introduction, followed by the findings pertaining to each research question.

The chapter concludes with a summary.

Introduction

Three data tools were used: an online survey, follow-up interviews, and

document reviews. The online survey was a researcher-modified version of a

survey developed by Lezotte (2003) and was found at www.esrealitycheck.com.

Based on a preliminary analysis of the survey responses, follow-up interview

questions were developed. The documents reviewed included the most recent

self-study reports, Title 1 Single Plan for Student Achievement (Title 1-SPSA)

reports, Shared Decision Making Council (SDMC) Governance documents, and

professional development calendars, collected from the three JHSs.

Of a total of 110 teachers and administrators, 89 (81%) completed the

survey. Of these, 33 (37%) worked in School A, 23 (26%) worked in School B,

and 33 (37%) worked in School C. For analysis purposes, the strongly agree

and agree responses were collapsed into agree, and the disagree and strongly

disagree responses were collapsed into disagree.

The means and standard deviations were calculated by the

"esrealitycheck" online survey tool. The calculation was based on the numerical
values pre-assigned to each response choice during the design of the survey

questions, ranging from strongly agree = 1 to strongly disagree = 5. Thus, the

lower the mean value, the more affirmative the survey response. A mean value

of 2 or less was considered indicative of agreement, 3 was indicative of

undecided, and a 4 or greater was indicative of disagreement. Mean values that

fell between 2.1 and 2.9 were considered indicative of a tendency toward

undecided, and mean values that fell between 3.1 and 3.9 were indicative of a

tendency toward disagreement. Additionally, the lower the standard deviation,

the more clustered the data. A low standard deviation (1 or less) is indicative of

low variability or a cluster around the mean value, and a higher standard

deviation (above 1) is indicative of a higher variability or a wider spread of the

data away from the mean value.

Research Questions

Research Question 1

What correlates of effective schools (Lezotte, 1986) are evident, and what

is their strength of presence in the three short-term JHSs in this study? This

study explored five of Lezotte's (1986) correlates of effective schools. The

correlates examined included safe and orderly environment, climate of high

expectation for success, clear and focused mission, strong instructional

leadership, and frequent monitoring of student progress. The online survey was

the key data source for addressing this research question. The data from follow-

up interviews and from documents reviewed served as additional sources of

evidence to corroborate or contradict survey data.

 For a correlate to be considered evident and strongly present, the

researcher established two parameters: (a) at least 67% or two-thirds of the

survey participants must indicate "agree;" and (b) both follow-up interview data

and data from documents reviewed must corroborate survey data. If parameter

(a) was satisfied, and (b) was not satisfied, then the correlate was considered

evident but showing a weak presence at the school. A correlate was considered

not evident if parameter (a) was not satisfied and parameter (b) either

corroborates survey data or is conflicting.

Correlate 1: Safe and orderly environment. Four quality indicators of

this correlate were examined. Quality indicators are survey questions that

embody the essence of a specific correlate. Table 2 presents the data for the

four quality indicators of Correlate 1 at each of the three JHSs. School A had,

respectively, 97%, 85%, 88%, and 94% agreement. This is an average of 9 1 %

across the four quality indicators, suggesting that 30 of the 33 respondents at

School A indicated that they agreed with the quality essence of Correlate 1. The

overall mean value of 1.7 across all four quality indicators further affirmed

agreement as the central tendency of the data, and the average standard

deviation of .74 across all four quality indicators suggests a cluster of the survey

data around the mean. Additionally, an average of 4.5% of survey respondents

indicated that they disagreed, and another 4.5% indicated they were undecided

in regard to Correlate 1. Together, the disagreed and undecided responses

totaled 9%, suggesting that 3 of the 33 respondents clearly disagreed or were

conflicted in regard to the notion of safety and orderliness in School A. These

 60

numbers also indicate that School A satisfied part (a) of the research

parameters established above and that Correlate 1 is evident in School A.

Table 2

Correlate 1: Safe and Orderly Environment

Question/Quality Agree Undecided Disagree

Indicator (%) (%) (%) Mean SD
9. The school is a safe and secure place to learn and work
School A 97 0 3 1.6 0.66
School B 69 18 13 2.4 1.08
School C 82 9 9 2.0 0.88
10. Classroom environments are clean, orderly, and academically stimulating
School A 85 6 9 1.9 0.86
School B 74 17 9 2.2 0.80
School C 79 9 12 2.2 0.97
11. Discipline issues are often resolved through the joint effort of probation,
teachers, and administrators
School A 88 6 6 1.8 0.83
School B 69 22 9 2.2 0.85
School C 58 18 24 2.6 1.23
12. Expectations for behavior are clearly communicated to students
School A 94 6 0 1.6 0.60
School B 82 9 9 2.1 0.76
School C 79 3 18 2.1 1.02

Follow-up interviewees reported that probation presence and security

cameras in classrooms are key factors that enhance safety and orderliness in

School A. The document (produced by the school, 2011) reviewed indicated that

School A is committed to a safe, clean, and orderly environment that supports

student learning. The school accomplishes this through a school safety

committee that annually evaluates and updates the comprehensive "safe school"
plan. According to the self-study document, 55% of students claim that they

feel safe at the school, 88% understand the school rules, and 74% are aware of

the consequences of negative behaviors as well as the rewards for positive

behavior. Both follow-up interview data and data gleaned from the document

corroborate survey data indicating that School A also satisfied part (b) of the

research parameters. All three data sources substantiated the finding that

Correlate 1 is evident and shows a strong presence at School A.

For each of the four quality indicators of Correlate 1, School B had,

respectively, 69%, 74%, 69%, and 82% agreement. This is an average of 74%

across the four quality indicators, suggesting that 17 of the 23 respondents at

School B agreed with the quality essence of Correlate 1. The overall mean value

of 2.2 across all four quality indicators shows a marginal tendency toward an

undecided response, and the average standard deviation of .87 across all four

quality indicators suggests a cluster of data around the mean. Additionally, an

average of 10% of survey respondents indicated that they disagreed, while 16%

indicated they were undecided in regard to Correlate 1. Together, the disagreed

and undecided responses totaled 26%, suggesting that 6 of 23 of survey

respondents clearly disagreed or were conflicted in regard to the notion of safety

and orderliness in School B. However, these numbers also indicate that School

B satisfied part A of the research parameters and that Correlate 1 is evident in

School B.

Follow-up interviewees credited probation staff with providing effective

"safety and security" at the school. The document (produced by the school,
2008) reviewed indicated that 67% of students feel safe at School B. The Title

1 document (SPSA, 2010) reviewed indicated that engaging classroom activities,

probation restructuring, opportunities for student collaboration, and parental

involvement were additional factors that promote a safe and orderly learning and

work environment. Both follow-up interview data and data gleaned from the

documents reviewed corroborate survey data, suggesting that School B also met

part (b) of the research parameters. All three data sources substantiated the

finding that Correlate 1 is evident and shows a strong presence in School B.

For each of the four quality indicators of Correlate 1, School C had,

respectively, 82%, 79%, 58%, and 79% agreement. This is an average of 75%

across the four quality indicators, suggesting that 25 of the 33 respondents at

School C indicated that they agreed with the quality essence of Correlate 1. The

overall mean value of 2.2 across all four quality indicators shows a marginal

tendency toward an undecided response, and the average standard deviation of

1.03 across all four quality indicators suggests a slight spread of the survey data

away from the mean. Additionally, an average of 15% of survey respondents

indicated they disagreed, while 10% indicated that they were undecided in regard

to Correlate 1. Taken together, the disagreed and undecided responses totaled

25%, suggesting that 8 of the 33 respondents clearly disagreed or were

conflicted in regard to the notion of safety and orderliness in School C. However,

these numbers also indicate that School C satisfied part (a) of the research

parameters and that Correlate 1 is evident at School C.

Follow-up interviewees stated that they perceived their school as a safe

and orderly place. They credited this perception to the positive impact of

probation presence in classrooms. The document (produced by the school,

2011) reviewed indicated that student behavior issues remain a "concern at the

school." According to this report, the school averages 2 to 3 suspensions per

day, with the majority (60-70%) related to violations of Educational Code

48900a.1: caused, attempted to cause, or threatened to cause physical injury.

Although follow-up interview data corroborated survey data, information gathered

from the document reviewed did not affirm the survey data or follow-up interview

data, suggesting that School C failed to satisfy part (b) of the research

parameters. All three data sources substantiated the finding that Correlate 1 is

evident but shows a weak presence at School C.

Correlate 2: Climate of high expectations for student success. Three

quality indicators of this correlate were examined. Table 3 presents the data for

the indicators of this correlate at each of the three JHSs. School A had,

respectively, 64%, 68%, and 9 1 % agreement. This is an average of 74% across

the three quality indicators, suggesting that 24 of the 33 survey respondents at

School A indicated that they agreed with the quality essence of Correlate 2. The

overall mean value of 2.1 across all three quality indicators shows a marginal

tendency toward an undecided response, and the average standard deviation of

.84 across all three quality indicators suggests a cluster of the survey data

around the mean. Additionally, an average of 6% of survey respondents

indicated that they disagreed, while 20% indicated they were undecided in regard

to Correlate 2. Together, the disagreed and undecided responses totaled 26%,

suggesting that 9 of the 33 respondents disagreed or were conflicted in regard

to the notion that a climate of high expectations for student success exists in

School A. These numbers also indicate that School A satisfied part (a) of the

research parameters and that Correlate 2 is evident at School A.

Table 3

Correlate 2: Climate of High Expectations for Student Success

Question/Quality Agree Undecided Disagree

Indicator (%) (%) (%) Mean SD
13. Teachers believe that they can successfully teach all students
School A 64 24 12 2.2 1.01
School B 52 31 17 2.6 0.84
School C 61 18 21 2.5 1.09
14. There exists a school-wide belief that all students can learn the ESLRs
School A 68 30 3 2.2 0.80
School B 57 30 13 2.4 0.90
School C 58 24 18 2.4 1.09
15. Teachers differentiate instructional strategies to accommodate the needs of
different students
School A 91 6 3 1.8 0.70
School B 82 9 9 2.1 0.79
School C 73 15 12 2.2 0.97

Follow-up interviewees reported leadership and teacher behaviors that

support a climate of high expectation for success. However, interviewees did not

mention staff's belief in their ability to successfully teach all students (quality

indicator 13). The document (produced by the school, 2011) reviewed revealed

that 67% of the students believe that their teachers have high expectations of

them, but only 34% of students knew the ESLRs at the time they took the survey

in November 2010. In addition, the document stated that many teachers are
 65

concerned about their lack of familiarity with the academic background of their

students prior to incarceration. Despite using a variety of innovative instructional

strategies, the self-study document reported that the school believes that "a more

systematic approach must occur to address the varied needs of students who are

at academic levels far below their grade-level and with very poor academic

knowledge." Although survey data indicated that Correlate 2 is evident in School

A, the other two data sources (follow-up interviews and documents reviewed)

were inconsistent and provided only partial support for survey data. This

incomplete support for the survey data suggests that School A partially satisfied

part (b) of the research parameters. All three data sources substantiated the

finding that Correlate 2 is evident but shows a weak presence at School A.

For each of the three quality indicators of Correlate 2, School B had,

respectively, 52%, 57% and 82% agreement. This is an average of 64% across

the three quality indicators, suggesting that 15 of the 23 survey respondents at

School B indicated that they agreed with the quality essence of Correlate 2. The

overall mean value of 2.4 across all three quality indicators shows a tendency

toward an undecided response, and the average standard deviation of .84 across

all three quality indicators suggests a cluster of the survey data around the mean.

Additionally, an average of 13% of survey respondents indicated that they

disagreed, while 23% indicated that they were undecided in regard to Correlate

2. Together, the disagreed and undecided responses totaled 36%, suggesting

that 8 of 23 respondents disagreed or were conflicted in regard to the notion that

a climate of high expectations for student success exists at School B. These

numbers also indicate that School B failed to satisfy part (a) of the research

parameters and that Correlate 2 is not evident at School B.

Follow-up interviews indicated administrator and teacher behaviors that

support a climate of high expectations for student success. However,

interviewees did not state a belief in their ability to successfully teach all

students. The documents (produced by the school, 2008; Title 1-SPSA, 2010)

reviewed revealed that expectations for student success are well documented in

the ESLRs, but similar to interviewee responses, the data did not articulate the

extent to which teachers believe that they can successfully teach all students or

that all students can learn the ESLRs. Follow-up interview data, as well as data

from documents reviewed, corroborate survey data, suggesting that they

satisfied part (b) of the research parameters. All three data sources

substantiated the finding that Correlate 2 is not evident at School B.

For each of the three quality indicators of Correlate 2, School C had,

respectively, 61%, 58% and 73% agreement. This is an average of 64% across

the three quality indicators, suggesting that 21 of the 33 survey respondents at

School C indicated that they agreed with the quality essence of Correlate 2. The

overall mean value of 2.4 across all three quality indicators shows a tendency

toward an undecided response, and the average standard deviation of 1.05

across all three quality indicators suggests a slight spread of the survey data

away from the mean. Additionally, an average of 17% of survey respondents

indicated that they disagreed, while 19% indicated that they were undecided in

regard to Correlate 2. Together, the disagreed and undecided responses totaled

36%, suggesting that 12 of 33 survey respondents clearly disagreed or were

conflicted in regard to the notion that a climate of high expectations for student

success exists at School C. These numbers also indicate that School C failed to

satisfy part (a) of the research parameters and that Correlate 2 is not evident at

School C.

Follow-up interviewees reported that teachers give assignments that

require high-level critical thinking skills that align to state curriculum standards.

According to the interviewees, such assignments serve to demonstrate that

School C supports a climate of high expectation for student success. Data from

the documents (produced by the school, 2011; Title 1-SPSA, 2010) reviewed did

not provide evidence of critical thinking assignments. Rather, the focus was on

improving basic skills in reading, writing, and computation. Although

expectations for student success are clearly articulated in the ESLRs, the data

gathered from the documents reviewed failed to establish that teachers believe

they can successfully teach all students or that all students can achieve the

ESLRs. Follow-up interview data, as well as data from documents reviewed,

corroborated survey data, suggesting that School C satisfied part (b) of the

research parameters. All three data sources substantiated the finding that

Correlate 2 is not evident at School C.

Correlate 3: Clear and focused mission. Three quality indicators of this

correlate were examined. Table 4 presents response data for the indicators of

this correlate at each of the three JHSs. School A had, respectively, 67%, 79%,

and 67% agreement. This translates to an average of 71 % across the three

quality indicators, suggesting that 23 of the 33 survey respondents at School A

indicated that they agreed with the quality essence of Correlate 3. The overall

mean value of 2.1 across all three quality indicators shows a marginal tendency

toward the undecided response, and the average standard deviation of .88

across all three quality indicators suggests a cluster of the survey data around

the mean. Additionally, an average of 8% of survey respondents indicated they

disagreed, while 2 1 % indicated they were undecided in regard to Correlate 3.

Together, the disagreed and undecided responses totaled 29%, suggesting that

10 of 33 survey respondents disagreed or were conflicted in regard to the notion

of a clear and focused mission at School A. However, these numbers also

indicated that School A satisfied part (a) of the research parameters and that

Correlate 3 is evident at School A.

 69

Table 4

Correlate 3: Clear and Focused Mission

Question/Quality Agree Undecided Disagree

Indicator (%) (%) (%) Mean SD
16. The school's ESLRs are clear, developed, and shared by all
School A 67 21 12 2.2 0.94
School B 70 17 13 2.2 0.95
School C 64 21 15 2.3 0.96
17. The ESLRs represent a balance between the school's mission and the
state's standards
School A 79 12 9 2.0 0.90
School B 70 26 4 2.1 0.85
School C 79 18 3 2.1 0.70
18. There is alignment between the ESLRs, instructional focus, and what is
assessed
School A 67 30 3 2.2 0.80
School B 59 23 18 2.4 1.05
School C 58 33 9 2.5 0.97

Follow-up interviewees reported that their school goals are clearly

articulated in their Title 1-SPSA (2010) document. They identified these goals as

improving literacy, achievement in math, and preparation for student transition

back to their communities. Interviewees also reported that these goals align with

their ESLRs. The referenced Title 1-SPSA (2010) document was reviewed.

Data gleaned for the Title 1-SPSA document supported interviewee responses.

Both follow-up interview data and data from documents reviewed satisfied part

(b) of the research parameters. All three data sources substantiated the finding

that Correlate 3 is evident and shows a strong presence at School A.

For each of the three quality indicators of Correlate 3, School B had,

respectively, 70%, 70%, and 59% agreement. This is an average of 66%

across the three quality indicators, suggesting that 15 of the 23 survey

respondents at School B indicated that they agreed with the quality essence of

Correlate 3. The overall mean value of 2.2 across all three quality indicators

shows a tendency toward an undecided response, and the average standard

deviation of 0.95 across all three quality indicators suggests a cluster of the

survey data around the mean. Additionally, an average of 12% of respondents

indicated that they disagreed, while 22% indicated that they were undecided in

regard to Correlate 3. Together, the disagreed and undecided responses totaled

34%, suggesting that 8 of 23 respondents clearly disagreed or were conflicted in

regard to the notion of a clear and focused mission at School B. These numbers

also indicate that School B failed to satisfy part (a) of the research parameters

and that Correlate 3 is not evident in School B.

Follow-up interviewees expressed the perception that the school's ESLRs

embody the school goals. This was confirmed through the document (Title 1-

SPSA, 2010) reviewed. However, no evidence was found in this document or

other documents (produced by the school, 2008) reviewed that refuted that the

survey data indicate a "disconnection" between the ESLRs, instructional focus,

and what is assessed (quality indicator 8). The follow-up interview data and data

gleaned from the documents reviewed conflict. This inconsistency corroborates

survey data, suggesting that School B satisfied part (b) of the research

parameters. All three data sources substantiated the finding that Correlate 3 is

not evident at School B.

 71

For each of the three quality indicators of Correlate 3, School C had,

respectively, 64%, 79%, and 58% agreement. This is an average of 67% across

the three quality indicators, suggesting that 22 of all 33 survey respondents at

School C indicated that they agreed with the quality essence of Correlate 3. The

overall mean value of 2.3 across all three quality indicators shows a tendency

toward an undecided response, and the average standard deviation of .88 across

all three quality indicators suggests a cluster of the survey data around the mean.

Additionally, an average of 9% of survey respondents indicated that they

disagreed, while 24% indicated that they were undecided in regard to Correlate

3. Together, the disagreed and undecided responses totaled 33%, suggesting

that 11 of 33 respondents disagreed or were conflicted in regard to the notion of

a clear and focused mission in School C. However, these numbers also indicate

that School C satisfied part (a) of the research parameters and that Correlate 3 is

evident at School C.

Follow-up interview responses were conflicting. One interviewee stated

that the school has clear goals that are understood and shared by all. The other

interviewee stated that the school goals (ESLRs) are not expressed frequently,

are not clear, and, consequently, have not been internalized by all staff. The

document (produced by the school, 2011) reviewed affirmed the presence of the

ESLRs but did not provide evidence that undermined survey responses to quality

indicators 16 and 18, for which at least one-third of the respondents either

disagreed or indicated ambivalence in regard to the clarity of school goals

(quality indicator 16) as well as the degree of alignment between the school
goals, instructional focus, and what is assessed (quality indicator 18). This

lack of evidence offers partial support for the data that relates to Correlate 3 at

School C. The follow-up interview data and data gleaned from the documents

reviewed are conflicting and only partially corroborate the survey data,

suggesting that School C partially satisfied part (b) of the research parameters.

All three data sources substantiated the finding that correlate C is evident but

shows a weak presence at School C.

Correlate 4: Strong instructional leadership. Four quality indicators of

this correlate were examined. Table 5 presents data for the indicators of this

correlate at each of the three JHSs. School A had, respectively, 94%, 97%,

91%, and 9 1 % agreement. This is an average of 93% across the four quality

indicators, suggesting that 30 of all 33 survey respondents at School A indicated

that they agreed with the quality essence of Correlate 4. The overall mean value

of 1.5 across all four quality indicators affirmed agreement as the central

tendency of the survey data, and the average standard deviation of .74 across all

quality indicators suggests a cluster of the survey data around the mean.

Additionally, an average of 4% of respondents indicated that they disagreed,

while an average of 3% indicated that they were undecided in regard to Correlate

4. Together, the disagreed and undecided responses totaled 7%, suggesting

that 2 of 33 survey respondents disagreed or were conflicted in regard to the

notion of strong instructional leadership in School A. These numbers also

indicate that School A satisfied part (a) of the research parameters and that

Correlate 4 is evident at School A.

 73

Table 5

Correlate 4: Strong Instructional Leadership

Question/Quality Agree Undecided Disagree

Indicator (%) (%) (%) Mean SD
19. The principal has established a strong academic and behavioral focus in the
school
School A 94 3 3 1.5 0.71
School B 83 13 4 1.9 0.81
School C 91 3 6 1.8 0.78
20. The principal is a strong instructional leader
School A 97 0 3 1.5 0.67
School B 87 9 4 1.8 0.78
School C 88 9 3 1.7 0.77
21. The principal actively supports the schools mission through resource
allocation
School A 91 6 3 1.5 0.76
School B 78 22 0 1.7 0.81
School C 94 6 0 1.6 0.61
22. The principal is supportive of teachers
School A 91 3 6 1.6 0.83
School B 91 4 4 1.7 0.76
School C 97 3 0 1.3 0.54

Follow-up interviewees reported that the school principal is experienced,

credible, and knowledgeable about curriculum standards and how to deconstruct

them. The documents (Shared Decision Making Council-SDMC Governance,

2010; Title 1- SPSA, 2010) reviewed revealed that the principal is collaborative in

leadership style and actively supports the school's mission through prudent

allocation of human and material resources. Follow-up interview data, as well as

data gleaned from documents reviewed, corroborate survey data, suggesting that
School A also satisfied part (b) of the research parameters. All three data

sources substantiated the finding that Correlate 4 is evident and shows a strong

presence at School A.

For each of the four quality indicators of Correlate 4, School B had,

respectively, 83%, 87%, 78%, and 9 1 % agreement. This is an average of 85%

across the four quality indicators, suggesting that 19 of the 23 survey

respondents at School B indicated that they agreed with the quality essence of

Correlate 4. The overall mean value of 1.8 across all four quality indicators

affirmed agreement as the central tendency of the survey data, and the average

standard deviation of .79 across all four quality indicators suggests a cluster of

the survey data around the mean. Additionally, an average of 3% of survey

respondents indicated that they disagreed, while an average of 12% indicated

that they were undecided in regard to Correlate 4. Together, the disagreed and

undecided responses totaled 15%, suggesting that 4 of 23 survey respondents

disagreed or were conflicted in regard to the notion of strong instructional

leadership in School B. These numbers also indicate that School B satisfied part

(a) of the research parameters and that Correlate 4 is evident at School B.

Follow-up interviewees reported that the school principal is credible and is

a knowledgeable instructional leader who is brave, empathic, and collaborative in

leadership style. The documents (Shared Decision Making Council-SDMC

Governance, 2010; Title 1- SPSA, 2010) reviewed affirmed that the principal is

collaborative in leadership style and actively supports the school's mission

through prudent allocation of human and material resources. Both follow-up

interview data and data gleaned from documents reviewed corroborate survey

data, suggesting that School B also satisfied part (b) of the research parameters.

All three data sources substantiated the finding that Correlate 4 is evident and

shows a strong presence at School B.

For each of the four quality indicators of Correlate 4, School C had,

respectively, 91%, 88%, 94%, and 97% agreement. This is an average of 93%

across the four quality indicators, suggesting that 30 of all 33 survey respondents

at School C indicated that they agreed with the quality essence of Correlate 4.

The overall mean value of 1.6 across all four quality indicators affirmed

agreement as the central tendency of the survey data, and the average standard

deviation of .67 across all four quality indicators suggests a cluster of the survey

data around the mean. Additionally, an average of 2% of survey respondents

indicated that they disagreed, while an average of 5% indicated that they were

undecided in regard to Correlate 4. Together, the disagreed and undecided

responses totaled 7%, suggesting that 2 of 33 survey respondents disagreed or

were conflicted in regard to the notion of strong instructional leadership in School

C. These numbers also indicate that School C satisfied part (a) of the research

parameters and that Correlate 4 is evident at School B.

Follow-up interviewees reported that the school principal is credible by

virtue of having extensive experience with the JHS educational environment.

Interviewees also reported that the principal is a respectful and supportive leader

who is knowledgeable about academic standards and effective at creating

collaborative work environments. The documents (produced by the school,

2011; Shared Decision Making Council-SDMC Governance, 2010; Title 1-

SPSA, 2010) reviewed confirmed that the principal is collaborative in leadership

style and actively supports the school's mission through prudent allocation of

human and material resources. Both follow-up interview data and data gleaned

from documents reviewed corroborate survey data, suggesting that School C

also satisfied part (b) of the research parameters. All three data sources

substantiated the finding that Correlate 4 is evident and shows a strong presence

at School C.

Correlate 5: Frequent monitoring of student progress. Three quality

indicators of this correlate were examined. Table 6 presents survey data for the

indicators of this correlate at each of the three JHSs. School A had, respectively,

73%, 94%, and 73% agreement. This is an average of 80% across the three

quality indicators, suggesting that 26 of all 33 survey respondents at School A

indicated that they agreed with the quality essence of Correlate 5. The overall

mean value of 1.9 across all three quality indicators affirmed agreement as the

central tendency of the survey data, and the average standard deviation of .80

across all four quality indicators suggests a cluster of the survey data around the

mean. Additionally, an average of 4% of survey respondents indicated that they

disagreed, while an average of 16% stated that they were undecided in regard to

Correlate 5. Together, the disagreed and undecided responses totaled 20%,

suggesting that 7 of 33 survey respondents disagreed or were conflicted in

regard to the notion that frequent monitoring of student progress occurs in School

A. These numbers also indicate that School A satisfied part (a) of the research
 77

parameters and that Correlate 5 is evident in School A.

Table 6

Correlate 5: Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress

Question/Quality Agree Undecided Disagree

Indicator (%) (%) (%) Mean SD
23. In this school, academic and behavioral progress is measured at regular
intervals
School A 73 24 3 2.0 0.83
School B 70 17 13 2.1 1.01
School C 66 19 16 2.3 1.06
24. There is a school-wide commitment to assessment, accountability, and
student progress toward the achievement of the ESLRs
School A 94 6 0 1.7 0.57
School B 69 22 9 2.0 0.98
School C 58 27 15 2.5 1.00
25. School-wide, students performance data are used to inform and guide
decision making
School A 73 18 9 2.1 1.01
School B 74 13 13 2.1 0.97
School C 61 21 18 2.5 1.15

Follow-up interviewees reported that student progress is frequently

monitored in School A and that there is a school-wide commitment to authentic

local assessment. Documents (produced by the school, 2011; Title 1- SPSA,

2010) reviewed corroborate interview and survey data. The documents cited test

results from state standardized tests as well as results from locally developed

assessments. Both follow-up interview data and data gleaned from documents

reviewed corroborate survey data, suggesting that School A also satisfied part

(b) of the research parameters. All three data sources substantiated the finding

that Correlate 5 is evident and shows a strong presence in School A.

 For each of the three quality indicators of Correlate 5, School B had,

respectively, 70%, 69%, and 74% agreement. This is an average of 7 1 % across

the three quality indicators, suggesting that 16 of the 23 survey respondents at

School B indicated that they agreed with the quality essence of Correlate 5. The

overall mean value of 2 across all three quality indicators affirmed agreement as

the central tendency of the survey data, and the average standard deviation of

.98 across all three quality indicators suggests a cluster of the survey data

around the mean. Additionally, an average of 12% of survey respondents

indicated that they disagreed, while 17% indicated they were undecided in regard

to Correlate 5. Together, the disagreed and undecided responses totaled 29%,

suggesting that 7 of 23 survey respondents disagreed or were conflicted in

regard to the notion of frequent monitoring of student progress in School B.

These numbers also indicate that School B satisfied part (a) of the research

parameters and that Correlate 5 is evident at School B.

Follow-up interviewees stated that the school is committed to frequent

assessment as required by formal state mandated tests such as the CST and

CAHSEE. However, interviewees also expressed the need for a more reliable

assessment practice that recognizes and accommodates the unique challenges

posed by high student mobility in JHSs. The documents (produced by the

school, 2008; Title 1-SPSA, 2010) reviewed confirmed the frequent use of state-

mandated assessment data to guide instructional focus and allocation of

resources. Both follow-up interview data and the data gleaned from the

documents reviewed, corroborated survey data, suggesting that School B also

satisfied part (b) of the research parameter. All three data sources

substantiated the finding that Correlate 5 is evident and shows a strong presence

at School B.

For each of the three quality indicators of Correlate 5, School C had,

respectively, 66%, 58%, and 6 1 % agreement. This is an average of 62% across

the three quality indicators, suggesting that 20 of all 33 survey respondents at

School C indicated that they agreed with the quality essence of Correlate 5. The

overall mean value of 2.4 across all three quality indicators shows a tendency

toward an undecided response, and the average standard deviation of 1.07

across all three quality indicators suggests a slight spread of the survey data

away from the mean. Additionally, an average of 16% of survey respondents

indicated that they disagreed, while 22% indicated that they were undecided in

regard to Correlate 5. Together, the disagreed and undecided responses totaled

38% suggesting that 13 of 33 survey respondents either disagreed or were

conflicted in regard to the notion of frequent monitoring of student progress in

School C. These numbers also indicate that School C failed to satisfy part (a) of

the research parameters and that Correlate 5 is not evident at School C.

Follow-up interviewees acknowledged the frequent use of state-mandated

tests and expressed concern about the validity of these test results in the JHS

environment. Interviewees provided insights into developing alternative means

of assessment that they considered more authentic. The proposed assessment

metric contains the following elements: portable and useable across all three

JHSs and short-term, locally developed pre- and post-tests with a writing
component. The document (produced by the school, 2011; Title 1-SPSA,

2010) reviewed reported that student performance data on standardized state-

mandated tests typically inform and guide instructional focus and resource

allocation. However, this claim does not substantiate the survey data. In fact,

more than one-third, or 2 in every 5, survey respondents disagreed or were

ambivalent in regard to quality indicator 25: "school-wide students' performance

data are used to inform and guide decision-making on instruction." This

inconsistency corroborates the survey data, suggesting that School C satisfied

part (b) of the research parameters. All three data sources substantiated the

finding that Correlate 5 is not evident at School C.

Research Question 2

What are the perceptions of teachers and administrators in the three JHSs

in terms of the presence and strength of the correlates? This question was

examined by conducting a semi-structured follow-up interview in mid-spring

2011. After a preliminary analysis of the survey data was completed, a total of 6

participants, one teacher and one administrator from each of the three school

sites, were purposefully selected and interviewed and asked to provide their

perceptions of or "voice" to the survey data. Interviewees' responses are

summarized below. For the purpose of confidentiality, identifiers such as gender

and job titles of the interviewees were omitted.

Correlate 1: Safe and orderly environment. Each of the six

interviewees perceived their schools as a safe and orderly place to learn and

work. The interviewees clearly articulated the reasons that support their
 81

perceptions. One interviewee from School A attributed the perception of

safety and orderliness to the presence of probation staff in the classroom,

security cameras in the classroom, and a follow-up system of school referrals. In

keeping with this response, the other interviewee added that probation staff also

search all students to ensure that no contraband (e.g., guns, knives) is brought to

school. Interviewees' perceptions were consistent and support the finding that

Correlate 1, a safe and orderly environment, is evident and shows a strong

presence at School A.

An interviewee from School B credited the perception of safety and

orderliness to the presence of strong leadership that clarifies the school vision

and direction. According to the interviewee, this leadership has developed

structures and put in place orderly processes. Additionally, "there's a willingness

among teachers to regiment themselves on behalf of this strong leader." The

other interviewee corroborated the perception of strong leadership and alluded to

work ethics, morale, and partnership with probation as factors that sustain the

perception of safety and orderliness. As summed up by this interviewee,

probation's role is "to provide safety and security." Interviewees' perceptions

were consistent and support the finding that Correlate 1, safe and orderly

environment, is evident and shows a strong presence at School B.

An interviewee from School C ascribed the perception of safe and orderly

environment to probation's presence in the classroom, student programs that

promote orderliness, and time management skills, as well as a cadre of school

staff that do not project fear onto students. The other interviewee confirmed the
presence of probation in classrooms. In addition, this interviewee recognized

the positive impact of district and Department of Justice mandates on structured

student movement and instructional minutes on safety and orderliness. Further,

the interviewee added that "being a lock-up facility, there are things you won't

find on our campus like students that bring guns .. . knives . . . the students are

housed here; they do not leave, enter, or exit the facility at will." Interviewees'

perceptions were consistent and support the finding that Correlate 1, safe and

orderly environment, is evident at School C. However, interviewees did not

address the concern about student discipline issues as contained in the self-

study document.

Correlate 2: Climate of high expectations for student success. All six

interviewees were asked to give their insights into teacher and administrator

behaviors that support a climate of high expectations for student success at their

respective schools. An interviewee from School A alluded to the leadership of a

knowledgeable administrator who is a "true curriculum leader." Other factors

include energetic new teachers, innovative experienced teachers, and the overall

willingness of staff to embrace technology in the classroom. The other

interviewee cited teacher collaboration through professional learning

communities, one-on-one peer coaching, administrative support, and follow-up

with teachers. Interviewees' perceptions were consistent and support the finding

that Correlate 2, a climate of high expectations for student success, is evident.

However, the weak presence of this correlate is inferred from interviewees'

silence in regard to staff's belief that they can successfully teach all students and
that all students can learn the school goals.

At School B, leadership behaviors, such as providing clarity of vision and

tangible pathways to achieve student success, were identified by one

interviewee. Other factors cited by this interviewee include academic and

assessment practices, such as state assessments, and daily classroom

assessments that provide feedback on student learning. An incentive program

that recognizes and rewards hardworking teachers was also mentioned. As

indicated by this interviewee, these factors are all subordinate to the feeling of

trust among teachers as well as trust between teachers and administrators. The

other interviewee at School B stated that the open-door policy, high visibility, and

a non-threatening approach to leadership are factors that support a climate of

high expectations for success. Interviewees' perceptions were inconsistent with

survey data and the finding that Correlate 2, high expectations for student

success, is not evident at School B partly because interviewees failed to speak

about the belief that staff can successfully teach all students and that all students

can learn the school goals.

At School C, one interviewee stated that the school offers one-on-one

counseling and that staff show concern, encourage, and give students hope or

"something to look forward to." In addition, leadership offers students the

opportunity to participate in ceremonies that recognize and reward positive

behavior. The other interviewee alluded to assignments that require higher level

critical thinking skills, adherence to state curriculum standards with scaffolding as

necessary, classroom assessments, frequent classroom pop-ins by

administrators, and assistance to teachers as factors that support a climate of

high expectations for success. Both interviewees' perceptions were inconsistent

with survey data and the finding that Correlate 2, high expectations for student

success, is not evident at School C partly because interviewees failed to speak

about the belief that staff can successfully teach all students and that all students

can learn the school goals.

Correlate 3: Clear and focused mission. When asked to articulate the

clear and focused missions of their schools, both interviewees from School A

cited their Single Plan for Student Achievement (Title 1-SPSA document), which

contains three goals: improving literacy, achievement in math, and preparation

for student transition back to their communities. In addition, both interviewees

emphasized that these goals were written by teachers through a collaborative

effort and that they are discussed at most staff meetings and trainings. They

also reported that these goals are aligned with the school's ESLRs.

Interviewees' perceptions were consistent with survey data and the finding that

Correlate 3, clear and focused mission, is evident and strongly present at School

A.

At School B, one interviewee described the school goals as improving

student achievement and preparing students for successful integration into the

community. The other interviewee referenced the school's ESLRs and vision

statement, emphasizing that professional development activity is always geared

toward achieving the ESLRs and school vision. The interviewee added that

these goals are prioritized. According to the interviewee, the critical academic
needs, as identified in the school s Title 1-SPSA document, often take

precedence over all other needs during discussions at staff meetings.

Interviewees' perceptions were inconsistent with survey data and the finding that

Correlate 3, clear and focused mission, is not evident at School B.

At School C, one interviewee stated that the school goals are "not

expressed frequently . . . any given teacher at any given time, more than likely

cannot tell you the goals of the school." Teachers have access to the school

goals, but this interviewee maintained that teachers have not internalized them.

From the perspective of this interviewee, teachers would need to connect to the

school goals for the goals to be meaningful; otherwise, "the goals are not

practiced . . . it is a void and it's a disconnect." The other interviewee indicated

that the "learning-for-all" notion is one of the school goals. The other goals are

clearly stated in the ESLRs. This interviewee added that discussions about

these goals take place at department meetings, professional development, and

triad meetings. Interviewees' perceptions were inconsistent with one another.

However, this inconsistency supports the finding that, although evident, Correlate

3 shows a weak presence at School C.

Correlate 4: Strong instructional leadership. In describing the skill sets

or qualities that make the school principal a strong instructional leader, one

interviewee at School A reported that the school principal is an overachiever, with

high expectations for self and staff. The principal is knowledgeable about

curriculum standards and how to deconstruct them. According to this

interviewee, prior job experiences as a trainer of teachers contribute to the

overall effectiveness of the school principal. The other interviewee cited

professional credibility gained as a former teacher at the school as an important

factor that contributes to the perception that the principal is a strong instructional

leader. Prior experience as a senior program specialist of curriculum and

instruction and as a teacher coach also enhanced this credibility. This

interviewee also reported that the school principal attends a lot of training with

teachers to enhance understanding and heighten expectations for teachers.

Both interviewees' perceptions were consistent with survey data and the finding

that Correlate 4, strong instructional leadership, is evident and shows a strong

presence at School A.

At School B, one interviewee alluded to vision, bravery, empathy for staff,

and the ability to work together with staff as the principal's strong leadership

qualities. The other interviewee ascribed strong instructional leadership to the

perception of credibility, gained through the principal's career path (rising from

tutor to teacher to assistant principal to principal at the same school). Other skills

included the ability to mentor teachers, model instruction, and visit the

classrooms. Both interviewees' perceptions were consistent with survey data

and the finding that Correlate 4 is evident and shows a strong presence at

School B.

At School C, one interviewee stated that the principal "has come from the

bottom up," meaning that the principal has risen through the ranks as a para-

educator, a substitute teacher, a teacher, and an assistant principal. Through

these experiences, according to the interviewee, the principal has learned how to
"respect teachers at various levels." Other skills include candid

communication, active listening, accessibility, ability to inspire, and the courage

to lead. The other interviewee reported that experience with staff training,

knowledge of standards, support and appreciation of staff, and the creation of an

environment that encourages teamwork gave rise to the perception of strong

instructional leadership at the school. This interviewee concluded by adding that

this principal has gained the trust of staff by being transparent. Both

interviewees' perceptions were consistent with survey data and the finding that

Correlate 4 is evident and shows a strong presence at School C.

Correlate 5: Frequent monitoring of student progress. In JHSs, the

high mobility of the student's population continues to pose significant challenges

to the legitimacy of conventional assessment practices (state-mandated tests).

This concern necessitated soliciting the perceptions of interviewees on the

monitoring of student progress. The two interviewees from School A stated that

the metric of assessment must be locally developed, be short-term (10 school

days), and contain a pre- and post-test component. Although still aligned with

the district-wide assessment plan, each standard needs to be deconstructed to

make it realistic for teachers and to keep teachers focused on it. Utilizing some

of their Title 1 funds, the interviewees claimed they have adopted this two-week

assessment model at School A and are already seeing "really good . . . and

amazing results . . . huge growth between pre- and post-tests." Both

interviewees' perceptions were consistent with survey data and the finding that

Correlate 5, frequent monitoring of student progress, is evident and shows a

strong presence at School A.

In School B, an interviewee asserted that an effective metric of

assessment in JHSs must demonstrate understanding of the state, district, and

school goals. These three goals must be synthesized to meet the needs of the

unique student population. The other interviewee commended the impending

district-wide assessment plan of standards-based grading. This means that

students are assessed by a single standard at a time and with a pre- and post-

test component. In addition, plans are in place for an improved credit recovery

system, dubbed "the 20-day system." Both interviewees' perceptions were

consistent with survey data and support the finding that Correlate 5, frequent

monitoring of student progress, is evident and shows a strong presence at

School B.

At School C, one interviewee stated that an effective metric of

assessment must be portable and utilized district-wide. The interviewee added

that it needs to have a writing piece with legitimate pre- and post-tests

administered under appropriate testing conditions. A critical component,

according to this interviewee, is that the metric must include a rating for students'

emotional maturity with respect to their self-concept, self-esteem, and self-

identity. This interviewee stated, "Academics in terms of our students is

secondary . . . what they feel and what they think is primary." Therefore,

"teachers must not judge students, but simply show they care, so that students

can, in turn, care for themselves and perhaps care about success in academics."

The other interviewee prescribed looking at students' work and short-term (20
days) local assessments. Although consistent with one another, both

interviewees' perceptions were inconsistent with survey data and the finding that

Correlate 5, frequent monitoring of student progress, is not evident at School C.

Research Question 3

To what extent or "how" are the identified correlates of effective schools,

resources, and teacher talents coordinated across all three JHSs for optimal

organizational effectiveness?

The addressing of Research Question 3 involved combining the three

JHSs into a single learning organization. This question has two parts: (a) the

extent to which the identified correlates from Research Question 1 are

coordinated across the three JHSs, and (b) the extent to which material and

human resources are coordinated across the three JHSs. The same on-line

survey tool ("esrealitycheck"; Lezotte, 2003) used to address Research Question

1 served as the key data source for addressing Research Question 3. Thus, the

data relevant to Research Question 1 also apply to part (a) of this question.

Extensive discussions of these data (survey, follow-up interviews, and

documents reviewed as well as how they were utilized to identify the correlates

evident and the strength of their presence in each of the three JHSs) were

presented above. Therefore, to mitigate redundancy, a comprehensive approach

is applied in response to part (a) of Research Question 3. This means that

survey data for a correlate in each of the three JHSs is combined into overall

data in response to Research Question 3. Thus, for an identified correlate to be

considered "coordinated" throughout JHS as a single learning organization, the

 90

researcher established that survey data in response to Research Question 1

must affirm that the correlate in question is evident in each of the three JHSs and

that at least 80% or 71 (a number indicating overwhelming conformity) of all 89

survey respondents must indicate that they agree with the essence of the

correlate in question. Otherwise, the correlate is considered "not coordinated"

across all three JHSs. Table 7 presents the composite survey responses (all

three JHSs combined) to each identified correlate.

 91

Table 7

Composite Survey Responses across JHSs as a Single Learning Organization

Correlate n %

1. Safe and Orderly Environment

Agree 72 81
Undecided 9 10
Disagree 8 9
2. Climate of High Expectations for Student Success
Agree 60 67
Undecided 11 12
Disagree 18 21
3. Clear and Focused Mission
Agree 61 68
Undecided 9 10
Disagree 19 22
4. Strong Instructional Leadership
Agree 80 90
Undecided 3 3
Disagree 6 7
5. Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress
Agree 63 71
Disagree 10 11
Undecided 16 18

Correlate 1: Safe and orderly environment. Information gathered in

response to Research Question 1 affirmed that Correlate 1 is evident in all three

JHSs, although to a varying degree. While Correlate 1 is evident and strongly

present in Schools A and B, it is evident, but weakly present, in School C.

Composite survey data for this correlate showed that 81%, or 72 of the 89

respondents, indicated that they agreed with the essence of Correlate 1.

Additionally, 20%, or 18 of 89 respondents, indicated that they disagreed or

were undecided in regard to the quality essence of this correlate in JHS.

According to the research parameters, these data substantiate the finding that

Correlate 1 is coordinated across all three JHSs.

Correlate 2: Climate of high expectations for student success.

Information gathered in response to Research Question 1 affirmed that Correlate

2 is evident in only one of the three JHSs. While Correlate 2 is evident, but

weakly present, in School A, it is not evident in Schools B and C. Composite

survey data showed that 67%, or 60 of 89 respondents, indicated that they

agreed with the essence of Correlate 2. Additionally, 33%, or 29 of 89

respondents, indicated that they either disagreed or were undecided in regard to

the quality essence of Correlate 2 in JHS. According to the research parameters,

these data substantiate the finding that Correlate 2 is not coordinated across all

three JHSs.

Correlate 3: Clear and focused mission. Information gathered in

response to Research Question 1 affirmed that Correlate 3 is evident and

strongly present in School A, not evident in School B, and evident, with a weak

presence, in School C. Composite survey data showed that 68%, or 61 of 89

respondents, indicated that they agreed with the essence of Correlate 3 in JHS.

Additionally, 32%, or 28 of 89 respondents, indicated that they either disagreed

or were undecided in regard to the quality essence of Correlate 3 in JHS.

According to the research parameters, these data substantiate the finding that

Correlate 3 is not coordinated across all three JHSs.

 Correlate 4: Strong instructional leadership. Information gathered

in response to Research Question 1 affirmed that Correlate 4 is evident in all

three JHSs. Composite survey data showed that 91%, or 81 of 89 respondents,

indicated that they agreed with the essence of Correlate 4 in JHSs. Additionally,

8%, or 7 of 89 respondents, indicated that they either disagreed or were

undecided in regard to the quality essence of Correlate 4 in JHSs. According to

the research parameters, these data substantiate the finding that Correlate 4 is

coordinated across all three JHSs.

Correlate 5: Frequent monitoring of student progress. Information

gathered in response to Research Question 1 affirmed that Correlate 5 is evident

and strongly present in Schools A and B but not evident in School C. Composite

survey data showed that 71%, or 64 of 89 respondents, indicated that they

agreed with the essence of Correlate 1. Additionally, 29%, or 26 of 89

respondents, indicated that they either disagreed or were undecided in regard to

the quality essence of Correlate 5 in JHS as a single learning organization.

According to the research parameters, these data substantiate the finding that

Correlate 5 is not coordinated across all three JHSs.

Table 8 presents the survey responses to the four questions concerning

the extent of coordination of material and human resources across the three

JHSs combined into a single learning organization. As previously stated in

regard to Research Question 1, survey responses for strongly agree and agree

were collapsed, as were the responses for disagree and strongly disagree.

Again, the researcher established that an "agree" response from at least 67% of
 94

participants is indicative of the coordination of a resource across the three

JHSs. Thus, to be considered coordinated, the resource in question must satisfy

the following two parameters: (a) "agree" responses must occur among at least

67% of respondents, and (b) both follow-up interview data and data from

documents reviewed must corroborate survey data. Otherwise, the resource is

considered not coordinated across the three JHSs.

Table 8

Extent of Coordination of Material and Human Resources

Agree Undecided Disagree

Question (%) (%) (%) Mean SD

26. From your experience, 69 23 8 2.1 0.95

curriculum and pacing plans are
coordinated across all three
JHSs.

27. Opportunity is available for 47 22 32 2.8 1.20

instructional staff from all three
JHSs to collaborate, share ideas
and information about effective
instruction and student learning.

28. Material and other resources 39 31 31 2.9 1.09

are shared across all three JHSs
for the benefit of students.

29. There is a clear and shared 55 32 13 2.5 1.10

vision of learning for students
that is understood and supported
by all three JHSs.

A total of 89 teachers and administrators took the survey in JHS. Of

these, 69%, or 6 1 , indicated that curriculum and pacing plans are coordinated

across all three JHSs. Additionally, 3 1 % , or 28 respondents, indicated that they

either disagreed or were undecided in regard to whether the curriculum pacing

plan is coordinated across all there JHSs. Follow-up interview data, as well as
 95

data gleaned from documents reviewed, confirm survey data. Interviewees

made references to the curriculum pacing plan, citing it as the "one thing" that the

three JHSs have in common. The documents (produced by the schools, 2008;

2011) reviewed also cited the curriculum pacing plan as evidence of standard-

based education throughout the document. All three data sources satisfied both

established research parameters and substantiated the finding that curriculum

pacing plan, "what is taught, and when it is taught," are coordinated across all

three JHSs.

In regard to the opportunity for instructional staff from one JHS to

collaborate with their colleagues from other JHSs, 47%, or 42 respondents,

indicated they agreed that such opportunities are available. Additionally, 54%, or

48 respondents, indicated that they either disagreed or were undecided in regard

to the notion that opportunity is available for instructional staff to collaborate or

share ideas and information in regard to effective instruction to enhance student

learning. Interviewees stated that they do not share much of anything beyond

their students and the curriculum pacing plans. The documents (produced by the

schools; professional development calendar) reviewed revealed that district-

initiated professional development training is made available to all instructional

staff. However, no other evidence was found to substantiate the availability of

opportunities for instructional staff from all three JHSs to collaborate about

effective instructional strategies that enhance student learning. Thus, the survey

data failed to satisfy the research parameters. Follow-up interview data and data

from the documents reviewed supported survey data. All three data sources
substantiated the finding that teacher talents are not coordinated across the

three JHSs.

Given that the three JHSs share the same students, survey question 28

examined the extent to which material and other resources are shared across the

three JHSs for the benefit of all students. The results indicated that 39%, or 35

respondents, indicated they agreed that material resources are shared across

the three JHSs. Additionally, 62%, or 55 respondents, indicated that they either

disagreed or were undecided in regard to the notion that material and other

resources are shared across the three JHSs for the benefit of students. Both

follow-up interview data and data from documents reviewed support survey

responses. Interviewees stated that they are "looked at" as a separate school by

the central office and that each of the three JHSs operates largely in isolation.

They also indicated the schools do not share resources of any kind but

acknowledged that this is needed for the growth of a JHS as a learning

organization. No evidence was found in the documents reviewed to contradict

the data from surveys and follow-up interviews. Survey data failed to satisfy the

research parameters. Follow-up interview data and data from documents

reviewed corroborate survey data. All three data sources substantiated the

finding that material resources are not coordinated across JHS.

Viewed as a single learning organization, it was important to know

whether there is a clear and shared vision of learning for students that is

understood and supported by all three JHSs. The results indicated that 55%, or

32 respondents, indicated they agreed there is a shared vision of learning for all
students across the three JHSs. Additionally, 45%, or 40 respondents,

indicated they disagreed or were undecided in regard to the notion that there is a

clear and shared vision of learning for all students that is understood and

supported by all three JHSs. According to data from follow-up interviews and the

documents reviewed, there is a district-wide "leaming-for-all" vision, but the

extent to which this vision is shared or understood across the three JHSs could

not be verified by these data sources. Interviewees reiterated that the ESLRs

are different across the three JHSs. The documents reviewed (produced by the

school, Title 1- SPSA) did not provide information that was contrary to survey

and follow-up interview data. In fact, information culled from the documents

supported survey and interview data. In particular, the documents revealed that

each school operates largely in isolation in terms of its vision, mission, and

resource management. Survey data failed to satisfy the research parameters.

Follow-up interview data, as well as data from documents reviewed, supported

survey data. All three data sources substantiated the finding that the

organizational vision is unclear and not coordinated across all three JHSs.

Chapter Summary

This chapter presented the results of this study, using the three research

questions as its foundation. The findings are supported by multiple sources of

data generated from surveys, follow-up interviews, and documents reviewed.

In regard to Research Question 1, five findings emerged:

1. The correlate of safe and orderly environment is evident in all three

JHSs. It is strongly present in schools A and B but weakly present in School C.

 2. The correlate of a climate of high expectations for student success is

evident in only one of the three JHSs. It is evident, but weakly present, in School

A but not evident in schools B and C.

3. The correlate of clear and focused mission is evident in two of three

JHSs. It is evident and showed a strong presence in School A, not evident in

School B, and evident, but with a weak presence, in School C.

4. The correlate of strong instructional leadership is evident and showed a

strong presence in all three JHSs.

5. The correlate of frequent monitoring of student progress is evident in

two of the three JHSs. It is evident with a strong presence in schools A and B

but not evident in School C.

One finding emerged for Research Question 2. Interviewee perceptions

are consistent with survey data for the correlates considered. These perceptions

also provided a deeper understanding by providing insight into and "voice" to the

survey data. Specifically, all six interviewees stated that their school

environments manifest safety and orderliness, especially due to the presence of

probation staff inside the classrooms or in close proximity to the classrooms.

Additionally, all six interviewees stated that their site administrators are strong

instructional leaders, for a variety of reasons, but collectively due to their

longstanding experience as educators in various capacities within JHSs.

Regarding the correlates of a climate of high expectations for student success,

clear and focused mission, and frequent monitoring of student progress, all six

interviewees expressed mixed perceptions about the presence and strength of

 99

these correlates, depending on their school site.

Two findings emerged for Research Question 3:

1. The correlates of safe and orderly environment and strong instructional

leadership, along with curriculum/pacing plans, are coordinated across all three

JHSs.

2. The correlates of high expectations for student success, clear and

focused mission, and frequent monitoring of student progress, as well as material

resources, teacher talents, and a clear and shared vision of learning, are not

coordinated across all three JHSs.

Finally, one unanticipated finding emerged. Participants indicated a

preference for "home-grown" site administrators. Follow-up interview data, as

well as data culled from the documents reviewed, substantiated survey data that

suggested this preference.

 100

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

This chapter provides a discussion and interpretation of the findings. The

chapter begins with a review of the dissertation, followed by the conclusions,

relationship of the findings to the literature, the strengths, weaknesses, and

limitations, implications, and recommendations. The chapter concludes with a

summary.

Review of the Study

The study addressed two problems of practice in three JHSs in Southern

California. The primary problem addressed was how to understand and

articulate the issue of school effectiveness in JHSs under the NCLB policy

environment. The secondary problem of practice addressed was the extent of

"connectedness" between the three JHSs. Examining connectedness is

important because, although geographically separate, these three schools

essentially share the same students because students are frequently transferred

from one JHS to another due to court orders and at the discretion of the

probation department. This shuffling of students constitutes a problem of mutual

interest that seriously interrupts student learning at all three JHSs.

The purpose of this research was twofold. Its primary purpose was to

identify which of Lezotte's (1986) correlates of effective schools are evident and

the strength of their presence in each of the three short-term JHSs and to utilize
 101

these correlates in combination with systems thinking to determine the extent

of collaboration and coordination of educational services, resources, and teacher

talent among the three JHSs. The secondary purpose was to utilize the

information gathered as the basis for suggesting policy and structural reforms to

short-term JHSs in ways that support and optimize their effectiveness.

This study was framed by the constructivism/interpretative epistemological

worldview (Vygotsky, 1978). This is a paradigm that allows for individual or

collective construction of meaning. It was therefore useful in this exploratory

research that sought to investigate how research participants construct their

meaning of effectiveness in the non-traditional context of this research

environment.

Given the paucity of school effectiveness studies in the context of short-

term JHSs, findings from this research hold the potential to allow for a broader

and deeper understanding of school effectiveness in JHSs, to contribute to the

literature on school effectiveness, and to serve as an authentic basis for

suggesting educational policy for and structural reforms to the operation of short-

term JHSs.

Conclusions

Six conclusions were drawn from nine findings, as presented in the

previous chapter. Each conclusion was developed from an aggregate of related

research findings.

Conclusion 1

Despite the unconventional school environment and some concerns about

 102

student discipline issues, the three JHSs included in this study are

individually and collectively a safe and orderly environment that nurtures student

learning under the leadership of strong and knowledgeable administrators. In

addition, what is taught, and when it is taught are coherent and well coordinated

across the organization. This conclusion is derived from the meaning

constructed from the findings on the presence of a safe and orderly environment,

strong instructional leadership, and a coherent curriculum pacing plan across the

three JHSs.

Conclusion 2

JHS staffs have a sense of low self-efficacy about their ability to

successfully educate all students under the NCLB policy environment and have

little confidence in students' ability to succeed academically in 20 days of school

or less. This conclusion is derived from the meaning constructed from the

findings that negated the presence of a climate of high expectations for success

across the three JHSs. In particular, this correlate showed a weak presence in

one JHS and was not found to be evident in the other two JHSs. Extenuating

circumstances, such as prevailing contextual and policy-induced limitations under

the NCLB policy environment, may be factors that negatively affect the self-

efficacy perceptions of instructional staff. Other exacerbating factors could

include the isolation of teacher talents and material resources.

Conclusion 3

Although there is a clearly stated vision and a mission of learning for all

students, the findings suggest that the vision and mission are merely statements.
 103

In-depth understanding of the vision and mission is vague at each school

individually and across the three JHSs. This vagueness is seen in research

findings 3 and 8, which point to a "disconnection" between the school goals and

instructional focus.

Conclusion 4

The current assessment practices are perceived as unreliable and not

aligned with school goals. Instead of NCLB and state-mandated assessment

tools, as seen in the follow-up interviews, participants expressed a desire for an

alternative metric for monitoring student progress that is relevant to the context of

JHSs. They believe that such an assessment must be based on students' critical

academic needs, balanced with their emotional maturity level. Although some

form of local assessment is embedded in the existing curriculum pacing plan,

data are not available to verify its validity. This conclusion was derived from the

meaning ascribed to the finding that points to the absence of an effective

assessment practice coordinated across all three JHSs.

Conclusion 5

In terms of human and material resources, there is system-wide

fragmentation. Teacher talents and material resources are uncoordinated and

not shared across the three JHSs. This conclusion was drawn from the findings

that point to the isolation of teacher talents and material resources across the

three JHSs.

Conclusion 6

JHS staffs prefer "home-grown" administrators. From the perspectives of

 104

the participants, years of "in-house" experience at various levels in JHS

enhance the credibility of site administrators and increase their potential for

success as effective instructional leaders. This meaning was constructed from

an unanticipated finding.

Relationship of the Findings to the Literature

The findings of this study indicate that all five effective school correlates

considered in this study are evident in the JHSs, albeit to different degrees.

Some correlates showed a strong presence in a particular school, a weak

presence in another, or were not evident in yet another school. Developed from

the findings, the conclusions reflect the meanings that evolved or were

constructed through continuous dialogues and social interactions with the

participants and their work environments (JHSs) or the research context. This

ability to individually or collectively "make meaning" embodies the basic

propositions of social constructivism and the interpretative worldview (Creswell,

2007; Vygotsky, 1978) that anchor this study. Particularly relevant to this study is

that social constructivism supports flexibility in meaning-making by recognizing

that meaning or knowledge is not static; rather, it is organic and constantly

evolving.

Although there is a paucity of research associated with this topic, some

findings from this study support the findings of the literature presented in Chapter

2. Studies conducted by effective schools scholars such as Brookover and

Lezotte (1977) and Edmonds and Fredericksen (1978) are relevant here. Taken

together, these studies emphasized that the presence of a safe and orderly
 105

environment, clear and focused mission, strong instructional leadership, and

frequent monitoring of student progress are necessary for an effective school.

According to Lezotte and Snyder (2011), a safe and orderly environment

"provides the setting in which all other correlates of an effective school can be

successfully implemented" (p. 101). Additionally, Marzano (2003) argues that

strong instructional leadership is the overarching attribute that affects the

effective implementation of all other correlates.

Other findings from this research exemplify the principles of systems

thinking and the network theory (Barabasi, 2002; Deming, 1993; Mandell, 1999;

Senge, 1994). The correlates found to be coordinated across the three JHSs as

well as the finding that curriculum pacing plans are coordinated across the entire

JHS system demonstrate the core principles of systems thinking and network

theory, which both promote an interconnected way of looking at things by

encouraging collaborative endeavors that connect schools or other organizations

to enhance effectiveness. For instance, a portion of finding 7 supports the work

of Chenoweth (2007) that asserts that the presence of standards-based

curriculum and teachers acquainted with them is an essential characteristic of

effective schools. Finding 7 also supports the work of Wohlstetter et al. (2003)

that affirms that many schools have applied the collaborative principles of the

network theory to successfully enhance their effectiveness.

Strengths, Weaknesses, and Limitations

Determining the strengths, weaknesses, or limitations of the conclusions

necessitated further disaggregation of survey data by demographic subgroups.

 106

This deeper, two-way intersection analyses revealed that gender and job title

biases compromise the strength of Conclusion 1. Females felt less safe and

secure than did males, and administrators perceived their schools to be far more

safe and orderly than did teachers.

The support for JHS leadership transcends all demographic factors.

Regardless of gender, age, ethnicity, school site, job title, experience level, and

educational background, an overwhelming majority (> 90%) of participants

indicated a vote of confidence in the leadership ability of current JHS

administrators. This broad-based "followership" is undoubtedly an area of

strength for Conclusion 1. However, caution must be exercised when

considering a potential limitation. Most of the administrators were relatively new

to the job. For instance, the longest-serving principal had less than five years'

experience, and some had as little as six months' experience as the school

principal at the time that the survey data were collected. Thus, the extent to

which JHS site leadership can sustain this high level of followership over time

remains to be seen.

Intersection analyses of the data supporting the findings that led to

Conclusion 2 revealed that only 50% of ELL teachers believe that they can

successfully teach all students, and only 25% indicated there is a school-wide

belief that all students can learn the ESLRs. Additionally, regular and special

education teachers averaged 56% in regard to believing that they can

successfully teach all students. This percentage is consistent with that of

respondents' indicating that there is a school-wide belief that all students can
 107

achieve the ESLRs. These percentages imply that as many as 50% to 75%

of ELL teachers, and up 44% of regular and special education teachers, are

experiencing a low sense of self-efficacy concerning their job.

In contrast, other survey data indicate that 100% of administrators believe

that all teachers can successfully teach all students and that all students can

learn the ESLRs. These disparities, especially the "disconnection" between

administrator versus teacher perceptions of their own efficacy, serve to

strengthen Conclusion 2.

A two-way intersection analysis (by job title) of the data that led to

Conclusion 3 revealed that, across the three JHSs, only 50% of special

education and ELL teachers indicated that the schools have clear goals that are

developed, understood, and shared by all. Further, up to 40% of regular

education teachers expressed disagreement or ambivalence in regard to the

alignment between ESLRs, instructional focus, and what is assessed. Moreover,

up to 33% of administrators were undecided whether or disagreed that school

goals are clear and shared by all. These corroborating perspectives put forth by

a diverse participant subgroup further strengthen Conclusion 3, that the

understanding of the organizational vision and school goals is vague.

The strength of Conclusion 4 hinges on participants' desire for an

alternative assessment practice, which was especially evident in follow-up

interviews. Interviewee responses strongly point to the conviction that

standardized and state-mandated tests have proved unreliable as assessment

tools in unique educational environments such as JHSs. As such, participants

 108

advocated for short-term local assessment and monitoring practices. Such

monitoring practices may be based on a variety of activities, which include

teacher-made pre- and post-tests on specific standards taught over a two-week

period, oral responses, written assignments, and observations of students'

working. A key component of the desired assessment practice is the timely

corrective feedback that can be achieved only through teacher-made, in-

classroom assessments, particularly when one considers the high transient rate

of students.

The strength of Conclusion 5 is underscored by participants' perceptions

of operational fragmentation. Disaggregated data revealed that the perception of

isolation of teacher talents transcended all demographic subgroups. Participants

indicated that, although the three schools share the same students, they do not

share technical expertise or material resources. They added that opportunities

are seldom available for instructional staff from one JHS to collaborate with

colleagues from the other two JHSs in their efforts to enhance student

achievement. Essentially, each JHS operates in isolation from the other two.

Strengthening Conclusion 6 is the perception that JHS staff are confident

in the abilities of the site administrators to successfully lead them in their efforts

toward continuous school improvement. This vote of confidence is evident in

staff willingness to support their site administrators. These results need to be

taken with caution, however, because the leadership of these administrators has

not been tested over time.

 109

Implications

The data collected, analyzed, and synthesized, as well as the findings

and conclusions of this study, have the capacity to prompt collaborative

dialogues about school effectiveness in JHSs. An enriching discussion could

begin with the premise that the JHS, as a learning organization, has a supportive

environment from which strong instructional leaders can launch authentic school

improvements initiatives, especially in the areas of need revealed by this study.

Such areas include the development of a school culture and climate that support

high expectations for success, clarity and articulation of school goals, alignment

of school goals and curriculum with assessment practices, and the effective

coordination and allocation of human and material resources across the three

JHSs.

Future Scholarship

Although the issue of school effectiveness has been explored from the

perspectives of teachers and administrators, there is the need to further explore

this issue from a broader perspective that could include the entire school and

probation staff as well as parents. This undertaking could further deepen

understanding and enrich discussions about school effectiveness in JHSs.

Practitioners

The need to connect and share human and material resources exists

across the three JHSs. Connecting and sharing resources would result in the

effective use of available resources to support student learning, while

simultaneously promoting fiscal responsibility.

 110

Recommendations

The findings and conclusions from this study support the argument that

JHSs have some philosophical, structural, and operational constraints that

impede organizational effectiveness. This stems from the premise that an

organization's philosophical orientation serves as the foundation for its structural

and operational endeavors. The findings showed that the schools' visions and

missions are vague, not shared across the JHS system, and often not aligned

with the prevailing assessment practices in the NCLB environment. Thus, it

becomes imperative for JHS leaders at the central office to revisit their

philosophical standpoint to enable the clarification and articulation of its mission

and vision on the basis of the implicit rehabilitative intent and purpose of

correctional education. Although this intent may have shifted somewhat over the

years, experts such as Reffett (1983) remind us that correctional education

continues to gain acceptance as "a means of social reintegration upon release"

(p. 40).

Assuming this rehabilitative intent of correctional education, an important

question remains: To what extent do JHSs' strict adherence to the NCLB

assessment/accountability mandates align with this purpose? This, in turn,

determines and guides the school programs and processes to which resources

are directed. Considering the important relationship between educational

philosophy, vision, mission, and resource use, it is hoped that JHSs will, at some

point, confront this basic question. This undertaking may prove to be one of the

most basic steps necessary to invigorate the focus on continuous school

 111

improvement that will, in turn, augment overall organizational effectiveness.

Based on the review of the literature as well as the findings and

conclusions of this study, the following recommendations are put forth:

Theoretical Constructs

First, it is recommended that central office administration undergo a shift

in how they view the three JHSs, moving from the perspective of three "separate"

schools to one of one school with multiple (three) locations. This shift can be

accomplished by embracing the principles of systems thinking and network

theory. Data from this study point to a model in which each JHS is operationally

unique and viewed as a separate school, despite the fact that the three JHSs

share the same students and, consequently, problems of practice. Rather than

attempting to resolve problems of practice in isolation, the central office

administration need to embrace and encourage the three JHSs to work

collaboratively to solve common problems of practice.

The chief proponents of systems thinking and network theory (Deming,

1993; Mandell, 1999; Senge, 1994) maintain that organizations are more

effective when stakeholders look beyond isolated perspectives and take a

systems perspective. Adopting the tenets of a systems perspective means that

the central office administration will have to think about the three JHSs and the

correlates considered in this study as interconnected and interdependent

components of a single system or learning organization. Doing so would lay the

foundation and provide the conditions necessary for the three JHSs to work

collaboratively to solve problems of mutual interest that are apparently too large
 112

for any one JHS to undertake independently (Mandell, 1999).

Public Policy

At the state level, it is recommended that JHS administrators work with

state officials to adjust the curriculum for delinquent youths who are being

educated in the three JHSs. The reality of the three schools included in this

study is that their students' academic and social needs are complex. The work of

numerous scholars (Archwamety & Katsiyannis, 2000; Foley, 2001; Kollhoff,

2002; Leone & Drakeford, 1999; Leone et al., 2002; Manning & Baruth, 1996)

supports this recommendation. These authors maintain that educating at-risk

youths based on the traditional school model amounts to a bad fit that further

induces the risk of more failure. The maxim that "the most unequal thing to do is

to treat unequal people equally" is particularly relevant.

Lezotte and Snyder (2011) have argued for a customized and

differentiated curriculum designed to serve the learning needs of all students

(including incarcerated youths who are being temporarily educated at JHSs)

stating, "The sameness standard that has traditionally dominated the structure

and culture of public schools [JHS included] must be confronted . . . to operate

schools where all students have equal opportunities to learn" (p. 15). Thus,

advocating a relevant curriculum for detained juvenile offenders is essential to

promoting school effectiveness in short-term JHSs. The recommended

curriculum should include the opportunity to make well-informed choices through

critical thinking, exploration of interests, talents, and self-awareness as well as

targeted literacy and math instruction. This will ensure that the education of
 113

incarcerated youths begins at their point of need and not at the point of an

arbitrary standard.

At the federal level, it is recommended that the NCLB assessment and

accountability provisions be modified to accommodate the contextual limitations

of short-term JHSs and the unique student population that they serve. The

findings of this study support the need to create a unique blend of local, state,

and federal assessments practices that align with the academic, behavioral, and

emotional needs of the students served at JHSs. Three critical components of

such an assessment include locally-developed, short-term, and immediate

feedback.

It should be kept in mind that the NCLB accountability provisions have

merits. Its main component, testing and standards, elevates the quality of

education for all children. It also seeks to address the long-standing issue of

equity. Noddings (2007) cautions, however, that the use of NCLB vocabulary

can sometimes be misleading because "equality forces tests on everyone and

every subject [while] accountability demands equality of outcomes on every test"

(p. 210). Unfortunately, this literal interpretation tends to standardize education

for all students and to ensure that children with knowledge deficits, such as those

served by JHSs, "will likely be playing catch up throughout their entire school

experience" (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011, p. 14). This amounts to a deficit model

that unintentionally erodes the "equity" intent of the federal NCLB policy.

Thus, NCLB, while remaining in place, should be modified in the best interests of

delinquent youths educated at short-term JHSs. It is worth repeating that Dewey

 114

(1916) would say that a good society should treasure its dissidents and

mavericks alike.

Educational Practice

It is recommended that JHS administrators provide professional

development activities to engender the correlates not identified as present,

strengthen those that are weak, and sustain the ones identified. It is also

recommended that JHS administration institute a regular system-wide subject

matter staff collaboration among all three JHSs to enhance teachers' perceptions

of their self-efficacy and to mitigate isolation of teachers and material resources.

Through such interactions, staff can exchange information and share ideas and

technical expertise in ways that will serve to boost the professional "know-how" of

teachers who educate delinquent youths in unconventional educational

environments such as JHSs.

Another recommendation is that, to optimize resource allocation and use,

JHS administrators work collaboratively with staff to establish formal guidelines

for inventory and resource sharing across the three JHSs in order. Ongoing

professional development is also recommended to clarify, unify, articulate, and

re-emphasize the vision and mission (goals) of JHSs on the basis of the implicit

rehabilitative intent and purpose of correctional education. Over the years, this

intent seems to have been obscured by an adherence and compliance to state

and federal mandates. Leone et al. (2005) remind us that the "overall purpose of

correctional education is to engage youths in positive educational experiences

and prepare them for successful reentry to their schools and communities" (p.
 115

90). A clarity of purpose could also serve to improve instruction through a

renewed focus on achievable goals, increase teachers' sense of self-efficacy,

and guide the school programs and processes to which valuable resources are

directed.

The recommendation is also made that central office administration

encourage and support "insider" research of this nature. This lends itself to

authenticity, internal validity, and the potential for immediate problem

identification and resolution as a means to promote organizational effectiveness.

Hiring Practices

It is recommended that experiences acquired from working in various

capacities within JHS weigh heavily in the choice and selection of JHS site

administrators. As noted, this study revealed that several years of in-house

experience with the JHS organization can significantly boost administrators'

credibility and respect among staff. This, in turn, augments a site administrator's

potential for effectiveness as an instructional leader. Along those lines, it will be

beneficial for central office administration to encourage experienced teachers to

apply for leadership position by offering incentives to interested teachers.

Summary of the Study

This study examined the issue of school effectiveness in three JHSs in

Southern California. Despite the highly transient nature of the student

population, JHSs, like all other schools, place a high premium on the provision of

quality education to the students served. In this regard, the findings and

conclusions of this study are relevant to teachers, administrators, and

 116

policymakers alike, especially given the focus on issues that pertain to school

effectiveness in unconventional educational environments.

It is hoped that these findings and conclusions will provide the impetus for

sustained school improvement efforts that will, in turn, enhance overall school

effectiveness in JHSs. Effective schools are imperative because they have

proved to be more important than factors such as background, race/ethnicity, and

socioeconomic status in the academic and "life success" of all students,

incarcerated or free (Edmonds, 1974, 1979; Lezotte, 1986, 2001, 2007;

Sammons, 1999; Sammons et al., 1995). It is also hoped that the findings and

conclusions of this study will deepen understanding and broaden knowledge and

dialogue about school effectiveness in non-traditional educational settings such

as schools within juvenile detention facilities, which served as the contextual

focus of this study.

 117

REFERENCES

Angen, M. (2000). Evaluating interpretative inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate

and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 70(3), 378-395.

Apple, M. (2001). Educating the "right" way: Markets standards, God, and

inequity. New York, NY: Routledge.

Archwamety, T., & Katsiyannis, A. (2000). Academic remediation, parole

violations, and recidivism rates among delinquent youths. Remedial and

Special Education, 21(3), 161 -170.

Baker, E. (2007). Presidential address: The end(s) of testing. Educational

Researcher, 36(6), 309.

Barabasi, A. (2002). Linked: The new science of networks. Cambridge, MA:

Perseus.

Berliner, D., & Biddle, B. (1996). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud and the

attack on America's public school. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bernhardt, V. (2004). Data analysis for continuous school improvement (2nd ed.).

Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An

introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Brandt, R. (1987). On leadership and student achievement: A conversation with

Richard Andrews. Educational Leadership, 45(1), 9-16.

Brandt, R. (2002). The case for diversified schooling. Educational Leadership,

59(7), 12-19.
 118

Brookover, W. B., & Lezotte, L. W. (1977). Changes in school characteristics

coincide with changes in student achievement. East Lansing, Ml: Michigan

State University, College of Urban Development.

Brookover, W. B., Schweitzer, J. H., Schneider, J. M., Beady, C. H., Flood, P. K.,

& Wisenbaker, J. (1978). Elementary school social climate and school

achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 75(2), 301-318.

Chenoweth, K. (2007). It's being done. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education

Press.

Clark, D., Lotto, L., & Astuto, T. (1984). Effective schools and school

improvement: A comparative analysis of two lines of inquiry. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 20(3), 41-68.

Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C , McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., et

al. (1966). The equal educational opportunity study. Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office.

Cooper, B., Cibulka, J., & Fusarelli, I. (2008). Handbook of education politics and

policy. New York, NY: Routledge.

Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among

five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crist, K. (1991). Restoring opportunity for dropouts: Reasons and results. Equity

and Excellence, 250), 36-39.

Danzig, A., Blankson, G., & Kiltz, G. (2007). Learner-centered approach to

leadership preparation and professional development. Abingdon, UK:

Routledge.
 119

Deming, W. E. (1993). The new economics for industry, government,

education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

Eby, J. W., & Kujawa, E. (1994). Reflective planning, teaching, and evaluation: K-

12. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Macmillan.

Edmonds, R. (1974). Some schools work, more can. Social Policy, 3, 28-32.

Edmonds, R. (1979a). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational

Leadership, 37(3), 15-27.

Edmonds, R. (1979b). Search for effective schools: The identification and

analysis of city schools that are instructionally effective for poor children.

Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

Edmonds, R., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1978). Search for effective schools: The

identification and analysis of city schools that are instructionally effective

for poor children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Center for Urban

Studies.

Edmonds, R., Lezotte, L. W., & Ratner, G. (1974). Remedy for school failure to

equitably deliver basic school skills. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University,

Center for Urban Studies.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. (1965). 89th Congress.

Ellis, A., Cogan, J., & Howey, K. (1981). Introductions to the foundations of

education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Erlandson, D., Harris, E., Skipper, B., & Allen, S. (1993). Doing naturalistic

inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

 120

Eubanks, E., & Parish, R. (1992). Effective schools, tinkering and school

cultures: Maintaining schools that sort by race, class, and gender. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, San Francisco, CA.

Foley, R. (2001). Academic characteristics of incarcerated youth and correctional

education programs: A literature review. Journal of Emotional and

Behavioral Disorders, 9(4), 248-258.

Frederiksen, J. (1975). School effectiveness and equality of educational

opportunity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Center for Urban

Studies.

Friedkin, N., & Necochea, J. (1988). School system size and performance: A

contingency perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,

10(3), 237-249.

Giroux, H. (2003). Public spaces, private lives: Democracy beyond 9/11.

Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Glesne, C , & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers. White

Plains, NY: Longman.

Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Hannaway, J., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Bringing context into effective school

research: Urban-suburban differences. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 29(2), 164-186.

 121

Harris, P., Baltodano, H., Artiles, A., & Rutherford, R. (2006). Academic

achievement in juvenile corrections: Examining the impact of age, ethnicity

and disability. Education & Treatment of Children, 28(4), 361-379.

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis

methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative

research (pp. 428-444J. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.

C. 1412 (a), (b), 1413(a). 34 C.F.R 3000.110, 300.121-300.156,

300.220. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Jencks, C , Smith, M., Aciand, H., Bane, M., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., et al. (1972).

Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in

America. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Keith, J., & McCray, A. (2002). Juvenile offenders with special needs: Critical

issues and bleak outcomes. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in

Education, 15(6), 691-710.

Kollhoff, M. (2002). Juvenile correctional education in the 21st century: Leave no

child out. Reflections of a Kansas juvenile educator. Journal of

Correctional Education, 53(2), 44-45.

Krezmien, M., Mulcahy, C , & Leone, P. (2008). Detained and committed youth:

Examining differences in achievement, mental health needs, and special

education status. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(4), 445-464.

Leone, P., & Drakeford, W. (1999). Alternative education: From a "last chance" to

a proactive model. Clearing House, 73(2), 86-88.

 122

Leone, P., Krezmien, M., Mason, L., & Meisel, S. (2005). Organizing and

delivering empirically based literacy instruction to incarcerated youth.

Exceptionality, 13(2), 89-102.

Leone, P., Meisel, S., & Drakeford, W. (2002). Special education programs for

youths with disabilities in juvenile corrections. Journal of Correctional

Education 53(2), 46-50.

Levine, D. U., & Lezotte, L. W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and

analysis of research and practice. Madison, Wl: National Center for

Effective Schools Research and Development.

Lewis, K. , Schwartz, G., & lanacone, R. N. (1988). Service coordination between

correctional and public school systems for handicap juvenile offenders.

Exceptional Children, 55(1), 66-70.

Lezotte, L. W. (1986). School effectiveness: Reflections and future directions.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Lezotte, L. W. (2001). Revolutionary and evolutionary: The effective schools

movement. Retrieved from http://esleague.com

Lezotte, L. W. (2007). Effective schools: Past, present and future. Retrieved from

http://esleague.com

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-

envisioning the correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
 123

Madden, J. V., Lawson, D., & Sweet, D. (1976). School effectiveness study:

State of California. Sacramento, CA: State of California Department of

Education.

Madison, D. (2005). Critical ethnography: Methods, ethics, and performance.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mandell, M. (1999). The impact of collaborative efforts: Changing the face of

public policy through networks and network structures. Policy Studies

Review, 76(1), 4-17.

Manning, M., & Baruth, L. (1996). Learners at risk: Three issues for educators.

Clearing House, 69(4), 239-245.

Marshall, C , & Rossman, G. (2006). Designing qualitative research. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A source book of

new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Mosteller, F., & Moynihan, D. (1972). On equality of educational opportunity. New

York, NY: Random House.

Murray, D. (1995). Analysis of parent perception of effective school correlates: A

springboard for planning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Eastern Educational Research Association, Hilton Head, SC.

 124

Murphy, J. (2003). Reculturing educational leadership: The ISLLC standards

ten years out. Paper prepared for the National Policy Board for

Educational Administration. Retrieved from

www.npbea.org/Resources/cataloq.html

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2005). NAEP2004 Trends in

academic progress: three decades of student performance in reading and

mathematics. Washington, DC: National Center Educational Statistics.

No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). 20 U.S.C. 6301 1001 (1).

Noddings, N. (2007). Philosophy of education. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Popham, W. (2002). A nation at risk really ought to take a few. Educational

Leadership, 60(4), 83-86.

Purkey, S. C , & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary

School Journal, 83(4), 427-452.

Quinn, M., Rutherford, R., Leone, P., Osher, D., & Poirier, J. (2005). Youths with

disabilities in juvenile corrections: A national survey. Exceptional Children,

71(3), 339-345.

Race to the Top Initiative of 2009. U.S. Congress. H. R. 1532.

Ralph, J., & Fennessey, J. (1983). Science or reform: Some questions about the

school effectiveness model. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(10), 689-694.

Reeves, D. (2006). Of hubs, bridges, and networks. Educational Leadership,

63(8), 32-37.

Reffett, S. S. (1983). The correctional school and the public mind. Journal of

Correctional Education, 34(20), 40-43.

 125

Reid, K., Hopkins, D., & Holly, P. (1987). Towards the effective school.

Oxford, NY: Blackwell.

Rider-Hankins, P. (1992). Review of research: The educational process in

juvenile hall schools. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Robinson, S., Stempel, A., & McCree, I. (2005). Gaining traction, gaining ground:

How some high schools accelerate learning for struggling students.

Washington, DC: Education Trust.

Rowan, B., Bossert, S. T., & Dwyer, D. C. (1983). Research on effective schools:

A cautionary note. Educational Researcher, 72(4), 24-31.

Sammons, P. (1999). School effectiveness coming of age in the twenty-first

century. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Sammons, P., Hillman, J., & Mortimore, P. (1995). Key characteristics of effective

schools: A review of school effectiveness research. London, UK:

International School Effectiveness and Improvement Center.

Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002/ Embedded case study methods: Integrating

quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning

organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Slavin, R. E. (1989). Students at risk of school failure: The problem and its

dimensions. In R. E. Slavin, N. L. Karweit, & N. A. Madden: Effective

programs for students at-risk (pp. 3-19). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
 126

Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2001). Investigating school

leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher,

30(3), 23-28.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stedman, L. (1985). A new look at the effective school literature. Urban

Education, 20(3), 295-308.

Sykes, G., Schneider, B., & Ford, T. G. (2009). Introduction. In G. Sykes, B.

Schneider, & D. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp.

1-14). New York, NY: Routledge.

Taylor, B. O. (2002). The effective schools process: Alive and well. Phi Delta

Kappan, 83(5), 375-379.

Torres, C. A., & Heertum, R. (2009). Education and domination: Reforming policy

and practice through critical theory. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. Plank

(Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 221-239). New York,

NY: Routledge.

Uline, C , Miller, D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1998). School effectiveness: The

underlying dimensions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(4), 462-

483.

Vaughn, V., Gill, P., & Sherman, R. (2007). Effective schools research: Teachers'

and administrators' perceptions of its existence on campus. Paper

presented at the conference of the National Council of Professors of

Educational Administration.
 127

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher

psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weber, G. (1971). Inner-city children can be taught to read: Four successful

schools. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.

Whittemore, R., Chase, S., & Mandle, C. (2001). Validity in qualitative research.

Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 522-537.

Witte, J., & Walsh, D. (1990). A systematic test of the effective schools model.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(2), 188-212.

Wohlstetter, P., Malloy, C , Chau, D., & Polhemus, J. (2003). Improving schools

through networks: A new approach to urban school reform. Educational

Policy, 17(A), 300-430.

Wohlstetter, P., & Smith, A. K. (2000). A different approach to systemic reform:

Network structures in Los Angeles. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(7), 508-515.

Wolcott, H. (1994). Writing up qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. (2003). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

 128

APPENDIX A

CONSENT LETTER TO CERTIFICATED STAFF

AND ADMINISTRATORS

January 6, 2011

Dear Colleagues & JHS Site Administrators:

My name is Helen Mozia. I am a math and science teacher at a juvenile

hall school in Southern California. Currently, I am also a doctoral candidate at

California State University, Fullerton, in the College of Education. I am pursuing

a doctorate degree in Educational Leadership under the direction of Ron Oliver,

Ph.D.

I am conducting a research study titled, "School Effectiveness in Juvenile

Detention Facilities: A Qualitative Case Study." The purpose of this research is

to identify which correlates of effective schools (Lezotte, 1986, 2001) are present

and the strength of their presence in three juvenile hall schools (JHSs) in

Southern California. The findings of this research could potentially identify

existing school factors that have the most beneficial impact on student

achievement. Another benefit is that it could serve as a research-based guide to

future school improvement efforts in JHSs.

I am therefore seeking the participation of all certificated staff and site

administrators at the three JHSs. Your participation is vital as a means to

explore the insights and perceptions of certificated staff and site administrators in

regard to school effectiveness in short-term JHSs. As a participant, your extent

of involvement is limited to only one or both of these activities: (1) responding to

 129

a short internet-based survey and (2) responding to a follow-up taped

interview (30 minutes or less). The surveys require no identifying information.

Anonymity is therefore guaranteed! With respect to the interviews, only three (3)

administrators and three (3) teachers will be involved. As an interviewee, your

identity will be known only to the researcher, but be assured that your

confidentiality will be maintained to the extent allowed by law throughout this data

collection process. Importantly, your name will not be associated with the

research findings in any way. Please feel free to ask any questions about this

research before, during, or after participating. After the research is completed, I

will be happy to share the findings with you.

The above information has been provided so that you can decide whether

you wish to participate in the research. Please be aware that you are free to

decide not to participate or to withdraw at any time without such a decision

affecting your relationship with the researcher, this school, or the district. There

are no known risks or discomforts associated with this study. Importantly,

however, your unique insights are of immense importance to the authenticity and

validity of the findings of this research. Your participation is therefore necessary

for a deeper understanding of the issue of school effectiveness and how to

optimize it in short-term educational settings such as JHSs.

You may reach me by telephone at [removed] any time for further

clarification. If you have additional questions, you may also contact the

Compliance Coordinator at (657) 278-3160, California State University, Fullerton.

 130

"I have carefully read this consent, with full knowledge of the nature and

purpose of this study. By signing below, I agree that I am at least 18 years of

age and agree to participate in this project."

Please place the signed consent form in the box labeled "Consent Forms"

at your designated site. A copy of this consent form will be given to you.

Thank you!

Participant's Name (Please print)

Signature of Participant Date

(Adapted from Creswell, 2007)

 APPENDIX B

STAFF AND ADMINISTRATOR SURVEY

01/10/2011 to 02/05/2011

DESCRIPTION

This is a 30-item survey that is part of a doctoral research. It will take you 10
minutes or less to complete.

Your participation is vital as a means to explore the perceptions of certificated

staff and site administrators in regard to the presence and strength of the
correlates of effective schools in JHS. The results could potentially identify
existing school factors that have the most beneficial impact on student
achievement. They could also serve as a research-based guide to continuous
school improvement efforts in JHS.

Please be assured that your responses are confidential and completely

anonymous.

Feel free to contact me at [removed] for further clarification as needed.

I appreciate your time, effort, and support.

Thank you!

Helen Mozia (Teacher, Researcher, and Doctoral Candidate)

To view the results of the survey, go to the survey website after 02/05/11 and
enter the password: 4eyewu2011. Otherwise, please contact me.

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Please fill out this survey completely.

2. Circle the response of your choice (manual version).

3. If needed, write additional comments about a particular question on the

back of this survey.

4. Remember, your responses will remain anonymous!

 132

# Variable
1 Gender
Female Male
2 Age
Under 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and older
Race/Ethnicity
3
White African-American Hispanic/Latino Native American Asian Other
4 At what school do you work?
JHS A JHS B JHS C
5 Years teaching or working at this school
5 or less 6-10 11-15 16-20 21 and over
6 Years teaching or working at this district
5 or less 6-10 11-15 16-20 21 and over
7 Educational Background
Bachelor's degree Master's degree Doctorate
8 Title of person completing survey
O Regular Education Teacher O Special Education Teacher O ELL Teacher
O Title 1 Teacher O Site Administrator
9 The school is a safe and secure place to learn and work
O Strongly Agree O Agree O Undecided O Disagree O Strongly Disagree
10 Classroom environments are clean, orderly, and academically stimulating
O Strongly Agree O Agree O Undecided O Disagree O Strongly Disagree
11 Discipline issues are often resolved through the joint effort of probation, teachers, and
administrators
O Strongly Agree O Agree O Undecided O Disagree O Strongly Disagree
12 Expectations for behavior are clearly communicated to students
O Strongly Agree O Agree O Undecided O Disagree O Strongly Disagree
13 Teachers believe that they can successfully teach all students
O Strongly Agree O Agree O Undecided O Disagree O Strongly Disagree
14 There exists a school-wide belief that all students can learn the ESLRs
O Strongly Agree O Agree O Undecided O Disagree O Strongly Disagree
15 Teachers differentiate instructional strategies to accommodate the needs of different
students
O Strongly Agree O Agree O Undecided O Disagree O Strongly Disagree
16 The school's ESLRs are clear, developed, and shared by all
O Strongly Agree O Agree O Undecided O Disagree O Strongly Disagree
17 The ESLRs represent a balance between the school's mission and the state's standards
O Strongly Agree O Agree O Undecided O Disagree O Strongly Disagree
18 There is alignment between the ESLRs, instructional focus, and what is assessed
O Strongly Agree O Agree O Undecided O Disagree O Strongly Disagree
19 The principal has established a strong academic and behavioral focus in the school
O Strongly Agree O Agree O Undecided O Disagree O Strongly Disagree
20 The principal is a strong instructional leader
O Strongly Agree O Agree O Undecided O Disagree O Strongly Disagree
21 The principal actively supports the school's mission through resource allocation
O Strongly Agree O Agree O Undecided O Disagree O Strongly Disagree
22 The principal is supportive of teachers
O Strongly Agree O Agree O Undecided O Disagree O Strongly Disagree
23 In this school, academic and behavioral progress is measured at regular intervals
O Strongly Agree O Agree O Undecided O Disagree O Strongly Disagree
24 There is a school-wide commitment to assessment, accountability, and student progress
toward the achievement of the ESLRs
O Strongly Agree O Agree O Undecided O Disagree O Strongly Disagree
 133

25 School wide, students performance data are used to inform and guide decision-making on
instruction
O Strongly Agree O Agree O Undecided 0 Disagree O Strongly Disagree
26 From your experience, curriculum and pacing plans are coordinated across all three JHSs
0 Strongly Agree 0 Agree O Undecided O Disagree O Strongly Disagree
27 Opportunity is available for instructional staff from all three JHSs to collaborate and share
ideas and information about effective instruction and student learning
O Strongly Agree 0 Agree O Undecided 0 Disagree O Strongly Disagree
28 Material and other resources are shared across all three JHSs for the benefit of students
0 Strongly Agree O Agree O Undecided O Disagree O Strongly Disagree
29 There is a clear and shared vision of learning for students that is understood and
supported by all three JHSs
0 Strongly Agree O Agree O Undecided O Disagree 0 Strongly Disagree
30 If effectiveness means that school processes, environment, and structure make a
difference in student achievement, is JHS an effective learning organization?
O Strongly Agree O Agree 0 Undecided O Disagree O Strongly Disagree

(Adapted from Effective Schools Reality Check S M ESPS, Inc.).

 134

APPENDIX C

PROTOCOL: FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS

Time of interview:

Date:

Place:

Duration:

Interviewer: Helen Mozia (Researcher)

Interviewee: A teacher and a site administrator at each of the three JHSs

Brief description of the research purpose:

The primary purpose is to explore the issue of school effectiveness in the context

of juvenile hall schools (JHSs). This involves three related objectives. First, the

researcher seeks to identify the correlates of effectives schools (Lezotte, 1986)

that are evident and the strength of their presence in the three JHSs included in

this research. Second, the researcher seeks to investigate the perceptions of

participants in regard to school effectiveness in terms of the identified correlates.

Third, the researcher seeks to examines the degree of "connectedness" of the

three schools based on the principles of systems thinking and network theory as

an additional barometer of organizational effectiveness.

The secondary purpose of this research is to utilize the information

gathered from the primary purpose as the basis for suggesting policy and

structural modifications to short-term correctional education in ways that support

and optimize effectiveness.

 135

This semi-structured interview is a follow-up data collection activity to

the online survey that you recently completed. The purpose of the interview is to

clarify and deepen perspectives gathered by the survey. The interview will be

audiotaped, labeled, coded, and transcribed. Thereafter, it will be returned to

you (interviewee) for your review and validation. All interview questions were

developed based on the responses from the survey.

Thank you for participating in this interview. Please be assured that all the

information that you provide will be kept in strict confidence. Unless induced by

unforeseen circumstance, this will be the only interview necessary.

Helen Mozia (Researcher)

(Adapted from Creswell, 2007, p. 136.)

 136

APPENDIX D

FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Please state your name, job title, and how long you have been working at this

school.

1. What three elements make this school "a safe and orderly place to learn

and work," as suggested by the survey responses?

2. Please give your insight on teacher or administrator behaviors that support

a climate of high expectations for student success at this school.

3. What are the goals of this school that are understood and shared by all as

indicated in the survey response? How much discussion about these

goals and the means of achieving them occur during staff or in-service

meetings?

4. Overwhelmingly (> 90%), the respondents to the survey questions agree

that the school principal is a strong instructional leader. What skill sets or

qualities would you ascribe to this remarkable ability to acquire and

sustain "followership?"

5. Juvenile hall schools face a unique challenge with assessing and

monitoring student academic progress with a highly mobile student

population. What are your suggestions for designing a metric to assess

program effectiveness, given this critically important factor?

6. Given that the three juvenile hall schools share the same students, does

your site collaborate with the others on school goals, shared resources,

teacher talents, professional development, and curriculum pacing plans?

 137

7. Are the questions explored in the survey appropriate for assessing the

indicators of effectiveness in juvenile hall schools? Why or why not?

8. What other criteria or indicators would you like to include in the discussion

of assessing school effectiveness in juvenile hall schools?

9. How would you assess school effectiveness in juvenile hall schools in

ways that would deepen professional understanding of their mission and

value as learning organizations, despite their inability to "make the grades"

using API and AYP (NCLB policy environment)?

10. Would you like to add something or elaborate on an earlier point?

Thank you so very much for your time and for sharing your perceptions. This

concludes the interview.