Annotated bibliography

Blackroyal

Wilson.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Sociology homework help >Annotated bibliography

African Americans, Economically Disadvantaged, or Attendance Rate Effects on

Adequate Yearly Progress

Submitted by

Sheena Wilson

A Dissertation Proposal Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the

Degree of Doctorate of Education

Grand Canyon University

Phoenix, Arizona

November 25, 2013

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.

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 3605170 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

UMI Number: 3605170

Abstract

The purpose of this quantitative, nonexperimental study was to determine if and to what

extent a difference existed in the percentage of African American students, percentage of

economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate in elementary schools

that made adequate yearly progress (AYP) and those that did not make AYP in one

district located in the Northeastern United States (SDP). Achievement goal theory served

as the theoretical framework for the study which outlines the premise that if performance

or mastery goals are established, then consistent performance outcomes are more likely to

follow. Thus, teachers and students who outline clear goals for mastery of content should

have consistent performance, informing a school’s ability to meet adequate yearly

progress. Descriptive statistical and independent t tests were calculated to determine if

there were significant differences in the variables between the schools that made AYP

and those that did not. The result of the independent samples t test found that the

percentage of African American students, percentage of economically disadvantaged

students, and students’ attendance rate did not differ statistically in schools that made

AYP and those that did not in the West Region of the SDP. These results suggest that

there are factors, other than those identified in this study that could potentially be an

influence on students’ academic achievement. This opens the door for future research to

identify and address those factors that prevent schools from achieving AYP standards.

Keywords: Quantitative, t test, non-experimental, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP),

African American Students, Economically Disadvantaged Students, attendance rate

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to the Nicholson, Thomas, and Franklin families for

all the love and support that they have given me throughout my lifetime. It takes a village

to raise children and my village consists of you. I love you all.

Acknowledgments

First and foremost, I would like to thank Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior, for

giving me the strength and the wisdom to complete this journey. To God, be all the

Glory. I would like to thank Dr. Deborah Rickey for all the help and support during this

journey. When I thought the journey was getting rough, she would always provide the

encouraging words to let me know I was on the right track. I would also like to thank Dr.

Daniel Smith and Dr. Wayne Schmidt for all their support and phone calls we had

discussing my dissertation. Words cannot explain how I feel about my committee

members and the dedication they showed me throughout this process.

I would also like to thank my mother and stepfather, Daisy Franklin and John

Carter, because without their support watching my children, while I completed my

assignments I would not have been able to complete my journey. To my father, Isiah

Franklin, thank you for given me the passion I have for learning. To my aunts and uncle,

Geri Holloman, Mary Crowder, and William Holloman, thanks for helping my mother

raise me. I am the woman I am because of all of you. To the Thomas family, Charlotte,

Okia, Tyrik, and Zachary, you have all been a blessing to me. To my brothers and sisters,

Sharon Brown, Andria and Darrell Veney, and Isiah and Ashlee Franklin, thank you for

being there whenever I needed you. To my children: Ashley, Ciera, Zachary, Jahmir,

Zion, and Zaine, if God puts a dream in your spirit, he has given you all the tools to

accomplish your goals. Finally, yet importantly, I would like to thank my husband, Neal

Wilson, for always being there for me. You have been God sent from the first day I met

you. Thank you for inspiring me to strive for greatness.

vii

Table of Contents

List of Tables .................................................................................................................x

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study .............................................................................1

Introduction .......................................................................................................1

Background of the Study ...................................................................................4

Problem Statement ...........................................................................................10

Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................11

Rationale for Methodology ..............................................................................13

Advancing Scientific Knowledge ....................................................................13

Research Questions and Hypotheses ...............................................................14

The Significance of the Study ..........................................................................15

Definition of Terms..........................................................................................16

Assumptions and Limitations ..........................................................................18

Nature of the Study ..........................................................................................20

Summary ..........................................................................................................22

Chapter 2: Literature Review .......................................................................................23

Introduction and Background ..........................................................................23

Theoretical Foundation ....................................................................................24

Review of Literature ........................................................................................26

History of Educational Reform ...................................................................26

Pennsylvania System of School Assessments (PSSA) ...............................30

African American Students .........................................................................31

viii

Free and Reduced Lunch/Economically Disadvantaged Students ..............36

Limited English Proficiency Students (LEP) ..............................................39

School Climate ............................................................................................40

Student Attendance Rates ...........................................................................41

Summary ..........................................................................................................43

Chapter 3: Methodology ..............................................................................................45

Introduction ......................................................................................................45

Statement of the Problem .................................................................................45

Research Questions ..........................................................................................46

Research Methodology and Design .................................................................48

Population ........................................................................................................50

Instrumentation ................................................................................................52

Validity ............................................................................................................53

Reliability .........................................................................................................53

Data Collection Procedures ..............................................................................54

Data Analysis Procedures ................................................................................56

Ethical Issues ...................................................................................................57

Limitations .......................................................................................................58

Summary ..........................................................................................................58

Chapter 4: Data Collection and Analysis .....................................................................60

Introduction ......................................................................................................60

Descriptive Data...............................................................................................60

Data Analysis ...................................................................................................62

Results ..............................................................................................................63

Summary ..........................................................................................................69

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ........................................71

Introduction ......................................................................................................71

Summary of Study ...........................................................................................72

Summary of Findings and Conclusion .............................................................74

Implications......................................................................................................77

Theoretical implications..............................................................................78

Practical implications ..................................................................................80

Future Implications .....................................................................................81

Recommendations ............................................................................................83

Recommendations for future research ........................................................84

Recommendations for practice ...................................................................85

Overall Summary .............................................................................................87

References ....................................................................................................................89

Appendix A Confidentiality Statement ........................................................................99

List of Tables

Table 1. Frequency of Schools Making AYP ..............................................................51

Table 2. School Building Variables .............................................................................55

Table 3. Comparison of Schools ..................................................................................63

Table 4. African American Students-Comparing the Percentage ................................64

Table 5. Independent Samples t test- Percentage of African American Students .......65

Table 6. Economically Disadvantaged –Comparing the Percentage ...........................66

Table 7. Independent Samples t test- Percentage of Economically Disadvantaged

Students ..........................................................................................................67

Table 8. Attendance Rate-Comparing the Percentage .................................................68

Table 9. Independent Samples t test Student Attendance Rate ....................................68

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Introduction

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 was enacted by former United

States (U.S.) President, George W. Bush to assist the U.S. federal government in

reforming the educational system (U.S. Department of Education, 2010a). Since the

enactment of this law, many school districts nationwide have researched ways to improve

student achievement to meet the requirements of this mandate (Howes, 2008; Shirvani,

2009). The school district used in this study (SDP), like other schools in urban areas, was

having difficulty meeting the requirements of the NCLB Act because student subgroups

were not meeting their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets (Adams, 2008; Gallard,

2009). In the case of the SDP, the African American and economically disadvantaged

subgroups had improved academically, but had not met the mandate of the NCLB Act

(Gallard, 2009).

According to the Le Floch et al.,(2007), schools that are comprised of various

student subgroups are less likely to make AYP. The SDP is large, and comprises many

student subgroups. A student subgroup consists of 40 or more students in a specific

category, which is counted toward a school’s AYP (Department of Education, 2010).

AYP measures whether schools or districts are making progress by examining academic

performance, test participation, and the attendance/graduation rate (Department of

Education, 2010). According to a Department of Education Academic Achievement

Report 2009-2010, student subgroups prevented the SDP from making AYP because

ethnic minorities, economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and

English Language Learners (ELL) did not make their AYP target (Department of

Education, 2010). Sagor (2000) indicated that the inability of many states across the

nation to meet the requirements of the NCLB Act has placed a tremendous amount of

stress on administrators, teachers, students, and parents. When schools do not make AYP,

teachers and students feel the immediate effect because schools are sanctioned.

High-stakes testing has changed the instructional practices of teachers from

exploratory, life learning to skill-and-drill methods (Smyth, 2008). According to Smyth,

teaching to the test has eliminated the teachers’ opportunity to teach higher-order

thinking skills and has dramatically affected the validity of standardized tests. Some

teachers even cheat on the exams because their jobs are in jeopardy if their students do

not perform well. According to Berryhill, Linney, and Fomewick (2009), teacher burnout

is another outcome of education accountability. This tends to occur in schools that have a

strong drive to show measurable academic goals. Increased accountability has a direct

effect on teachers and contributes to burnout and qualified individuals leaving the

profession (Berryhill et al., 2009). As a result of teaching to the test, students are

sometimes required to take remedial classes to improve their basic skills. Parents are

inclined to make different educational choices for their children, because if schools do

not make AYP, it appears that the schools are not servicing the needs of the families and

students (SDP, 2010b).

The SDP is one of the largest districts in this northeastern state, and the pressure

to improve student performance, as measured by the high stakes test has brought about

numerous changes over the last eight years (Gallard, 2008). The test is a "standards-

based, criterion-reference assessment used to measure a student's attainment of

…academic standards" (SDP, 2011, para. 1). This assessment is used by the state to

determine the AYP status of districts and schools. There are four consequences for

schools or districts that do not make AYP: School Improvement I, School Improvement

II, Corrective Action I, and Corrective Action II (Commonwealth, 2010a). Initially,

schools or districts are placed in School Improvement I if they fail to make AYP for 2

consecutive years (Commonwealth, 2010a). Under School Improvement I, students are

eligible for school choice, school officials develop improvement plans, and schools

receive technical assistance to assist them in making AYP (Commonwealth, 2010a). If a

school or district fails to make AYP for three consecutive years, they are placed in School

Improvement II. These schools or districts have to develop an improvement plan,

students are eligible for school choice, and provided supplemental education services

such as tutoring, after-school or summer school programs (Commonwealth, 2010a).

Districts or schools that fail to make AYP for four consecutive years are categorized in

Corrective Action I (Commonwealth, 2010a). Schools that are categorized as Corrective

Action I are eligible for technical assistance and escalating consequences such as changes

in curriculum, leadership, and professional development (Commonwealth, 2010a).

Finally, schools or districts that fail to make AYP for five consecutive years are

categorized in Corrective Action II. These schools or districts have to develop

improvement plans, public school choice, supplemental education services and are

subject to governance changes such as reconstitution, chartering, and privatization

(Commonwealth, 2010a).

This quantitative research study sought to determine if a significant difference

existed in the percentage of African American students, the percentage of economically

disadvantaged students, and the students’ attendance rate, between elementary schools

that made AYP and those that did not make AYP in the target school district, SDP. These

demographic groups were a concern because schools in the district shared similar

characteristics, yet some made AYP, while others did not. The School District Annual

Report Card and the Department of Education’s Academic Achievement Report 2009-

2010 for elementary schools in the SDP were used to examine the variables. These

documents were public records published by the school district on an annual basis.

Descriptive statistics were used to explore the percentage of African American

students, percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance

rate that influenced a school’s ability to make AYP. The data represented 30 elementary

schools in the district. Data were separated into schools that made AYP and schools that

did not. Statistical treatment of the data was performed using the Statistical Package from

the Social Sciences (SPSS) (SPSS, 2010). A t test was performed to determine if the null

hypotheses could be rejected. All data were stored on the researcher’s personal computer

and data was coded to ensure participants’ privacy. The coded data will be kept for 7

years.

Background of the Study

The NCLB Act was initiated by President George W. Bush in January 2001 and

was implemented in 2002 (U.S. Department of Education, 2010b). It was a

reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The goal

of the NCLB Act is to close the achievement gap between student subgroups, improve

teacher quality, achieve 100% proficiency in mathematics and reading by 2014 for all

students, and show AYP (Shirvani, 2009). The NCLB Act is relatively new in regards to

educational reform since it has only been in existence for 11 years, but student

achievement is a well-developed topic, and the debate on how to improve it has been

going on for decades. There have been studies performed to determine how to decrease

the achievement gap and increase student performance. These studies have covered topics

ranging from class size to school climate.

Reducing class size has been an initiative used to improve student achievement

for African American and economically disadvantaged students for decades, but studies

have had conflicting results concerning the effectiveness of this intervention. Some class

size studies have included Tennessee’s Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR),

Wisconsin’s Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE), and California’s

Class Size Reduction Program (CSR) (Heros, 2009). The Student/Teacher Achievement

Ratio (STAR), a four-year longitudinal class size study sponsored by the state of

Tennessee, which began in 1984 and was completed in 1990 concluded that small class

sizes had an advantage over larger classes with regard to student achievement in reading

and mathematics (Heros, 2009). Project STAR included over 7,000 students in 79

elementary schools within 42 districts and the participants were in grades Kindergarten

through third grade (Heros, 2009). The results of the study indicated that small classes

with less than 25 students worked best in literacy, but there were no indications of long-

term effects of class size on student achievement in mathematics (Heros, 2009). SAGE,

which was piloted in 30 schools in the Milwaukee urban school district in 1996-1997,

concluded that reduced class sizes were more effective for African American students in

grades K-1 because the class had fewer discipline problems (Graue & Rauscher, 2009;

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 2010). CSR began in 1996 and tried to

reproduce the success of STAR by reducing the class size from 28 students to 20 in

grades K-3. CSR accomplished its goal of reducing class size, but did not have the

success of STAR because the quality of the teachers declined in most schools with a

higher percentage of low-income students, limited language learners, and minority

students (CSR Research Consortium, 2010). According to Rowley and Wright (2011),

children experienced significant educational benefits when class sizes were smaller

because there was increased attention for students, friendlier classes, and fewer discipline

problems, than in larger classrooms.

Whereas, the above mentioned CSR, STAR and SAGE found class size to be a

major factor influencing student achievement, other studies examined other factors, such

as teacher’s attendance (Falch & Ronning, 2007; Hallinan, 2008) and student attendance

(National Forum of Education Statistics, 2009), in improving student achievement. In a

study by Hallinan, 4,000 kindergarteners were observed to determine how teachers’

attendance rate influences students’ perception of school. Hallinan concluded that

teachers who supported their students by having high expectations, respecting and

praising them, and satisfying the students’ needs increased students’ attachment to

school. However, this can only occur if the teacher is present at work on a regular basis

(Hallinan, 2008). The National Forum of Education Statistics (2009) indicated that

teacher effectiveness had a direct correlation to student achievement, and schools with a

large percentage of minorities and economically disadvantaged students had problems

retaining highly qualified teachers. However, a study by Easton-Brooks and Davis (2009)

found that “students in poverty were more likely to be taught by a certified teacher than

students not in poverty” (p. 10).

The National Forum of Education Statistics (2009) supported the findings of

Hallinan (2008) indicating that teachers influenced student opinions of the educational

process, which is related to student achievement. Falch and Ronning (2007) suggested

that teachers from low-performing schools that did not make AYP often quit, which

affected teachers’ attendance rate and decreased student achievement. Student attendance

is also a factor that influences achievement in mathematics and reading. The National

Forum of Education Statistics (2009) stated there was a positive correlation between

student achievement and attendance because a day missed of school is a lost opportunity

for student learning. The attendance rate of students is a concern for all students,

especially African American and economically disadvantaged students whose schools

often have difficulties making AYP (The National Forum of Education Statistics, 2009).

The Office of Research and Evaluation in the Austin Independent School District

(Paredes, 1991) collected data to examine the relationship between school climate and

student achievement. Specifically, Paredes (1991) examined how economic status,

parent literacy, and parent attitude towards education determined the quality of learning

at schools. Paredes (1991) used a regression analysis to predict the average school

achievement and the Report on School Effectiveness (ROSE) scores which were

computed for each student. The researcher concluded that student achievement gains

were related to the learning and working conditions of the school. Chen and Weikart

(2008) indicated that the racial composition and poverty level of students affected a

school’s climate and student achievement. This indicated that schools with a high

percentage of minority and economically disadvantaged students were more likely to

have climate issues.

According to a letter from the former SDP superintendent (2010), the district

experienced an increase in the number of schools that made AYP from previous years.

The superintendent (2010) indicated that the school district had made history because 158

of 267 schools made AYP in 2009. This was an historical moment because this was the

first time SDP had seen more than half of the districts’ schools made AYP (Ackerman,

2010). This indicated that there was a 33% increase in schools that made AYP in the SDP

in 2009 from the previous year, where only 119 schools made AYP (Ackerman, 2010).

Even though 59% of the schools made AYP in the SDP in 2009, the district as a whole

had not made AYP because of their lack of achievement and academic performance in

mathematics, reading, and high school graduation rate (Pennsylvania Department of

Education, 2010).

Since the SDP has had problems achieving AYP, schools have employed various

tactics to improve student test scores (Gallard, 2009; SDP, 2009; SDP, 2011). The

pressure to improve test scores led to a new paradigm in the SDP where the lowest

performing schools were part of the rebirth of the educational system (SDP, 2009; SDP,

2010a). This initiative was a major component of the district’s strategic plan, which

sought to improve the lowest performing schools by contracting organizations to

transform failing schools or by reconstructing schools management and staff (Gallard,

2009). The initiative was a multiphase program, where each year the SDP recruited

qualified internal and external educational partners to help improve student achievement

in schools with a historical track record of failures on the high stakes test (SDP, 2010b).

Each year different schools were identified as initiative schools based on their assessment

of academic performance and growth. These schools were matched with turnaround

teams and became charter schools (SDP, 2010b). A turnaround team is an external

educational partner that has a proven track record of transforming failing schools into

high achieving schools that have good academic performance on the high stakes test

(SDP, 2009; SDP, 2010b). As part of this initiative, the turnaround teams were allowed to

recruit 50% of qualified internal educational partners, develop a School Advisory Council

that consisted of students, parents, and community- based organizations, and provided

transition year-in-training, resources, and supports to ensure a smooth transition (SDP,

2010b). The SDP developed performance contracts with the turnaround teams, which

required them to meet specific targets for student achievement gains and absolute

performance (SDP, 2009). In 2010, the SDP relinquished seven schools to turnaround

teams making them charter schools, which consisted of 3% of the district schools.

Other schools were included in the initiative, but were not transformed into

charter schools by the turnaround team. These schools became district-operated charter

schools that had extended hours and school year for teachers and students (SDP, 2010b).

Like initiative charter schools, the district-run charter schools had similar requirements,

which allowed them to retain 50% of qualified staff, establish new curriculums, provide

transition year-in-training, and had additional supports to help improve student

achievement (SDP, 2010b). There were six district-run charter schools operated by the

SDP, which comprised 2% of the district’s schools. The schools that were transformed

into initiative charter schools and district-run charter schools had a history of low

performance and were considered the lowest performing schools academically in the

district. The goal of the initiative was to rehabilitate the non-applying schools by

improving the academic achievement of the economically disadvantaged and African

American students, so they would make their AYP targets.

Problem Statement

It was not known if and to what extent a difference existed in the percentage of

African American students, percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and

students’ attendance rate in elementary schools that made AYP and those that did not

make AYP in one district located in the Northeastern United States (SDP). As indicated

by the Department of Education Academic Achievement Report 2009-2010, schools in the

district were having problems meeting the demands of the NCLB Act and had not found

a solution to help student subgroups to meet their AYP targets (Department of Education,

2010). Since schools are held accountable for student achievement regardless of the

demographics, many schools in the economically challenged areas of the city were

having problems accomplishing AYP (SDP, 2010).

Schools that do not make AYP repeatedly are subjected to sanctions and under the

NCLB Act are eligible for state takeover or privatization (Department of Education,

2010). This was an issue faced by the 13 lowest performing schools in the city in the year

of 2010-2011, and comprised of 5% of the district’s schools (School District Office of

Accountability, 2010). This was a concern for the SDP because each year more schools

are in jeopardy of being reconstructed by the state because they are not making their AYP

targets. Since more schools are eligible for reconstruction each year, it is important to

understand to what degree the relationship the percentage of African American students,

percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate differs

in schools that made AYP and those that did not because some schools with a high

percentage of African American students and economically disadvantaged students have

made AYP while others did not make AYP. If these factors influence a schools’ AYP

status intensive interventions are needed in schools with a large percentage of African

American, large percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and low attendance

rates.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative study was to investigate if there was a statistically

significant difference between the percentage of African American students, percentage

of economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate in schools that

made AYP and those that did not in a school district located in the northeastern United

States. The independent variables were percentage of African American students,

percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and student attendance rates. The

percentage of African American students was defined as the percentage of the students in

the school that were African American (SDP, 2010d). The percentage of economically

disadvantaged students was an estimate of the percentage of students that were eligible to

receive free/or reduced lunch in a school (SDP, 2010d). Students’ attendance rate was the

average daily attendance rate of all the students in the school (SDP, 2010d). All the

independent variables were examined through the use of the SDP 2010 Annual Report

Card. The independent variable was the school’s AYP status as determined by the

Department of Education. An AYP status of a school measures if a school has obtain

their state mandated targets for attendance, academic performance in math and reading,

test participation, and graduation rate for high school (SDP, 2010b). The dependent

variable AYP status was examined through the use of the Department of Education

Academic Achievement Report 2009-2010.

The state changes schools’ AYP targets each year, and many schools, especially

those with a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged and minority students, are

having difficulty accomplishing their quota (Adams, 2008; Shuqiang, 2009).This is a

major concern because of an Initiative implemented by the District, which sought to

improve student performance by outsourcing schools to community operated

organizations that have a proven track record of high academic performance (Gallard,

2009; SDP, 2010b). The outsourcing of education to community organizations will

change the characteristics of the SDP. In 2010-2011, 13 schools were restructured; some

became charter schools operated by the district, and others became charter schools, ran

by contracted turnaround teams.

The SDP made progress towards improving student achievement, but the district

still had not made AYP for eight consecutive years. The SDP believed that schools had

not made AYP because student subgroups such as the economically disadvantaged and

African American had not made their AYP target, even though their academic

achievement rates had improved on the high stakes test (SDP, 2010). Le Floch et al.

(2007) indicated that schools with a large percentage of minority and economically

disadvantaged students are less likely to make AYP, but some schools in the SDP made

AYP with this student population. These schools were not in jeopardy of being part of the

SDP initiative because they found ways to improve the test scores of their economically

disadvantaged and African American students enough to achieve AYP targets. This study

examined if a significant difference existed in the number of students in these

demographic groups between schools that made AYP versus those that did not.

Rationale for Methodology

This quantitative study was proposed to help schools, districts, and teachers to

understand if a significant difference existed in the percentage of African Americans

students, percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance

rate and their influences on elementary school’s ability to make AYP. A quantitative

comparison was used because it allowed the researcher to ask specific questions, collect

numeric data, analyze data using statistics, and conduct an unbiased inquiry in an

objective manner (Creswell, 2009). Quantitative research is conducted when a researcher

applies specific data collection strategies consisting of numeric data, and collecting

information from numerous sources (Creswell, 2009). In this study, data were gathered

from two sources: the School District’s 2010 Annual Report Card and Department of

Education Academic Achievement Report 2009-2010. This method provided an unbiased

analysis of statistics calculated during a study because the findings were based on the

result of the t test performed on all the variables.

Advancing Scientific Knowledge

This study can advance scientific knowledge by providing schools, districts, and

regions with a better understanding of how school demographics such as minority

populations, students from poverty and attendance rates impact student achievement and

a school’s subsequent ability to make AYP. Danielson (2002) indicated there was a

significant difference in learning among groups of students and affected a school’s ability

to make AYP. Understanding and identifying how different factors are related to

schools’ AYP status could provide schools with data needed to implement change district

and school wide resulting in greater academic achievement for African American and

economically disadvantaged students. Under the NCLB Act, schools and teachers are

held accountable for student achievement; schools need to understand how particular

factors influence their success (Commonwealth, 2010a). The results of this study were

expected to show a significant difference in the achievement rate of students in schools

making AYP in the district versus those that did not, allowing for the implementation or

change of policy to increase student achievement by incorporating programs that address

schools’ deficiency areas or rezoning of districts for more racial and educational equality.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

This study analyzed the differences in the percentage of African American

students, economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate for

elementary schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP in the West Region

of the SDP in 2009-2010. The following research questions guide this study:

R1: Does the percentage of the students in the subgroup African American differ

in elementary schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP in the

West Region of the SDP in 2009-2010?

H1: There will be a statistically significant difference between the percentage of

students in the subgroup African American in elementary schools that made AYP

and those that did not make AYP in the West Region of the SDP

H0: There will be no statistical difference between the percentage of students in

the subgroup African American in elementary schools that made AYP and those

that did not make AYP in the West Region of the SDP.

R2: Does the percentage of economically disadvantaged students differ in schools

that made AYP and those that did not make AYP in the West Region of the SDP

in 2009-2010?

H2: There will be a statistically significant difference between the percentage of

economically disadvantaged students in elementary schools that made AYP and

those that did not make AYP in the West Region of the SDP.

H0: There will be no significant difference between the percentage of

economically disadvantaged students in elementary schools that made AYP and

those that did not make AYP in the West Region of the SDP.

R3: Does the attendance rate of students differ in elementary schools that made

AYP and those that did not make AYP in the West Region of the SDP in 2009-

2010?

H3: There will be a statistically significant difference between the attendance rate

of students in elementary schools that made AYP and those that did not make

AYP in the West Region of the SDP.

H0: There will be no statistical difference between the attendance rate of students

in elementary schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP in the

West Region of the SDP.

The Significance of the Study

This study was significant to the elementary schools in the district because prior

research indicated that the percentage of ethnic minorities, student and teacher attendance

rates, and the percentage of economically disadvantaged students were directly correlated

with student achievement (National Forum of Education Statistics, 2009; Shirvani, 2009;

Xiang, 2009). The results from this study provided valuable data, which will assist

schools in making AYP. The results of this study were expected to support the results of

prior research that indicated that schools in urban areas have difficulty accomplishing

AYP because of English Language Learners (ELL), minorities, and low-income students

(Adams, 2008; Shuqiang, 2009; Le Floch et al., 2007). This study may encourage

additional research on how the African American and economically disadvantaged

student populations affect a school’s ability to make AYP in other districts around the

nation. Finally, the results of this study might influence schools to implement special

programs to help African American and economically disadvantaged students who do not

make AYP.

The Definitions of Terms

In this section, operational definitions, which assist in understanding how the

student achievement and school operation clusters influence a school’s ability to make

AYP, are provided.

Adequate yearly progress (AYP). AYP measures whether schools or districts

are making progress toward 100% proficiency by examining academic performance, test

participation, and attendance/ graduation rate (Department of Education, 2010).

African American student. Any student that is not classified as: Asian/Pacific

Islander, Caucasian/Euro-American, Hispanic/Latino; Multiracial/other; Native

American, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (SDP, 2010c).

Corrective action I. Schools and districts that do not make AYP for four

consecutive years are eligible for additional support such as change of curriculum,

leadership, and professional development (Department of Education, 2010).

Corrective action II. Schools and districts that do not make AYP for five

consecutive years are subjected to reconstitution, chartering, and/or privatization

(Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2010).

Economically disadvantaged. This is an estimate of how many students at the

school would be eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch, which is estimated higher than

the percentage of students whose families receive assistance through Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (SDP, 2010d).

Enrollment size. The total number of students enrolled on October 1 of each

school year (SDP, 2010d).

Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA). The PSSA is a standards-

based, criterion-referenced assessment used to measure a student’s attainment of

academic standards while also determining the degree to which school programs enable

students to attain proficiency of the standards (Commonwealth, 2010a).

School improvement I. Students in schools that do not meet AYP for two

consecutive years are eligible for school choice and schools get technical support as part

of their school improvement plan (Department of Education, 2010).

School improvement II. This refers to schools or districts that do not make AYP

for three consecutive years where students are offered school choice and supplemental

education services as part of the school improvement plan (Department of Education,

2010).

Students’ attendance rate. The average daily attendance, which is the number of

days attended divided by the number possible days (SDP, 2010d).

Subgroups. Under NCLB Act, subgroups are major racial/ethnic groups, English

Language Learners, economically disadvantaged students, and students with Individual

Educational Plans (IEPs). NCLB Act requires states to define a minimum subgroup size.

In Pennsylvania, the minimum subgroup size is 40 students. When the subgroup size is

above 40, then the subgroup is required to meet all participation and performance targets

so the school or district can make AYP. If the subgroup size is below 40, the students in

the group are counted in the school’s or district’s overall student count (Department of

Education, 2010).

Assumptions and Limitations

The following were assumptions, or factors that the researcher took for granted in

this study.

1. It was assumed that teachers and principals in the SDP were providing the

appropriate instructional techniques for all students. All schools in the district

operated under the philosophy that all students can learn and this was based

on the NCLB Act which aims for 100% proficiency in reading and

mathematics by 2014 (SDP, 2011; U.S. Department of Education, 2010a).

2. It was assumed that all schools followed all testing guidelines that were

established by the Department of Education.

3. It was assumed that the data reported on the schools’ annual report cards were

valid and reliable and teachers or administrators had not altered the results the

tests.

4. It was assumed that the schools’ AYP statuses were reported accurately on the

Department of Education’s Academic Achievement Report 2009-2010.

5. It was assumed that there were no differences in the instructional practices of

schools that made AYP and those that did not because all schools and teachers

followed the core curriculum and scheduling and pacing guidelines as

instructed (SDP, 2011). The schools in the SDP used similar curriculums that

were aligned with state academic and content standards. In addition, all

schools in the SDP receive some form of Title I funding.

6. The study assumed that the NCLB Act mandate of 100% proficiency in

reading and mathematics by 2014 was obtainable because this is the

accountability measure used to facilitate student achievement.

7. It was also assumed that accountability measures are an effective way to

motivate students and teachers to perform better on standardized test.

This study was limited to data retrieved from the School District 2010 Annual

Report Card and Department of Education Academic Achievement Report 2009-2010.

The study only included African American students, economically disadvantaged

students, and students’ attendance rate that were indicated on the SDP 2010 Annual

Report Card used to determine a school’s AYP status. Data from the SDP 2010 Annual

Report Card that did not affect a school’s AYP determination were not included in the

study. The study was limited to the elementary schools in the SDP and did not include

any data from other regions in the district. The study did not include any data from

middle schools, high schools, or charter schools within the West Region of the SDP. Not

including middle schools, high schools, and charters schools may have influenced the

results of the study because these schools included African American students,

economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate. The results of this

study will only be generalized to elementary schools in the West Region of the SDP. The

study only included 1 year of AYP determination data that was publicly accessible from

the Department of Education Academic Achievement Report 2009-2010 and did not

consider other factors that affect a school’s ability to make AYP such as school climate,

instructional practices, teachers' experience level, or leadership. Limiting the data

collection to 1 year can influence the result of this study because the AYP status of

schools changes each year and this could affect the outcome of this study, changing the

findings.

Nature of the Study

This quantitative study sought to investigate the differences in the percentage of

African American students, economically disadvantaged students, and students’

attendance rate for schools that made AYP and those that did not in 2009-2010 in the

SDP. The study employed a nonexperimental comparison of means research design Data

were collected from the SDP 2010 Annual Report Cards and the Department of

Education Academic Achievement Report 2009-2010 for 30 elementary schools in the

District. The study used descriptive statistics to summarize the dependent variables and

the mean and standard deviation were reported. A t test was used to determine if there

were differences among the means of the percentage of African American students,

percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and students’ poor attendance rates

for those schools that made AYP and those that did not. All the data in this study were

analyzed using the SPSS.

A quantitative research design was used because the study sought to identify the

characteristics of schools that make AYP and those that do not (Borland, 2001). One of

the major focuses of a quantitative study is to predict an event without trying to establish

cause and effect (Borland, 2001). The key to conducting a valid and reliable quantitative

study is to accurately define the population of interest to avoid sampling errors, so the

study represented 30 elementary schools in the SDP (Borland, 2001). This was a

nonexperimental comparison of means design in which two or more variables were

investigated without testing the cause and effect relationship of a hypothesis (Borland,

2001). Comparison of two means with statistical significances studies explore variables

that cannot or are unable to be manipulated, which assess the strength of the variables as

they occur (Fitzgerald, Rumrill, & Schenker, 2004). As a comparison of two means with

statistical significances study, this study did not seek to establish a cause-effect

relationship between the variables but to determine if a prediction could be made using

quantifiable data (Johnson, 2001).

The study used publicly accessible data, so the researcher does not need any

consent to use the data. Even though consent is not needed to use the information, the

data in this study was coded using identification numbers for confidentiality. The data

was stored on the researcher’s personal computer, where she has sole access and the data

will be destroyed after 7years. This study was limited to 1 year of data from the School

District 2010 Annual Report Cards and the Department of Education Academic

Achievement Report 2009-2010. The results from this study could provide data that

assists districts and schools in developing a more effective approach in educating African

American and economically disadvantaged students where regulation or rezoning will

result in educational equality.

Summary

The SDP is one of the largest urban school districts and is comprised of a high

percentage of African American and economically disadvantaged students. The SDP has

been in Corrective Action II for eight consecutive years because the African American

and economically disadvantaged subgroups are having difficulties making their AYP

target. Since the enactment of the NCLB Act, large urban schools had difficulties making

AYP even though students’ achievement has improved. Research by Le Floch et al.

(2007) indicated that schools that have a large percentage of minorities and economically

disadvantaged students were less likely to make AYP. This quantitative comparison of

two means with statistical significance research study intends to examine the differences

in the percentage of African American students, economically disadvantaged students,

and students’ attendance rate of schools that made AYP and those that did not in the

SDP. The study examined these factors because some schools in the SDP that had a high

percentage of African American and economically disadvantaged students managed to

meet and exceed their AYP target while others seemed to fail.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

Public schools across the nation are faced with the mandate of having 100%

proficiency in mathematics and reading by 2014 (U.S. Department of Education, 2010a).

This mandate is the result of the NCLB Act that seeks to increase the quality of education

for students in the nation (Adams, 2008). Since the initiation of this NCLB, schools have

been using high stakes tests to measure student achievement. However, many schools in

large urban districts like the SDP have increased student achievement, but still cannot

make AYP. Those districts that are having difficulty achieving AYP are seeking solutions

to help achieve this mandate by incorporating afterschool programs, Saturday School,

Corrective Reading, Corrective Math, Study Island, and First in Math to help students

improve their test scores (Braun, Chapman, & Vezzu, 2010; SDP, 2010b). There are

numerous factors that can affect student achievement and influence a school’s AYP, but

for the purpose of this study only the percentage of African American students,

percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate of

elementary schools that made AYP and those that did not in the West Region of the SDP

in 2009-2010 were examined. The literature review will provide a theoretical foundation,

history of educational reform, and an overview of state school assessment. It will also

discuss African American students, economically disadvantaged students, Limited

English Proficiency Students (LEP), school climate, and students’ attendance rate as

indicators of student academic success.

Theoretical Foundation

The NCLB Act has implemented accountability measures where districts, schools,

and teachers are held responsible for student achievement. As a result, schools have been

looking for methods to assist in motivating students to perform better on standardized

tests. According to Hanchon (2011), the achievement goal theory is reflected in the

NCLB Act, which uses accountability measures to integrate a pattern of beliefs and

attributes, to produce given behaviors or outcomes. The achievement goal theory focuses

on three goals “mastery, performance approach, and performance avoid” (Hanchon,

2011, p.473). The underlying premise of this theory is that everyone has a purpose for the

goals they pursue. According to Good, Wiley, and Sabers (2010) the NCLB Act assumes

that the impact of accountability will affect school performance, and this is why school

AYP status is reported. Since achievement goal theory focuses on why individuals are

motivated, school districts, superintendents, and principals use their AYP status to

motivate teachers to higher levels of performance by using various instructional strategies

to improve student achievement (Hanchon, 2011). Hanchon postulated that the

achievement goal theory distinguishes the differences in how and why individuals are

motivated and goal orientation produces diverging patterns of cognition, affect, and

behavior (Hanchon, 2011). AYP is the motivating factor of the NCLB Act, where the

goal orientation is to improve student performance by a certain percentage yearly or be

sanctioned.

The NCLB Act has established a standard that has required schools to increase the

students’ state assessments scores and hold schools accountable based on their academic

performance measured by these high stakes test (Tavakolian & Howell, 2012). As

achievement goal theory indicates, accountability creates a pattern of behavior that

influences an outcome, which is used to motivate individuals to produce a desired result

(Hanchon, 2011). The accountability measure of NCLB Act is part of the U.S. plan to

decrease the achievement gap that currently and historically exist between African

American students, economically disadvantaged students and other minorities students

with their white middle-class counter parts in regards to standardize testing and student

achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2010b). Under NCLB Act, schools are

scrutinized and held accountable for students performance and are expected to increase

students’ academic performance on an annual basis (Tavakolian & Howell, 2012).

According to Tavakolian and Howell (2012), students from low socioeconomic

backgrounds and ethnic minority students are less likely to perform well on state

mandated standardized tests and are at greater risk for becoming high school dropouts.

Braun, Chapman, and Vezzu (2010) stated that the African American students’

achievement gap has decreased, but still remains one of the root causes of the high stakes

test-based accountability through NCLB Act. The achievement gap has economic, moral,

and political dimension because the disadvantaged minorities have, on average,

substantially lower skills than their White middle-class counterparts (Braun, Chapman, &

Vezzu, 2010). Since the NCLB Act required states, districts, and schools to focus on

student achievement, there are accountability measures for the lack of performance and

the consistent, persistent, and profound achievement gap that is found between African

American and economically disadvantaged students with their white middle class

counterpart (Braun, Chapman, & Vezzu, 2010).

Review of Literature

History of educational reform. The NCLB Act was initiated by President

George W. Bush in January 2001 and was implemented in 2002 (U.S. Department of

Education, 2010b). The goal of the NCLB Act is to close the achievement gap between

student subgroups, improve teacher quality, achieve 100% proficiency in mathematics

and reading by 2014 for all students, and have all schools meet AYP requirements

(Shirvani, 2009). The NCLB Act did not begin with the United States’ quest to improve

student achievement.

The main motivation for the U.S. to improve student achievement began with the

launch of Sputnik by the Russians in 1957 (The National Commission on Excellence in

Education, 1983). The U.S. feared that foreign countries were surpassing them in

mathematics and science and would soon take advantage of students’ mediocre

educational performance (The National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983).

According to The National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983), the U.S.

believed that the students were falling behind other nations academically. Since the U.S.

was concerned about the achievement of students compared to other nations, laws were

enacted to assist in improving the educational system for low-income and minority

students.

Congress enacted the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to

help children from low-income families (Adams, 2008). The ESEA established equal

educational access for all students and implemented accountability measures (Adams,

2008). Title I was part of this initiative to improve student achievement where funds were

allocated for educational services for low-income students instead of awarded to districts.

Currently, under the NCLB Act, Title I provides financial assistance to schools and local

educational agencies with a high percentage of low-income families (U.S. Department of

Education, n.d). Schools that have 40% or more of their families classified as low income

are allowed to use Title I funds schoolwide to provide educational programs to improve

academic achievement for all students, especially low-achieving students (U.S.

Department of Education, n.d.).

A 1983 report by former President Ronald Regan’s National Commission on

Excellence in Education fueled one of the more notable debates since Sputnik

(Johanningmeier, 2010). The study, commissioned by the secretary of education,

examined the quality of education in the U.S. and implied that the nation’s educational

system was failing to produce a competitive workforce (Johanningmeier, 2010).

According to the report the “declines in the educational performance was in large part the

result of disturbing inadequacies in the way the educational process itself is often

conducted” (para. 1). The Commission was dissatisfied with the academic performance

of U.S.’ students on 19 academic tests compared to other industrialized countries. The

U.S. was never ranked first or second on any of the 19 academic tests, but they were

ranked last on seven of the tests (The National Commission on Excellence in Education,

1983). This indicated that further educational reform was needed because it was revealed

the students’ lack of basic reading, writing, and computation skills and this lack was

affecting business and military leaders. The report resulted in new accountability

measures which used students’ test scores as a way to assess progress (The National

Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983).

President George H. W. Bush’s America 2000 was another education reform

program developed to improve academic standards and change the requirements of

federal funds, but the Senate did not pass the initiative (Stenger, 2006). America 2000

proposed the creation of national standards, voluntary national tests in English, math,

science, history and geography, federal grants to develop 535 new American schools,

report cards to monitor progress of schools and districts, and federal support of private

school vouchers (NYSED, 2011).

In March 31, 1994, President Clinton introduced Goals 2000: The Educate

America Act, which provided all states and communities with resources to ensure that all

students reached their full potential. Goals 2000 required states to develop clear and

rigorous academic standards, which were measured by standardized test results (NYSED,

2011; U.S. Department of Education, 1996). Goals 2000 led to the Improving America’s

School Act (IASA), which mandated states to develop performance standards and was

the origin of the AYP concept. The concept of AYP was part of the Title I program,

which provided additional support for disadvantaged students. AYP was implemented as

part of the NCLB Act, the concept originated from the ESEA Act, which was

reauthorized and amended in 2002 (Adams, 2008). The NCLB Act is an accountability

measure that requires states to administer annual tests in reading and mathematics in

grades 3-8, at least one grade in 10-12 by 2005-2006 and to all learners including

Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners (Le Floch et al., 2007). As the

need to improve proficiency increases, states are required to test all students in science at

least once in grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12 as well as develop content standards for all

subjects (Le Floch et al., 2007).

Research findings have indicated that African Americans and Hispanics do not

perform as well as white students on standardized tests (Adams, 2008; Murphy, 2009).

The ultimate goal of the NCLB Act is to address this achievement gap (Adams, 2008; Le

Floch et al., 2007). Under the NCLB Act, states are required to develop annual AYP

targets for schools, districts, and subgroups based on annual test scores and establish one

academic indicator. Schools that do not meet their annual AYP targets are sanctioned by

the state. Schools are also required to implement various programs, procedures, and

protocols based on their level of corrective action (Pennsylvania Department of

Education, 2010).

The NCLB Act brought about concerns in the academic arena because the

meaning of Proficient varies among states (Le Floch et al., 2007). All states use the 2003

National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) metrics to measure their state’s

annual test scores, but there is a proficiency score range of 67 points (Le Floch et al.,

2007). This indicates that students can be proficient in one state, but not in another (Le

Floch et al., 2007). Another issue of concern is the lack of consistency with regard to the

number of students required for a subgroup (Adams, 2008). According to the NCLB Act,

states are allowed to establish the minimum number of students required for a subgroup

and the number of students that make up a subgroup varies per state (Adams, 2008; Le

Floch et al., 2007).

The results of these standardized high-stakes exams are used as part of the

accountability measure to ensure academic achievement under the NCLB Act (NCLD

Public Policy Staff, 2009). In the state targeted for this study, schools administer a high

stakes test which was implemented in 1999 prior to the NCLB Act and remains the

primary tool used to assess academic standards in reading, writing, speaking and

listening, and mathematics (Commonwealth, 2010b). This assessment is the

accountability tool used by the state as part of the AYP indicator under NCLB

(Commonwealth, 2010b).

Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA). The NCLB Act requires

all states to test students annually to determine their AYP status, and in the state targeted

for this study, schools use the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA)

(Commonwealth, 2010a). The standards adopted by these exams identify what students

should know and be able to do at various grade levels (Commonwealth, 2010b). This

standard-based, criterion-referenced assessment is administered in the spring to every

student in grades 3-8 and grade 11 in reading and mathematics, grades 5, 8 and 11 in

writing, and grades 4, 8 and 11 in science (Commonwealth, 2010b). Students’ scores are

categorized into four tiers: (a) Advanced, (b) Proficient, (c) Basic, and (d) Below-Basic.

Individual student’s scores are provided to the respective schools to indicate a school’s

and district’s AYP status (Commonwealth, 2010a). In the state targeted for this study, the

proficiency level varies per grade where low and high- end levels are indicated for each

scoring category in math, reading, science, and writing. For instance, to be proficient in

reading in fourth grade the mean scale score ranges from 1156 to 1245, and to be

proficient in math in fourth grade the mean scale scores range from 1255-1468

(Commonwealth, 2010a).

The Commonwealth (2010a) uses several indicators to identify schools that made

AYP. The schools’ progress is analyzed each year to determine whether the schools or

districts are on track to meet the state’s performance expectations. Schools use three main

criteria to determine a school’s AYP status. The school’s AYP status is based on the

results of the academic performance of the subgroups, or schools’ current test scores on

the test in reading and mathematics, or its two-year average, or whichever indicator is

the highest (Department of Education, 2010). A school must have at least a 95%

participation rate for all students and within each student subgroup on the test

(Department of Education, 2010). Elementary and middle schools must have an average

attendance rate for the year of 90% or higher or show an improvement in the attendance

rate compared to the previous year (Commonwealth, 2010a). High schools must have an

80% graduation rate or show improvement from the prior year (Commonwealth, 2010a).

These criteria apply to schools and districts as a whole including performance of

subgroups, racial/ethnic categories, and low-income students (Commonwealth, 2010a).

African American students. The NCLB Act focuses on accountability and

addresses the academic achievement of America’s youth in regards to the differences in

test scores that exist among minority students and their White, middle-class counterparts

(Rowley & Wright, 2011). The NCLB Act’s goal is to ensure that all schools provide a

quality education, regardless of the child’s demographics or ability level. According to

Rowley and Wright (2011), a child’s racial minority status and identity could have a

direct correlation to his or her academic potential. In effect, these cultural differences and

past experience can influence potential academic achievement. The NCLB Act requires

states to report test scores by subgroups to show student performance.

Past research indicated that African-Americans students do not perform well on

standardized tests (Cravens, 2006). Stenger (2006) performed a non-experimental, causal

comparative case study using publicly accessible data at Missouri Department of

Education and Secondary Education from the 2004-2005 school year, which concluded

that there was a significant difference in the student characteristics of schools that made

AYP and schools that did not receive AYP status. In Steger’s study, schools with a higher

percentage of African American student population were more likely to be low achieving

schools, whereas, schools with a higher percentage of White students were more likely to

be high achieving schools.

Le Floch et al. (2007) based their findings from two federally funded studies: The

Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality under NCLB and

the National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, and found a correlation between the

percentage of minority students and schools’ ability to make AYP. According to the Le

Floch et al. (2007), schools with a high percentage of minority students also had a high

percentage of low-income students and this affected a schools’ AYP status (Le Floch et

al., 2007). The Le Floch et al. and Stenger (2006) studies both concluded that schools

with a higher proportion of minority students were less likely to make AYP than schools

with a lower proportion of minority students.

Minority students’ achievement gap occurs for numerous reasons (Hallinan,

2008). One reason is that minority students from schools in high poverty areas tend to

lack highly qualified teachers (Hallinan, 2008). Hallinan postulated that minority students

lack the necessary vocabulary skills and cultural background needed to do well on

standardized tests. Another factor that influences the achievement of minority students is

the preparation of the teachers (Hallinan, 2008). Stenger (2006) indicated there was a

direct correlation between teacher preparation and experience and student achievement.

Teachers in high minority schools tend to transfer to schools that make AYP or more

affluent districts. This affects the school’s level of highly qualified teachers and their

AYP status (Stenger, 2006). Schools with a high percentage of African American

students are more likely to be low achieving schools and are less likely to make AYP

(Craven, 2006). Under NCLB, schools are penalized for not making AYP, and this

reduces the attractiveness of low performing schools, which are more likely to have a

high percentage of African American students, causing highly qualified teachers to seek

employment at better performing schools (Falch & Ronning, 2007). Rowley and Wright

(2011) postulated that highly qualified teachers play an essential role in eliminating the

achievement gap between African American students and their White middle-class

counterparts.

One of the purposes of the NCLB Act was to eliminate the achievement gap of

subgroups (Commonwealth, 2010). This is the reason schools have to show the scores of

students in relation to students’ racial/ethnic characteristics (Adams, 2008). Murphy

(2009) argued for the effectiveness of this process by stating, “Most racial and ethnic

groups have distinctive subgroups” (p. 8). Murphy suggested that the groupings are unfair

because particular cultures and nations achieve significantly lower than other groups. Not

only do particular racial and ethnic groups’ academic achievements differ, but social and

economic differences also influence their performance (Murphy, 2009). Murphy

indicated that there were other flaws with the grouping of subgroups that did not provide

an accurate picture of the growth in achievement among racial groups. Even if the

appropriate subgroup identified all students, the use of subgroups masks the achievement

of individual students because there are high and low achievers in every racial group

(Murphy, 2009). The adverse effect of this is schools are blamed for the achievement gap

of low achieving students they are not accountable for because they transferred from

another school (Murphy, 2009).

The number of subgroups a school has influences the school’s AYP calculation

(Le Floch et al., 2007). If schools or districts do not have the designated number of

students to create a subgroup, the students are included in the All Student population

when calculating AYP. In 2003-2004, 75% of Hispanic, African Americans, and White

students from low-income families attended a school where AYP was calculated for their

subgroup, whereas, 25% of Native Americans and 45% of Asian students attended

schools where AYP was calculated in their subgroup (Le Floch et al., 2007). In the most

recent U.S. Department of Education Interim Report (Taylor, Stecher, O’Day, Naftel, &

Le Floch, 2010), 85% of Hispanic, African Americans, and White students from low-

income families were included in schools’ AYP calculation by subgroups because the

minimum number or percent of students were met. Schools that had a greater number of

subgroups were less likely to make AYP. The U.S. Department of Education Interim

Report (Le Floch et al., 2007) indicated that 61% of schools that had six or more

subgroups made AYP compared to 90% of schools who were only accountable for one

sub-group in 2003-2004. In this study, more than half of the schools did not make their

AYP target because two or more subgroups did not make achievement targets in 2006-

2007 (Taylor et al., 2010).

Improving the achievement gap within subgroups is an important part of districts

and schools success because 23% of the schools did not make AYP due to the

achievement of a single subgroup in 2003-2004 (Le Floch et al., 2007). Taylor et al.

(2010) indicated that one-quarter of schools did not make AYP because one subgroup

missed their targets in 2006-2007. As of 2010, the schools had been stable over the past 3

years, indicating that there have not been drastic changes in the patterns of schools with a

high percentage of African American students in regards to their AYP status. This sub-

group is still less likely to make AYP according to the most recent U.S. Department of

Education Interim Report, which analyzed data for 2006-2007 (Taylor et al., 2010). The

U. S. Department of Education had not reported data for 2009 to the current year.

The academic achievement of African American students has been the concern of

policy makers because of the significant difference in test scores with their White,

middle-class counterparts (Rowley & Wright, 2011). Murphy (2009) suggested that

schools are more concerned with equality instead of students’ achievement levels.

Although it appears that the achievement gap is not declining, data indicated Black

students’ achievement improved at a higher rate than White students’ achievement

(Murphy, 2009). Xiang’s (2009) study focused on one cohort of students whose

achievement scores were tracked and compared to other ethnic groups. Data were

gathered during the years of 2002-2003, 2003-2004, and 2004-2005 from 99 schools in

14 suburban public school districts in one state. In the district, 72% of the students were

White, 19% were Hispanic, 4% were Black, 4% were Asian, and 1% were from other

ethnic backgrounds (Xiang, 2009). Results of the study showed that student achievement

increased over 3 years for all ethnic groups; however, “White students performed on

average better than Black students, and Black students on average performed slightly

better than Hispanic students” (p. 75). The achievement gap between Whites and other

minority groups based on standardized tests was larger, but the gap between White and

Hispanic students was larger than the gap between Black and White students (Xiang,

2009).

While there was a difference in achievement among ethnic groups, Xiang (2009)

found that gains among ethnic groups varied significantly. The Hispanic students had the

most achievement gains indicated by a 52.3% increase in scores, and the White students

had the least gains with a 38.3% increase in scores (Xiang, 2009). Murphy postulated that

minority groups’ scores were increasing at a higher rate than White students on

standardized tests, but the achievement gap remains. Overall, the study concluded that the

Hispanic and White achievement gaps narrowed, while the White and Black gap

decreased slightly (Xiang, 2009).

The Nation Report Card for Mathematics 2009, which reported the findings of the

NAEP, had results similar to those of Xiang (2009). The NAEP report sampled more than

168,000 fourth-graders and 161,000 eighth-graders who participated in the 2009 National

Assessment of Educational Program in Mathematics (National Center for Education

Statistics, 2009). Results from the study revealed that there was no significant change in

the average student mathematic scores from 2007-2009 for students in different ethnic

groups who attended public and private schools (National Center for Education Statistics,

2009). The scores for all groups increased since 1990, but there was no significant change

in the achievement gap between White, Black, and Hispanic students since 2007

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2009).

Free and reduced lunch students / economically disadvantaged. Le Floch et al.

(2007) indicated that socioeconomic status had an impact on student achievement, and

there was a strong correlation between student achievement and both student poverty and

per pupil expenditure. Research by Smyth (2008) concluded that standardized tests were

biased in regards to socioeconomic status and race. Students enrolled in high poverty

schools and are economically disadvantaged for an extended period will have lower

achievement (Stenger, 2006). Smyth (2008) indicated that the NCLB mandate disregards

the realities of racial disparities because children of poverty are more likely to attend

schools that lack equipment, cleanliness, textbooks, computers, internet access, parental

involvement, and extracurricular activities.

Schools with a high percentage of students that receive free and reduced lunch

have a higher teacher turnover rate (Falch & Ronning, 2007). These schools have

difficulty making and keeping their AYP status (Hallinan, 2008). The NCLB Act requires

highly qualified teachers in every classroom because research shows that this improves

student achievement (Hallinan, 2008). Stenger (2006) suggested, “High poverty schools

have little continuity of teaching staff, learning strategies, or awareness of students need”

(p. 25). Symth (2008) postulated, that affluent families, schools, and districts have access

to professional resources that offer materials for high-stakes testing those lower-

performing schools typically cannot afford. According to Symth, “NCLB is leaving

minority and economically disadvantaged students behind” (p.135).

Shuqiang (2009) conducted a study in Hawaii that examined the performance of

economically disadvantaged students on the Hawaii State Assessement (HAS) (Shuqiang,

2009). Data were used from 45,000 students from grades 3, 5, 8, and 10, who took the

HSA in reading and mathematics in 2002 (Shuqiang, 2009). Shuqiang showed

economically disadvantaged students benefited from attending wealthy schools. Shuqiang

also concluded that the achievement gap grew between students eligible for free or

reduced lunch, and students ineligible for free/reduced lunch at more wealthy schools

than at poorer schools (Shuqiang, 2009). The study revealed that student eligibility for

free lunch and reduced lunch had a negative effect on student achievement, and that tenth

graders’ eligibility for these services resulted in a reduction of 17.86 points on the HSA

in mathematics test (Shuqiang, 2009). The Hawaii study showed a 16% variance in

reading and up to a 24% variance in math scores among students who were eligible for

services and those who were ineligible (Shuqiang, 2009). This indicated, “student-level

disadvantage becomes more detrimental as the school’s eligible percentage falls”

(Shuqiang, 2007, p. 733).

A study by Le Floch et al. (2007) indicated similar results as the study in Hawaii,

concluding that students in urban schools that had a high population of high-poverty

students were less likely to make AYP. The results indicated that there was a direct

correlation between socioeconomic status and a school’s ability to make AYP. Le Floch

et al., (2007) and Shuqiang (2009), suggested that districts like the SDP with a high

percentage of economically disadvantaged students were less likely to perform at the

proficient level on standardized test causing them not to make AYP.

Baker and Johnston (2010) postulated a child’s socioeconomic status impacts

learning from an early age. A blind study was conducted in a city in North Florida, by

McDowell, Lonigan and Goldstien, in 2007, which included 718 preschool aged children

that indicated that parents’ socioeconomic status had an effect on student achievement

(Baker & Johnston, 2010). The study concluded that 91% of the high socioeconomic

students had met their developmental milestones on target, while 48% of the low

socioeconomic students were in the same category (Baker & Johnston, 2010). The study

also indicated that low socioeconomic students were more likely to have speech/language

impairments than students from high socioeconomic families.

Another study performed by Fram, Miller-Cribbs, and Van Horn (2007), also

indicated that socioeconomic status, and home life of students affected student

achievement. According to Fram, Miller-Cribbs and Van Horn (2007) study, family

structure, maternal attributes, and peers’ skill levels also affected student achievement.

Bakers and Johnston (2010) argued that the socioeconomic status of students’ parents

effected students because lower socioeconomic children had less exposure to reading-

related activities and needed more early intervention and family education programs to

assist with developmental delays.

Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. The number of students from non-

English speaking families increased dramatically and many of them are part of the

economically disadvantaged student sub-group. These students represent the fastest

growing segment of the student population (Echeverria, Short, & Powers, 2006). The

percentage of LEP students increased because of the increasing immigrant population of

the U.S. (Echeverria et al., 2006). In 1999, 20% of school age children had a least one

parent that was an immigrant (Echeverria et al., 2006). The influx of an immigrant

population caused a shift in the school’s population (Echeverria et al., 2006). From 1992

through the 2003 school year, the number of LEP students increased by 84%, while the

total school enrollment increased by only 11% (Echeverria et al., 2006).

The increased population of LEP students has had an effect on schools in urban

areas, because the geographic distribution of immigrants is concentrated in these

locations (Echeverria et al., 2006). California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, and

New Jersey account for three-fourths of all immigrant children in the United States.

Immigrants tend to populate urban cities, but smaller metropolitan, suburban, and rural

areas have experienced an increase in their ELL population as well (Echeverria et al.,

2006). Since immigrants tend to migrate to low socioeconomic areas, they are more

likely to attend schools that are lower achieving with a high percentage of economically

disadvantaged students (Echeverria et al., 2006).

School climate. According to Chen and Weikart (2008), school is a place where

students should feel safe. When students deem this environment unsafe, it effects

achievement (Chen & Weikart, 2008). Schools that are safe allow students to concentrate

on learning related activities; whereas, schools that are not safe focus on climate

management because it affects students’ ability to learn (Chen & Weikart, 2008). Chen

and Weikart (2008) suggested that school climate and student achievement were directly

correlated because unsafe environments affect achievement. Additionally, fearful

individuals do not participate in school activities. Using data from New York Public

Middle Schools, Chen and Weikart (2008) suggested, “Student background, especially

poverty and racial composition, affect student behavior and academic achievement” (p.

16). The Office of Research and Evaluation in the Austin Independent School District

(Paredes, 1991) collected data concerning the relationship between school climate and

student achievement. The Austin study intended to expand individuals’ understanding

about specific school climate factors that influenced student achievement (Paredes,

1991). Paredes (1991) used a regression analysis to predict the average school

achievement and the Report on School Effectiveness (ROSE) scores were computed for

each student. The researcher concluded that student achievement gains were related to the

learning and working conditions of the school.

To some extent, a school’s climate plays a role in teachers and students achieving

AYP and improving student achievement (Chen, 2007). Chen and Weikart (2008),

indicated that schools with a high percentage of economically disadvantaged students

were more likely to have disruptive and distracting climates. This is more likely to occur

in schools with a high percentage of economically disadvantaged students because they

usually have less resources and higher teacher turnover (Falch & Ronning, 2007). Not

only do school disorders distract students, but also it affects attendance because some

students choose not to come to school because they perceive school to be unsafe (Chen,

2007).

Student attendance. Student attendance is important to students’ success because

“a missed school day is a lost opportunity for student learning” (National Forum of

Education Statistics, 2009, p. 11). This rationale is associated with the notion that there is

a positive correlation between student achievement and attendance. Some studies showed

that the primary factor that affected student achievement was teacher effectiveness;

excessive absences reduced a teacher’s effectiveness (Falch & Ronning, 2007; National

Forum of Education Statistics, 2009). Research showed that students who attended school

regularly had better academic achievement than students with chronic absences (National

Forum of Education Statistics, 2009). A study was conducted by the National Forum of

Education Statistics (2009) on the attendance of kindergarten students. It concluded that

high absenteeism was associated with lower achievement in first grade, increased

absenteeism in later years, and lower achievement in mathematics and reading (National

Forum of Education Statistics, 2009).

Stenger (2006) also concluded that attendance had an effect on student

achievement. This study analyzed data from the Missouri Public Schools to identify

school building profile variables that impacted AYP status (Stenger, 2006). Results

indicated that schools with high student attendance rates had a better chance of making

AYP. Findings from the National Forum of Education Statistics (2009) also indicated

that poor attendance also had an impact on future academic performance, and high school

dropouts usually have a high level of absenteeism throughout their childhood (National

Forum of Education Statistics, 2009). Chicago Public Schools conducted an extensive

study in 1996 and found a correlation between attendance and student achievement along

with identifying several factors such as absenteeism and truancy that increased

dramatically in high school.

Dropout rates were not included in most studies to assess the achievement gaps

among students, but it does influence school attendance rates and ability to make AYP

(Carpenter & Ramirez, 2007). Carpenter and Ramirez conducted a study using data from

the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS 88) to examine the

achievement gap among Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics. The sample size consisted of

17,613 participants where 2,010 were Black, 2,445 were Hispanic, and 13,158 were

White (Carpenter & Ramirez, 2007). Each student answered questionnaires; data were

collected during students’ eighth-grade year and continued until they were in the labor

force (Carpenter & Ramirez, 2007). The common predictors that were consistent for

Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics were the number of times a student repeated a grade and

the number of suspensions (Carpenter & Ramirez, 2007). Analysis of the data indicated

that Black and Hispanic students had a similar dropout rate of 15% and 15.4%,

respectively. White students had a dropout rate of 8.4% (Carpenter & Ramirez, 2007).

The study also found that students born outside of the U.S. had a lower dropout rate than

those who were born in the U.S. (Carpenter & Ramirez, 2007). In addition, the

achievement gap within groups was more significant than gaps between groups

(Carpenter & Ramirez, 2007). Current data indicates that there has been a decline in the

dropout rate of African American students to 8% and White students to 5.1% in 2010 (U.

S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2012). Even

though, there has been a decrease in the dropout rate among African American, students

that leave school unexpectedly without proper notification affects a schools’ AYP status.

Summary

Schools are faced with tremendous pressure to improve student achievement to

the 100% proficient level in mathematics and reading by 2014 as stated in the NCLB Act

(Le Floch et al., 2007). Schools in the SDP used the PSSA to determine if student

achievement has improved. This annual assessment is conducted in the spring of each

year to assist in determining if schools have made their AYP target mandated by the state.

Research has indicated that African American students are having difficulties making

their AYP targets (Murphy, 2009). African American students have improved

academically, but not enough to close the achievement gap. Hallinan (2008) postulated

that minority students lack the necessary vocabulary skills and cultural background

needed to do well on standardized tests. The socioeconomic status of students also affects

student achievement. Various studies have indicated that schools with a high percentage

of economically disadvantaged students are less likely to make AYP (Le Floch et al.,

2007). Economically disadvantaged schools have problems retaining qualified teachers

and obtain less funding per student (Falch & Ronning, 2007). Research also indicates that

students’ attendance rate affects students’ achievement (National Forum of Education

Statistics, 2009). According to the National Forum of Education Statistics (2009),

students who attend school regularly have better academic achievement than students

with chronic absences. Thus, a variety of factors impact student achievement and a

school’s subsequent ability to meet accountability requirements. Chapter 3 of this study

will present the methodology and data collection plan. Chapter 4 includes results, and

Chapter 5 will discuss implications for research and practice.

Chapter 3: Methodology

Introduction

This study examined how the percentage of African American students,

percentage of economically disadvantaged students and students’ attendance rate differed

in schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP in 2009-2010 in a school

district located in the northeastern United States. The AYP statistic is used under the

NCLB Act as an accountability measure to establish how well schools are improving

student achievement (Commonwealth, 2010a). This chapter discusses the statement of the

problem, research questions, research methodology, research design, population, source

of data, instrumentation, validity, reliability, and data collection procedures. Finally, the

data analysis procedures identify the statistical treatment of the data and the ethical issues

and limitations of the study are discussed.

Statement of the Problem

It is not known if and to what extent a difference existed in the percentage of

African American students, percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and

students’ attendance rate in elementary schools that made AYP and those that did not

make AYP in one district located in the Northeastern United States (SDP). As indicated

by the Department of Education Academic Achievement Report 2009-2010, schools in the

District targeted for this study have had consistent problems meeting the demands of the

NCLB Act and have not found a solution to help student subgroups to meet their AYP

targets (Department of Education, 2010). Since schools are held accountable for student

achievement regardless of the demographics, many schools in the economically

challenged areas of this state have problems meeting AYP targets (SDPa, 2010). Schools

that do not make AYP repeatedly are subject to sanctions and under the NCLB Act are

eligible for state takeover or chartering (Department of Education, 2010). This is an issue

faced by 5% of the SPD schools, which consist of the 13 lowest performing schools in

the city where the district is located in the year of 2010-2011 (School District Office of

Accountability, 2010). This is a concern for the SDP because each year more schools are

in jeopardy of being reconstructed by the state because they are not making their AYP

targets. Since more schools are eligible for reconstruction each year, it is important to

understand the relationship of the percentage of African American students, percentage of

economically disadvantaged students and students’ attendance rate on a school’s AYP

status because some schools that have a high percentage of African American students

and economically disadvantaged students have made AYP, while others did not make

AYP. This study sought to determine if there were significant differences in these

variables in schools in the SDP making AYP versus those who did not. If these are

factors that influences a schools’ AYP status, intensive interventions are needed in those

schools not meeting AYP requirements.

Research Questions

This study analyzed the differences in the percentage of African American

students, economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate for

elementary schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP in the West Region

of the SDP in 2009-2010. The following research questions guided this study:

R1: Does the percentage of the students in the sub-group African American differ

in elementary schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP in the

West Region of the SDP in 2009-2010?

H1: There is a statistically significant difference between the percentage of

students in the sub-group African American in elementary schools that made

AYP and those that did not make AYP in the West Region of the SDP.

H0: There is no statistical difference between the percentage of students in the

sub-group African American in elementary schools that made AYP and those that

did not make AYP in the West Region of the SDP.

R2: Does the percentage of economically disadvantaged students differ in schools

that made AYP and those that did not make AYP in the West Region of the SDP

in 2009-2010?

H2: There is a statistically significant difference between the percentage of

economically disadvantaged students in elementary schools that made AYP and

those that did not make AYP in the West Region of the SDP.

H0: There is no significant difference between the percentage of economically

disadvantaged students in elementary schools that made AYP and those that did

not make AYP in the West Region of the SDP.

R3: Does the attendance rate of students differ in elementary schools that made

AYP and those that did not make AYP in the West Region of the SDP in 2009-

2010?

H3: There is a statistically significant difference between the attendance rate of

students in elementary schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP

in the West Region of the SDP.

H0: There is no statistical difference between the attendance rate of students in

elementary schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP in the West

Region of the SDP.

Research Methodology and Design

A quantitative methodology was used to investigate if there was a statistically

significant difference between the percentage of African American students, percentage

of economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate in schools that

made AYP and those that did not in a school district located in the northeastern United

States. Creswell (2009) indicated that a quantitative method is used when a researcher

applies specific data collection strategies to gather numeric data. Data for this study were

collected from two sources: the Department of Education Academic Achievement Report

2009-2010 and the Schools District 2010 Annual Report Card. This method provided an

unbiased analysis of statistics calculated during a study because data was provided by

more than one source increasing the validity and reliability of the results. A quantitative

research design was used because the study sought to identify the relationship between

variables that explain the characteristics of elementary schools that made AYP and those

that did not make AYP. One of the major focuses of a quantitative study is to describe,

predict, and control variables so the relationship of a behavior can be discovered

(Borland, 2001). This study sought to determine to what extent the percentage of African

American students, percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and students’

attendance rate differs in schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP in the

West Region of the SDP. This study was nonexperimental because the nature of two or

more variables was investigated between two groups without testing the cause and effect

relationship of the hypotheses (Borland, 2001). The study was a nonexperimental

comparison quantitative study, in that it did not seek to establish a cause-effect

relationship between the variables but to determine if significant differences existed

between two groups among the variables, so a prediction could be made using

quantifiable data (Johnson, 2001). This study only used publicly accessible data from the

School District 2010 Annual Report Card and AYP determination status from the

Department of Education Academic Achievement Report 2009-2010.

The dependent variable for this study was the school’s AYP determination as

measured by those elementary schools in the SDP that made AYP and those that did not.

This data was separated into two categories: Elementary schools that made AYP and

those that did not make AYP. This variable was selected because it was the

accountability measure used to monitor student achievement under NCLB Act. The

independent variables in this study were the percentage of African American students,

percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate at

schools in the West Region of the SDP. These variables were selected because they were

included in studies by Darling-Hammond (2000) and Stenger (2006). Darling-

Hammond’s (2000) study was conducted before NCLB; the variables she studied were

teacher variables, (b) financial attributes variables, (c) student variables, and (d) school

building variables. The school building variables included students’ attendance rate and

the student variables consisted of the percentage of African American and percentage of

economically disadvantaged students (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Darling-Hammond

used multiple regression tests to establish and identify variables that predicted student

achievement on a national level using NEAP results. Stenger’s study was conducted after

NCLB Act, but she used the same variables as Darling-Hammond to determine if there

was a difference in school building variables and student variables in schools that made

AYP and those that did not make AYP in Missouri Public Schools. For the purposes of

this study, the variables that were in Darling-Hammond’s and Stenger’s studies were

located on the School District 2010 Annual Report card. The percentage of African

Americans and percentage of economically disadvantaged students described the student

variable, which gives the demographics of the students attending the school that made

AYP and those that did not in the West Region of the SDP. The ethnicity of the students

and their PSSA proficiency rate in mathematics and reading are used by the State to

calculate AYP (Department of Education, 2010). The percentage of African American

students’ and percentage of economically disadvantaged students are the input variables

selected in this study because they are used by the state to determine if the subgroup

made their school's AYP status target (Department of Education, 2010; School District

Office of Accountability, 2010). The students’ attendance rate was also an input variable

used in this study because it is one of the three categories required by the state to

determine if a school obtained its AYP status. This data is reported on the School District

2010 Annual Report Card.

Population

The U.S. Department of Education and the NCLB Act requires the SDP to

maintain and make all public schools’ educational data available to all stakeholders,

parents, and teachers in the district (U. S. Department of Education, 2010b). All the

information included in this study concerning the population is accessible to the public

through the School District Office of Accountability websites (School District Office of

Accountability, 2010). The SDP has 10 academic regions, which consist of elementary,

middle, and high schools. Approximately 146,090 students attend the SDP, where 56.2%

of the total population is African American students and 80.6% of the students are

categorized as economically disadvantaged. In all, there are 259 schools in the SDP and

the district is comprised of 169 elementary schools that educate approximately 60,284

students. The elementary school student population consists of 41.3% of the total number

of students that are enrolled in the district (SDP, 2010c). This study only examined data

from 30 elementary schools in the West Region of the SDP. This is only a sample of the

population of elementary schools in the SDP but comprises all the elementary schools in

the West Region. This region of SDP was chosen because all schools in the region have a

high percentage of African American and economically disadvantaged students. Table 1

indicates the frequencies of schools making AYP in the West Region of the SDP.

Table 1

Frequency of Schools Making AYP

AYP Determination (N = 30) Frequency Percent

Made AYP 21 70

Did not make AYP 9 30

Total 30 100

Note: The data are all available on the Department of Education Academic Report: 2009-

2010

Instrumentation

All data in this study came from the School District 2010 Annual Report Card and

the Department of Education Academic Report: 2009-2010. The percentage of African

American students, percentage of economically disadvantaged students and students’

attendance rate data is located on the individual’s schools 2010 Annual Report Card that

is publicly accessible and was gathered from the School District Office of Accountability

(2010) website. This information is reported by the state and is required to be publicly

available according to the NCLB Act. The schools’ AYP determination status was

gathered from the Department of Education Academic Report: 2009-2010 (Department of

Education, 2010). This data is publicly accessible on the Department of Education (2010)

website. The data was used to determine the relationship of the percentage of African

American students, percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and students’

attendance rate on schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP.

The results of the PSSA are one of the criteria used by the SDP to determine if a

school has made AYP (Department of Education, 2010). The PSSA is a standards-based,

criterion-referenced assessment that measures a students’ proficiency level according to

the Academic Standards where scores are reported in four categories: below basic, basic,

proficient, or advanced. The PSSA assessments consist of both multiple-choice and open-

ended items, which assess the students’ knowledge and mastery of Academic Standards

(Department of Education, 2010).

Validity

The School District 2010 Annual Report Card and the Department of Education

Academic Report: 2009-2010 both use data that is gathered from the PSSA. The data

from the PSSA is collected and these two reports are generated providing AYP statistics

for schools in the SDP. According to Creswell (2009), the validity of an assessment or

instrument is based on whether it accurately measures the information that is being

examined. Validity means that a particular instrument produces scores that make sense,

are meaningful, and allows the researcher to draw a good conclusion from the studied

population (Creswell, 2009). A discriminate validity study was conducted by Human

Resources Research Organization (HumRRO), which indicated that the PSSA had a

correlation of .70 and .90 with other comparison tests such as Terra Nova, The Stanford

Achievement Test, ninth edition, and Northwest Evaluation Association’s Achievement

Test (HumRRo, 2004).

Reliability

The School District 2010 Annual Report Card and the Department of Education

Academic Report: 2009-2010 are reliable instruments, which contain data that are

gathered from the PSSA, which is considered a reliable measurement instrument.

According to HumRRO (2004), reliability is based on how similar a student’s scores on

an exam if it was taken multiple times. The PSSA is a reliable assessment that has test-

retest reliabilities ranges from .93 to .94 in math and .92 to .94 in reading (HumRRO,

2004). HumRRO (2004) indicated that the PSSA assesses students’ ability to relate to

content knowledge specific to Academic Standards.

Data Collection Procedures

The data from this study were obtained from the Department of Education

Academic Achievement Report: 2009-2010 and the School District 2010 Annual Report

Card for 30 elementary schools in the West Region of the SDP. No consent forms were

needed, because states and school districts are required to make AYP information

accessible as instructed by the NCLB Act, so all the data is public record (U. S.

Department of Education, 2010a). Data concerning the percentage of African American

students, percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance

rate was gathered from the School District 2010 Annual Report Card via the School

District Office of Accountability (2010) website. The School District 2010 Annual Report

Card was downloaded on the researcher’s personal computer for the West Region of the

district only. The report contains individual report cards for 30 elementary schools in the

region. Each report card was examined, and the percentage of African American students,

percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate was

encoded into SPSS for each of the 30 elementary schools. Each school’s AYP status was

collected from the Department of Education Academic Achievement Report: 2009-2010

via the Department of Education (2010) website. This information cannot be downloaded

and must be retrieved from the website. The researcher examined the list, located the

AYP status of the 30 schools of the West Region of the SDP, and encoded the AYP status

in SPSS. The information obtained from the Department of Education Academic

Achievement Report: 2009-2010 and the School District 2010 Annual Report Card were

entered into a SPSS spreadsheet, in which the data was separated in rows and each row

represented a school, that included the percentage of African American students,

percentage of economically disadvantaged students, students’ attendance rate, and

schools’ AYP status. Even though the data represented all the schools from the West

Region of the SDP identification numbers were used to match the data with the 30

elementary schools.

The data were stored on a separate flash drive with storage in a personal computer

where the researcher had exclusive access. Even though the data is publicly accessible,

the study remained confidential. No information that allows the schools to be individually

identified was accessible to the public. The study followed the IRB guidelines as outlined

by Grand Canyon University IRB manual. The raw data will remain on file for 7 years.

After 7 years, the raw data will be shredded, hard drive and zip drive deleted, and data

destroyed. Table 2 shows the data type of the school building variables.

Table 2

School Building Variables

Data Type

AYP Determination * Nominal

School Operation Cluster

Students’ Attendance Rate Percentage

Student Achievement Cluster

Economically Disadvantaged Percentage

African American Percentage

Note. The data are available on the School District Annual Report Card 2010. * Indicates

variables are not included on the School District Annual Report Card.

Data Analysis Procedures

For this study, the researcher sought to understand if a significant difference

existed between the percentage of African American students, percentage of

economically disadvantaged students and students’ attendance rate differed in schools

that made AYP and those that did not make AYP in 2009-2010 in a school district

located in the northeastern United States. The data were statistically analyzed and

managed using the SPSS for Windows software. The data were separated into schools

that made AYP and those that did not make AYP. Descriptive statistics were used to

summarize the percentage of African American students, percentage of economically

disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate of schools that made AYP and

those that did not make AYP. The mean and standard deviation were reported for each

variable.

A t test was conducted to determine if there was a mean difference between the

percentages of African American students, economically disadvantaged students, and

attendance rates of students in schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP

in 30 elementary schools in the SDP. The difference was expressed by the t test and the p

value determined if there was enough of a significant difference in these variables in

schools that made AYP versus those who did not. P value is a numerical measure of the

statistical significance of a hypothesis and if p < .05 the null hypothesis will be rejected,

with one degree of freedom.

Ethical Considerations

Several ethical issues must be considered and adhered to within this proposal and

dissertation process to ensure that procedural protocols take place. The study was

conducted according to the Institutional Review Board guidelines outlined by the Grand

Canyon University’s Ethics and Compliance section. These guidelines are outlined by the

host university (GCU) and stress the importance of informed consent, confidentiality, and

responsible conduct of research. The data collection procedure consisted of multiple

sources to ensure validity of the data, which will strengthen the study. Since data were

gathered from the public domain and the information was required to be reported, no

consent forms were required to conduct this study. Although the data in this study were

publicly accessible, confidentiality was still adhered to by providing identification codes

for each school to ensure that the names of the schools were unidentifiable. Since the

researcher was an employee of the target district she, had another individual cross check

the data to make sure it was encoded in to the SPSS program correctly and a

confidentiality statement was signed. The researcher ensured objective interpretation

because there was an unbiased translation of the data and the researcher relied solely on

the results that were gathered from the SPSS program regarding statistical significance.

This study focused on two subgroups: African American and economically disadvantaged

students, but the findings of this study provided information about these groups in terms

of the 30 elementary schools in the West Region of SDP, so the findings cannot be

generalized for the entire district or other regions that do not have similar populations.

Limitations

This study does have several limitations because it did not address any factors

other than the percentage of African American students, percentage of economically

disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate of schools that made AYP and

those that did not make AYP. Data from the 30 elementary schools in the West Region

were examined and only represented a sample of the elementary schools in the SDP, so

the results represented this population. This study only examined 1 year of data from the

2009-2010 school year. Using several years’ worth of data might have affected the

outcome of this study because AYP requirements vary yearly, which could affect a

schools’ AYP status. The study did not evaluate factors that were not included on the

School District 2010 Annual Report Cards or other AYP criteria mandated by the

Department of Education. The ability of schools to make AYP have other contributing

factors that were not mentioned in this study because these factors vary among schools,

and are not included on the documents used to collect data for this study. Other factors

that influenced a school’s ability to make AYP are the instructional practices, teachers’

experience level, leadership styles and school climate, which were not addressed in this

study.

Summary

This quantitative study used a nonexperimental, comparison research design to

attempt to determine the relationship of the percentage of African American students,

percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate of

schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP. The Department of Education

Academic Achievement Report: 2009-2010 and the School District 2010 Annual Report

Card provided the data for this study. The data was collected from 30 elementary schools

in the West Region of the SDP. All the data needed for this study is publicly accessible

via the Internet, so no consent forms were needed to use the data because schools are

required to publish their results according to the NCLB Act. The Department of

Education Academic Achievement Report: 2009-2010 and The School District 2010

Annual Report Cards are the instruments used in this study, which data is generated from

the PSSA. PSSA is a valid and reliable assessment, which is administered in the spring to

assess student achievement. The PSSA has a test-retest reliabilities range from .93 to .94

in mathematics and .92 to .94 in reading. The data was separated into two categories:

schools that made AYP and schools that did not make AYP, and encoded in the SPSS

program with identification numbers to adhere to the confidentiality of the guidelines of

the IRB. The data were analyzed and managed using the SPSS windows software, where

descriptive statistics and a t test were performed to indicate if there is the difference in the

means of the variables. This study have several limitations because it only examined data

regarding the percentage of African American students, percentage of economically

disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate, and did not address other factors

that affect a school’s AYP status such as: instructional practices, teachers’ experience

level, and school climate. This study only included one year of data for the school year of

2009-2010. Since the NCLB Act has been instituted, schools are being held accountable

for student achievement, so it is important for districts, principals, and teachers to

understand the variables that influence their AYP status.

Chapter 4: Data Collection and Analysis

Introduction

Elementary schools in the district targeted for this study demonstrated consistent

difficulty in meeting and exceeding their AYP targets, as mandated by the NCLB Act.

Primarily, this was due to subgroups not meeting their academic performance targets in

reading and mathematics (Department of Education, 2010). This chapter presents both

the findings and analyzed results of schools’ AYP status, to determine if the percentage

of African American students, percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and

students’ attendance rate differs in schools that made AYP and those that did not make

AYP in the West Region of the SDP. Tables are provided to illustrate the number of

schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP. Tables are also used to indicate

the differences in the percentage of students that are African American, percentage of

economically disadvantaged, and students’ attendance rate of schools that made AYP and

those that did not make AYP in the West Region of the SDP. The researcher used this

information in an attempt to answer the three research questions provided in the study.

Descriptive Data

The SDP is one of the largest urban school districts in this state. Over the last

eight years, the SDP has failed to meet its AYP targets because according to the School

District 2010 Annual Report Card, subgroups such as African American students and

economically disadvantaged students were not meeting or exceeding their AYP targets

(Department of Education, 2010). The district had some success because these subgroups

had improved their academic performance scores on the PSSA, which is given yearly in

the spring, but students’ scores had not improved enough for the district to make its AYP

targets in reading and mathematics. According to Le Floch et al. (2007), schools with a

high percentage of economically disadvantaged and minority students are less likely to

make AYP. This has been the case for the SDP where the percentage of schools making

AYP improved from 2008 to 2009. Ackerman (2010) indicated that the school district

had made history because 158 of 267 schools made AYP in 2009. This indicated that

there was a 33% increase in schools that made AYP in the SDP in 2009 from the

previous year, where 119 schools made AYP (Ackerman, 2010). Even though 59% of the

schools made AYP in the SDP in 2009, the district, as a whole, had not made AYP

because of African American students and economically disadvantaged students lack of

achievement in mathematics, reading, and high school graduation rate (Department of

Education, 2010).

The SDP is comprised of 10 academic regions, which consist of elementary,

middle, and high schools. The SDP has a large population of African American and

economically disadvantaged students. Approximately 146,090 students attend K-12

schools in the SDP, where 80.6% are categorized as economically disadvantaged and

56.2% are African American. There are over 250 schools in the SDP and approximately

170 of them are elementary schools that educate approximately over 60,000 students. The

elementary school population only comprises 41.3% of the total numbers of students that

attend SDP (SDP, 2010c). This study did not examine the entire population of 169

elementary schools in SDP. It only examined data from a sample of 30 elementary

schools in the West Region because these schools met the criteria of having a large

percentage of African American and economically disadvantaged students.

Data Analysis

Through the use of a quantitative nonexperimental design, the researcher

attempted to determine if there was a significant difference in the means of the

percentage of African American students, the percentage of economically disadvantaged

students, and students’ attendance rate of schools the made AYP and those that did not

make AYP in the elementary schools in the West Region of the SDP. Descriptive

statistics were used to summarize the percentage of African American students,

economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate for schools that made

AYP and those that did not make AYP. The mean and standard deviation were reported

for each variable. A t test was conducted to determine if there were statistical

significances when comparing the data.

The data were collected from the School District 2010 Annual Report Card and

Department of Education Academic Achievement Report 2009-2010. Table 3 presents the

results of the independent t tests comparing the percentage of African American students,

percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate mean

scores by schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP in the West Region of

the SDP. Twenty-one (n= 21) made AYP, and nine (n=9) did not make AYP.

Table 3

Comparison of Schools

Variable M SD t df p

African American Students .267 28 .792

Did not make AYP 90.91 7.40

Made AYP 89.59 14.00

Economically Disadvantaged Students -.317 28 .754

Did not make AYP 83.12 14.76

Made AYP 84.74 11.98

Students’ Attendance Rate -.512 28 .612

Did not make AYP 92.20 2.14

Made AYP 92.54 1.42

Results

Research question 1. The first research question focused on whether the

percentage of the students in the subgroup African American differed in elementary

schools that made AYP and those that did not in the West Region of the SDP in 2009-

2010. Descriptive statistics were used to portray the percentage of African American

students that attended elementary schools in the West Region of the SDP that made AYP

and those that did not make AYP. The analysis results presented in Table 4 include the

number of schools that made AYP, the number of schools that did not make AYP, mean

scores, standard deviations, and the standard error mean.

Inspection of the two groups mean scores indicated that percentage of African

American students for schools that did not make AYP (M=90.91) was slightly higher

than the percentage of African American students in schools that made AYP (M=89.59).

The difference between the means is 1.32 in a sample size of n=30. The standard

deviation (SD) represents the average degree to which the percentage of African

American students deviate from the mean in schools that did not make AYP (SD=7.40)

and schools that made AYP (SD=14.00). The standard error means for schools that did

not make AYP (2.47) and schools that made (3.06) with a difference of .59 using a 95%

confidence interval indicates that the mean scores would fall within the same range if the

study was repeated.

Table 4

African American Students- Comparing the Percentage

AYP Status Schools N M SD Std. Error Mean

Did not make AYP 9 90.91 7.40 2.47

Made AYP 21 89.59 14.00 3.06

An independent-samples t test was conducted to compare the percentage of

African American students in elementary schools that made AYP and those that did not

make AYP. The results in Table 5 indicated that there were no significant differences in

the percentage of African American students in schools that did not make AYP

(M=90.91, SD=7.40) and percentage of African American students in schools that made

AYP (M=89.59, SD=14.00); t(28)=.267, p = 0.792. The Levene’s Test for Equality of

Variances indicated that equal Variances could be assumed and the t value was not

statistically significant (p=0.792) because p>0.05 for the percentage of African American

students in schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP. These results

suggested that there was no difference in the percentage of African American students in

schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP. Specifically, the t test results

suggested that when there was a similar percentage of African American students,

elementary schools in the West Region of the SDP have an equally likely chance of

making AYP.

Table 5

Independent Samples t test - Percentage of African American Students

Variable M SD t df p

African American Students .267 28 .792

Did not make AYP 90.91 7.40

Made AYP 89.59 14.00

Research question 2. The second research question focused on whether the

percentage of economically disadvantaged students differed in schools that made AYP

and those that did not in the West Region of the SDP in 2009-2010. Descriptive statistics

were used to portray the percentage of economically disadvantaged students that attended

elementary schools in the West Region of the SDP that made AYP and those that did not

make AYP in 2009-2010 school year. The analysis results presented in Table 6 include

the number of schools that made AYP, number of schools that did not make AYP, mean

scores, standard deviations, and the standard error mean.

Inspection of the two groups mean scores indicated that the percentage of

economically disadvantaged students for schools that did not make AYP (M=83.12) was

slightly lower than the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in schools that

made AYP (M=84.74). The difference between the means was 1.62 in a sample size of

n=30. The SD represented the average degree to which the percentage of economically

disadvantaged students deviated from the mean in schools that did not make AYP

(SD=14.76) and schools that made AYP (SD=11.98). The standard error means for

schools that did not make AYP (4.92) and schools that made (2.61) with a difference of

2.31 using a 95% confidence interval indicated that the mean scores would fall within the

same range if the study was repeated.

Table 6

Economically Disadvantaged- Comparing the Percentage

AYP Status Schools N M SD Std. Error Mean

Did not make AYP 9 83.12 14.76 4.92

Made AYP 21 84.74 11.98 2.61

An independent-samples t test was conducted to compare the percentage of

economically disadvantaged students in elementary schools that made AYP and those

that did not make AYP in the West Region of the SDP. The results in Table 7 indicated

that there were no significant differences in the percentage of economically

disadvantaged students in schools that did not make AYP (M=83.12, SD=14.76) and

percentage of economically disadvantaged students in schools that made AYP (M=84.74,

SD=11.98); t(28)= -.317, p = 0.754. The Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances

indicated that equal Variances could be assumed and t value was not statistically

significant (p=0.754) because p>0.05 for the percentage of economically disadvantaged

students in schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP. These results

suggested that there was no difference in the percentage of economically disadvantaged

students in schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP. Specifically, the t

test results suggested that when there is a similar percentage of economically

disadvantaged students, elementary schools in the West Region of the SDP have an

equally likely chance of making AYP.

Table 7

Independent Samples t test - Percentage of Economically Disadvantaged Students

Variable M SD t df p

Economically Disadvantaged Students -.317 28 .754

Did not make AYP 83.12 14.76

Made AYP 84.74 11.98

Research question 3. The third research question for this study centered on

whether the attendance rate of students differed in elementary schools that made AYP

and those that did not in the West Region of the SDP in 2009-2010. Descriptive statistics

were used to portray the students’ attendance rate of elementary schools in the West

Region of the SDP that made AYP and those that did not make AYP in 2009-2010 school

year. The analysis results presented in Table 8 include the number of schools that made

AYP, number of schools that did not make AYP, mean scores, standard deviations, and

the standard error mean.

Inspection of the two groups mean scores indicated that the attendance rate of

students for schools that did not make AYP (M=92.20) was slightly lower than the

attendance rate of students for schools that made AYP (M=92.54). The difference

between the means was .34 in a sample size of n=30. The SD represents the average

degree to which the students’ attendance rate deviate from the mean in schools that did

not make AYP (SD=2.14) and schools that made AYP (SD=1.42). The standard error

means for schools that did not make AYP (.71) and schools that made (.31) with a

difference of .40 using a 95% confidence interval indicated that the mean scores would

fall within the same range if the study was repeated.

Table 8

Attendance Rate- Comparing the Percentage

AYP Status Schools N M SD Std. Error Mean

Did not make AYP 9 92.20 2.14 .71

Made AYP 21 92.54 1.42 .31

An independent-samples t test was conducted to compare the students’ attendance

rate in elementary schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP in the West

Region of the SDP. The results in Table 9 indicated that there were no significant

differences in students’ attendance rate in schools that did not make AYP (M=92.20,

SD=2.14) and students’ attendance rate in schools that made AYP (M=92.20, SD=1.42);

t(28)= -.51, p = .612. The Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances indicated that equal

Variances could be assumed and t value was not statistically significant (p=0.61) because

p>0.05 for students’ attendance rate in schools that made AYP and those that did not

make AYP. These results suggested that there was no difference in the students’

attendance rate in schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP. Specifically,

the t test results suggested that when there is a similar students’ attendance rate,

elementary schools in the West Region of the SDP have an equally likely chance of

making AYP.

Table 9

Independent Samples t test- Students’ Attendance Rate

Variable M SD t df p

Students’ Attendance Rate -.512 28 .612

Did not make AYP 92.20 2.14

Made AYP 92.54 1.42

Summary

This chapter presented the findings and analysis of the data generated to answer

three research questions. This study sought to determine if there were differences in the

percentage of African American students, percentage of economically disadvantaged

students, and students’ attendance rate in elementary schools that made AYP and those

that did not make AYP in the West Region of the SDP. This study included 30

elementary schools from the West Region, where 21 schools made AYP and nine schools

did not make AYP. The data were gathered from the School District 2010 Annual Report

Card and Department of Education Academic Achievement Report 2009-2010. No

consent forms were needed because the data were publicly accessible. An independent t

test was used to determine if there was a mean difference between the variables using a p

< .05. The data analysis indicated that the three independent sample t test values did not

show statistical significant using p < .05 as the criterion. After statistical analysis the

findings were:

1. There were no significant differences in the percentage of African American

students in schools that did not make AYP (M=90.91, SD=7.40) and

percentage of African American students in schools that made AYP

(M=89.54, SD=14.00); t(28)=.267, p = 0.792.

2. There were no significant differences in the percentage of economically

disadvantaged students in schools that did not make AYP (M=83.12,

SD=14.76) and percentage of economically disadvantaged students in schools

that made AYP (M=84.74, SD=11.98); t(28)= -.317, p = 0.754.

3. There were no significant differences in the students’ attendance rate in

schools that did not make AYP (M=92.20, SD=2.14) and students’ attendance

rate in schools that made AYP (M=92.54, SD=1.42); t(28)= -.512, p= 0.612.

These results indicated that there are no differences of the means with statistical

significance between the percentage of African American students, percentage of

economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate of elementary schools

in the West Region of SDP that made AYP and those that did not make AYP. These

results also indicated that elementary schools in the SDP have an equally likely chance of

making AYP if the percentage of African American students, percentage of economically

disadvantaged students, and/or students’ attendance rate were similar. Chapter 5

discusses the findings, their application, and makes recommendations for practice and

future research.

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Introduction

The NCLB Act has caused school districts across the nation to re-examine student

achievement based on the academic performance of students on standardized tests that

are administered each year (LeFloch, et al. 2007). Schools in urban areas such as the one

where this study took place have experienced difficulties making AYP because African

American students and economically disadvantaged students were not meeting academic

performance AYP targets in mathematics and reading. According to the Le Floch et al.

(2007), schools that have a large percentage of minority and economically disadvantaged

students are less likely to make AYP. The SDP is comprised of 10 academic regions,

which contains elementary, middle, and high schools. There are approximately 146,090

students that attend the SDP, where 56.2% of the total population is African American

students and 80.6% are categorized as being economically disadvantaged. Since the SDP

has a large population of economically disadvantaged students and African American

students, it is less likely to make AYP. At the time of this study, the district had not

made AYP for the last eight years. Additionally, at the time of this study, the district was

in Corrective Action II and was looking for ways to improve student achievement. As a

result, the SDP instituted an Initiative designed to transform the lowest performing

schools in the district. Outside organizations were contracted to improve the academic

performance of students in the failing schools (Gallard, 2009). During the 2010-2011

school year, 5% of the SDP schools, which consisted of 13 of the lowest performing

schools were part of the Initiative and were made Charter schools or Promise Academies.

This initiative was a major concern for teachers, parents, and students because each year

more schools were in jeopardy of becoming charter schools for not making their AYP

target, which would change the dynamics of the SDP dramatically.

Chapter 5 provides an overview of the study. The answers to the three research

questions are examined and discussed based on the findings, and evidence from the

research questions were used to develop recommendations for future research, as well as

for future practice. Finally, the Chapter discusses implications as they pertain to assisting

African American and economically disadvantaged students in obtaining their AYP

targets in mathematics and reading.

Summary of the Study

In the SDP, it was believed, that schools were having difficulties making AYP

based on their academic performance in reading and mathematics because African

American students and economically disadvantaged students were not making their AYP

targets. Schools are faced with tremendous pressure to improve student achievement to

the 100% proficient level in mathematics and reading by 2014 as stated in the NCLB Act

(Le Floch et al., 2007). As a result of not making AYP, administrators, teachers, and

parents were looking for solutions to end this trend. Student achievement was improving,

but not enough for the district to meet their AYP targets in reading and mathematics.

According to a letter from the former SDP Superintendent (2010), the district saw an

increase in the number of schools that made AYP from the previous year. The

superintendent (2010) indicated that the school district had made history because 158 of

267 schools made AYP in 2009, which was a 33% increase from the previous year,

where only 119 schools made AYP. Even though student academic performance

improved, the lowest performing schools were still in jeopardy of becoming charter

schools or Academies under the school district’s Initiative.

This study was performed at a school building level to determine if the percentage

of African American students, economically disadvantaged students, and students’

attendance rate influenced a school’s ability to make AYP. The data were collected from

the Department of Education Academic Achievement Report: 2009-2010 and the School

District Annual Report card 2010. The study only examined a sample of the population

where data from 30 elementary schools in the West Region of the SDP were collected.

No consent forms were needed to conduct this study because the data was publicly

accessible.

A quantitative nonexperimental design was used to determine if there was a

significant difference in these variables between the schools made AYP and those that

did not make AYP. The data were statistically analyzed and managed using SPSS for

Windows software. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the percentage of

African American students, percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and

students’ attendance rate of elementary schools that made AYP and those that did not

make AYP where the mean and standard deviation was reported for each variable. A t

test was conducted to determine if there were comparison of two means with statistical

significance between a schools’ AYP status and the percentage of African American

students, percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance

rate.

Summary of Findings and Conclusion

The first research question asked if the percentage of the students in the sub-group

African American differ in elementary schools that made AYP and those that did not in

the West Region of the SDP in 2009-2010. The independent samples t test indicated there

was no significant difference in the percentage of African American students in schools

that did not make AYP (M=90.91, SD=7.40) and percentage of African American

students in schools that made AYP (M=89.59, SD=14.00); t(28)=.267, p=0.792.

Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Based on this evidence, the conclusion was

made that if the percentage of African American students is similar, elementary schools

had an equally likely chance of making AYP, and that the percentage of African

American students did not affect a school’s AYP status in this district. Understanding that

the percentage of African American students do not differ in schools that made AYP and

those that did not make AYP is significant to the study because prior research indicates

that schools with a high percentage of minorities are less likely to make AYP (National

Forum of Education Statistics, 2009).

These findings contradicted prior research because the African American student

subgroup lack of achievement on the PSSA has brought attention to the fact this sub-

group was one of the reasons the SDP has not made AYP in the last eight years (Le Floch

et al., 2007; National Forum of Education Statistics, 2009; Shuqiang, 2009). After

reviewing the findings, schools in the SDP need to examine other factors that influence a

school’s AYP status. This indicates that there are other factors, which could be changed

and implemented in a school’s action plan, which will assist the African American sub-

group in making AYP.

The second research question focused on whether the percentage of economically

disadvantaged students differed in schools that made AYP and those that did not in the

West Region of the SDP in 2009-2010. The independent samples t test indicated that

there was no significant difference in the percentage of economically disadvantaged

students in schools that did not make AYP (M=83.12, SD=14.76) and percentage of

African American students in schools that made AYP (M=84.74, SD=11.98); t(28)= -

.317, p=0.754. The null hypothesis was accepted. Based on this evidence, the conclusion

was made that if the percentage of economically disadvantaged students is similar,

elementary schools have an equally likely chance of making AYP, and that the

percentage of economically disadvantaged students did not affect a school’s AYP status

in this district.

According to the findings of this study, the percentage of economically

disadvantaged students in a school did not indicate if a school will make AYP, but prior

research concluded that urban areas have difficulties making AYP because of low-

income students (Le Floch et al., 2007; National Forum of Education Statistics, 2009;

Shuqiang, 2009). This study contradicted this assumption. Since the SDP is 80.6%

economically disadvantaged, it is important to understand how this subgroup affects the

school’s dynamics. Even though schools with similar percentages of economically

disadvantaged students have an equally likely chance of making AYP , the data from this

study could be use to establish programs or mimic those schools who have found

solutions that increased the academic achievement of this subgroup of students allowing

them to make AYP.

The third research question focused on whether the attendance rate of students

differed in elementary schools that made AYP and those that did not in the West Region

of the SDP in 2009-2010. The independent samples t test indicated there was no

significant difference in the students’ attendance rate in schools that did not make AYP

(M=92.20, SD=2.14) and students’ attendance rate in schools that made AYP (M=92.54,

SD=1.42); t (28)= -.512, p=0.612. The null hypothesis was accepted. Based on this

evidence, the conclusion was made that if the students’ attendance rate was similar,

elementary schools had an equally likely chance of making AYP, and that the students’

attendance rate did not affect a school’s AYP status in this district. This study concluded

that students’ attendance rate did not differ in schools that made AYP and those that did

not make AYP, but prior research indicated that attendance has a direct correlation to

student achievement (National Forum of Education Statistics, 2009; Stenger, 2006). If

economically disadvantaged and African American students want to improve

academically and benefit from programs geared to their subgroups, they must attend

school regularly. According to the National Forum of Education Statistics (2009),

students who attend school regularly have better academic achievement than students

who are chronically absent. Schools in the district could target parents and community

partners that could assist them in getting chronically absent students to attend regularly,

which will help students’ attendance in programs geared to improve academic

performance.

Implications

The SDP had difficulties making AYP because their subgroups were not meeting

academic performance targets in reading and mathematics. Results from this research

indicated that the percentage of African American students, percentage of economically

disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate did not differ in schools that made

AYP and those that did not make AYP in the West Region of the SDP. Examining data

for more than 1 year and using the entire population, instead of a sample, could have

influenced the results of this study because AYP status changes yearly. In addition, this

study only considered the factors of the percentage of African American students,

percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate. It did

not consider other factors that influence a school’s AYP status such as: school climate,

instructional practices, teachers’ experience level, or leadership.

Based on the results of this research, schools in the SDP should focus on other

factors instead of student demographics and attendance because schools with similar

students’ characteristics have managed to make AYP. Schools should focus on other

school-based factors that have a direct correlation with student achievement. School

climate is a school-based factor that should be focused on because this is an issue for

schools in urban areas (Chen & Weikart, 2008). According to Paredes (1991) a school’s

environment has a direct affect on student achievement because it affects a student’s

participation which affects learning. Schools in areas with a high percentage of minorities

and economically disadvantaged students are more likely to have climate issues that

affect student achievement (Chen & Weikart, 2008). These climate issues disrupt

instruction, distract students, affect attendance of students, and result in high teacher

turnover (Falch & Ronning, 2007).

Another school-based factor that schools should consider is the instructional

practice of teachers. According to Braun et al., (2010) the effectiveness of the teacher is

the most important factor in improving student achievement. Schools with a high

percentage of minority students and economically disadvantaged students need to be

taught by teachers that have a proven record of accomplishment in improving the

academic performance of this population. The instructional practice of teachers in low

performing schools is essential because qualified teachers are more likely to quit because

of lack of resources and climate issues. Howes (2008) postulated that teachers should not

just be qualified, but use effective instructional practices that influence student

achievement.

Theoretical implications. The NCLB Act of 2001 is an accountability measure

used to improve academic performance of students to the proficient level by 2014.

Schools implement standardized tests once each year to assess whether students made

academic progress towards proficiency. In the SDP students take the PSSA in the spring,

which is one of the criteria used to indicate if schools have made AYP. According to

Hanchon (2011), the NCLB Act is reflected in the achievement goal theory, which uses

accountability measures to change behaviors, beliefs, and attributes that focus on

mastery, performance, and performance avoidance. The ultimate goal of the NCLB Act

was to eliminate the achievement gap of minority students with White students and

improve the overall educational system of the U.S.

Since African American students’ academic achievement is improving and this is

seen in SDP, where 56.2% of the total population is African American students and

80.6% are economically disadvantaged, there should be additional accountability

measures used to track student achievement in regards to teachers. According to Le Floch

et al. (2007), schools with a high percentage of African American and economically

disadvantaged students are less likely to make AYP. Results from this research seem to

indicate that the percentage of African American students and economically

disadvantaged students had no significant difference in elementary schools that made

AYP and those that did not make AYP in the West Region of the SDP. The results also

indicated that there were no significant differences in the students’ attendance rate in

elementary schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP in the West Region

of the SDP. Since the results indicate that there is no difference in the percentage of

African American students, percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and

students’ attendance rate of schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP

these are not factors that are preventing the elementary schools in the West Region of

SDP from making AYP.

According to achievement goal theory, accountability changes behaviors, so

teachers should be held more accountable for their students’ academic performance

(Hanchon, 2011). Currently in the SDP, only schools and the district’s performance are

tracked and not individual teachers. The district does not hold them accountable

individually, but collectively as a school. Since this is the case, AYP should also be

tracked per teacher where AYP targets should be established at a school level for each

class to show growth towards 100% proficiency. Based on the results of this research, the

SDP should implement a system that links students’ performance to teachers’

performance so the quality of instruction can improve which will improve the academic

performance of African American and economically disadvantaged students and create a

stronger workforce.

Practical implications. The results from this study indicated that there were no

significant differences in the percentage of African American students, percentage of

economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate of elementary schools

that made AYP and those that did not make AYP in the West Region of the SDP. This

contradicts research that indicated that schools with a high percentage of minority and

economically disadvantaged students were less likely to make AYP (Hallinan, 2008; Le

Floch et al., 2007; Stenger, 2006). Based on the results of this study, elementary schools

with similar demographics and students’ attendance rate have an equal chance of making

AYP. This research indicated that schools need to look at other factors that influence

their AYP status instead of the racial composition of their supgroups. First, schools

should examine the effectiveness of their administrators to support and motivate teachers.

Administrators and leadership should model effective instructional practices because

teachers’ instructional practices are the primary factor that influences academic success

(Howes, 2008). Secondly, teachers should be provided more professional development

specifically geared toward educating minority and economically disadvantaged students

because not all teachers are trained to teach in urban environments, where classroom

management has a direct correlation to effective teaching and student achievement.

Finally, schools should focus on climate management because schools with a high

percentage of minority students and economically disadvantaged students are more likely

to have climate issues (Chen, 2007). These climate issues have a direct correlation to

student achievement because they disrupt instruction, which hinders students’ learning.

Future implications. Currently, the NCLB Act is an accountability measure that

affects schools and districts but not students directly in the SDP. In the SDP, students are

not sanctioned if they do not improve academically and they are promoted even if they

perform at the below basic and basic levels on the PSSA. According to Rose and

Schimke (2012), numerous states have promotion guidelines, which require students to

pass their states standardized test in 3 rd

grade and high school to be promoted or graduate.

City have adopted promotion guidelines for 3rd, 5th, and 8th grade students who are

identified as individuals with serious academic difficulties on the New York State

Assessment of English Language Arts or mathematics, are retained if they do not obtain

the required promotion scores. These grades are considered the gateway grades and

students’ standardized test are monitored in order to increase the proficiency level of all

students in reading and mathematics. In the future, students should be held responsible

for their own academic achievement in all tested grades in the SDP. In the SDP, students’

standardized scores are only used as a tool to motivate schools to improve students’

achievement but this is not a motivating factor for students because there is no direct

consequence for not being proficient as of 2010. In January 2010, the stated where this

study took place changed high school graduation requirements, but it will only affect

students graduating high school in or after 2017 (Grossman, 2011). Students in the SDP

will be required to pass the Keystone Exam or approved alternative in Algebra I, Biology,

and Literature in 2017. When this new policy is fully implemented, students will be

required to demonstrate proficiency in six academic content areas to receive their high

school diploma (Grossman, 2011). There has not been an accountability measure enacted

for students in K-8 th

grade in the SDP. Since, students are an essential component to

schools’ AYP status an accountability measure for students in K-8 th

grade should be

established in the SDP, where their standardized test scores are used as part of the

promotion requirement in all grades not just high school.

Even though this research indicated that the percentage of African American

students, percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance

rate does not differ in elementary schools that made AYP and those that did not make

AYP in the West Region of the SDP, historical research indicates that African American

and economically disadvantaged students do not perform well on standardized exams

(Cravens, 2006). Students who perform on the below-basic and basic level on

standardized test should be provided tutoring. Currently, the SDP provides Corrective

Reading, Corrective Math, Saturday School, and Extended Day but these programs have

not improved student achievement to the proficiency levels in all schools (SDP, 2009).

Tutoring should be provided so students could get effective instruction based on their

individual needs. According to Chambers et al.(2011), one to one tutoring is most

effective with minority and economically disadvantaged students, but schools could use

computer–assisted tutoring, small group tutoring as an alternative. Individual tutoring is a

costly intervention but if it were done effectively, it would improve student academic

performance and schools AYP status.

Recommendations

The SDP has seen an improvement in the percentage of schools that have made

AYP but the district in its entirety has not made AYP in eight consecutive years. Schools

in the SDP have not made AYP because their minority subgroups are not making their

AYP targets. Failure to make AYP results in sanction by the state where schools that

repeatedly do not make AYP are reconstructed into charter schools or promise

academies. Since the number of SDP operated schools are decreasing because they are

contracted to agencies or organizations that have a proven track record of improving

student achievement, it is important to identify the factors that influences a school’s

ability to maintain and exceed their AYP targets before the infrastructure of the public

school system in Philadelphia changes drastically. According to this research, elementary

schools with a similar racial composition and students’ attendance rate have an equally

likely chance of making AYP, so the SDP should look at other factors that influence

student achievement to figure out how some schools make AYP and others do not. Past

research indicates that schools with a high percentage of minority and economically

disadvantaged students should examine their schools’ climate and instructional practices

of teachers. According to Falch and Ronning (2007), school climate has a direct effect on

student achievement because school disorders distract students, interrupt instruction and

increase teacher turnover. Howes (2008) postulated, that the qualification of teachers

along with effective instructional practices is the greatest factor that influence student

achievement.

Recommendations for future research. The NCLB Act is the accountability

measure that was designed for students to reach 100% proficiency by the year 2014. Even

though this accountability measure is scheduled to end, schools will continue to be held

accountable for student achievement, which will prepare students for college and the

workforce. The following recommendations for future research are:

1. A quantitative study could be performed on all elementary schools, middle

schools, and high schools in the SDP to determine if the percentage of African

American students, percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and

students’ attendance rate differ in schools that made AYP and those that did

not make AYP. According to Le Floch et al. (2007) schools with a high

percentage of economically disadvantaged and minority students are less

likely to make AYP. This should be done because the study will include a

larger population, which may or may not make a difference in the outcome of

the study.

2. Another study could be performed which would examine data over a period of

time instead of one year. Extending the time period of the study may or may

not make a difference in the outcome of the study but could provide additional

insight on the effect African American students, economically disadvantaged

students, and students’ attendance rate have on schools’ AYP status.

3. A qualitative study could be performed to determine if the instructional

practices of teachers differ in schools that made AYP and those that did not.

Howes (2008) indicates that the qualifications and instructional practices of

teachers have a direct correlation with student achievement. The results of this

study would provide information to schools to help implement instructional

practices that are successful in improving student achievement since teacher

effectiveness has a direct correlation to academic success.

4. Since schools with a high percentage of minorities and economically

disadvantaged students are more likely to have climate issues, a study could

be performed to determine the effect climate has on a school’s ability to make

AYP. According to Chen and Weikart (2008) and Paredes (1991) a school’s

climate has a direct correlation with student achievement because school

disorders distract students, interrupt instruction, and increase absenteeism.

The results of this study could provide data to help establish effective school

climates that promote learning for all students so AYP can be obtained.

Recommendations for practice. Even though student achievement has improved

for African American and economically disadvantaged students, they still do not perform

as well as middle-class White students on standardized test (Cravens, 2006). The School

SDP is an example of a district where more schools are making and exceeding their AYP

targets in reading and mathematics but they still are not making AYP as a district. The 30

elementary schools in the West Region of the SDP would benefit from implementing the

recommendations of this study because it would hold students and teachers accountable

for their academic achievement. Changing the accountability measure for teachers and

students will not only assist the SDP but other districts around the nation that are having

difficulties making AYP. Students and parents will benefit from the recommendations of

this study because it forces students to take ownership of their academic performance

because there are direct consequences for lack of achievement. The recommendations for

practice are:

1. Schools with a high percentage of African American and economically

disadvantaged students should focus on other factors that influence student

achievement such as climate, instructional practices of teachers and leadership

styles. These administrators and teachers should be given specialized training

that will assist them in effective classroom management strategies and best

instructional practices.

2. Students that consistently perform at the below-basic level on the PSSA

should be identified as at-risk. These at-risk students should be identified early

so interventions can be established to ensure students’ academic success. At-

risk students should be given special accommodations such as individual

tutoring, extended school days, and remediation.

3. The NCLB Act should be improved to include accountability systems for

teachers and students. Teachers should be held accountable for student

achievement and AYP targets should be establish for each class based on the

previous students’ academic performance the prior year. Teachers’

evaluations should include a student achievement component where educators

are held accountable for students’ academic performance. Students should

also be held accountable for their performance on standardized test. Currently

in SDP, K-8 th

students test scores are only used to evaluate schools but

students are not affected by their test results. Test scores should be

incorporated in students’ promotion criteria as an accountability measure for

students in all grades not just in high school as a graduation requirement.

Overall Summary

Chapter 5 discussed the results and findings of this study. A summary of the study

and findings, theoretical implications, practical implications, future implications,

recommendations of future research, and recommendations for practice are discussed.

Finally, the researcher provided an overall summary of the study.

This study examined the relationship of the percentage of African American

students, percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance

rate that differs in elementary schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP

in the West Region of the SDP. There were no significant relationships between the

percentage of African American students, economically disadvantaged students, and

students’ attendance rate of schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP.

The results indicated that elementary schools in the SDP have an equally likely chance to

make AYP if they have similar characteristics. The results also indicated that schools

should look at other factors that influence student achievement. Even though the study

indicated that there were no differences in the percentage of African American students,

percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and students’ attendance rate in

schools that made AYP and those that did not make AYP, school districts around the

nation could benefit from this study. This study could provide information that could

assist districts in developing a school improvement plan that increase student

achievement for African American and economically disadvantaged students by looking

at other factors which has a direct correlation to student achievement.

There are several recommendations generated from this study, and the elementary

schools in the West Region of the SDP would benefit from implementing them. One

recommendation necessitates holding students and teachers accountable for students’

academic achievement, a measure that will assist school districts that are having

difficulties making AYP. Parents will also benefit from the recommendations of this

study because when students take ownership of their academic performance and

understand the direct consequences for lack of achievement, they may be more likely to

strive to higher achievements to become responsible citizens.

References

Ackerman, A. C. (August, 2010). From the desk of Arlene C. Ackerman, Ed. D.

Superintendent. The School District. Retrieved from

http://www.phila.k12.pa.us/offices/ceo/ackerman/message_from_super_08-20-

10.html

Adams, S. (October, 2008). Left behind: Low-income students under the No Child Left

Behind Act (NCLB). Journal of Law & Education, 37(4), 589-596. Retrieved

from the Education Research Complete database.

Baker, M., & Johnston, P. (2010). The impact of socioeconomic status on high stakes

testing reexamined. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(3), 193-199.

Berryhill, J., Linney, J., & Fromewick, J. (2009). The effects of education accountability

on teachers: Are Policies Toostress Provoking for their own good?. International

Journal Of Education Policy & Leadership, 4(1-11), 1-14.

Borland, K. W. (2001). Qualitative and quantitative research: A complementary balance.

New Directions for Institutional Research, 2001(211), 5. Retrieved from

EBSCOhost.

Braun, H., Chapman, L., & Vezzu, S. (2010). The Black-White achievement gap

revisited. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(21), 1-95. Retrieved from

EBSCOhost.

Carpenter II, D., & Ramirez, A. (2007). More than one gap: Dropout rate gaps between

and among Black, Hispanic, and White students. Journal of Advanced Academics,

19(1), 32-64. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Chamber, B., Slavin R., E., Madden N., A., Abrami, P., Logan M., K., & Gifford, R.

(2011). Small-group, computer-assisted tutoring to improve reading outcomes for

struggling first and second graders. Elementary School Journal, 111(4), 625-640.

Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Chen, G., & Weikart, L. (2008). Student background, school climate, school disorder,

and student achievement: An empirical study of New York City’s middle schools.

Journal of School Violence, 7(4), 3-20. Retrieved from the Education Research

Complete database.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (2010a). The summary of the Pennsylvania

performance standards. Retrieved from

www.portal.state.pa.us/.../http;//...pa.../SummaryofPAPerformanceSta..

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (2010b). Assessments- Pennsylvania Department of

Education- assessment and accountability. Retrieved from

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=507513&mode=

Cravens, L., A. (2006). The relation of class size to student achievement. Ed.D.

dissertation, University of Minnesota, United States -- Minnesota. Retrieved from

Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection.

(Publication No. AAT 3219966)

Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (3 rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

CSR Research Consortium. (2010). Class size reduction in California: The 1998-99

evaluation findings executive summary. Retrieved from

www.classize.org/summary/98-99/

Danielson, C. (2002). Teaching evaluation. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Darling-Hammond, L. R. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of

state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), Retrieved from

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1.

Easton-Brooks, D., & Davis, A. (2009). Teacher qualification and the achievement gap in

early primary grades. Education Policy Analysis Archives 17(14/15), 1-16.

Education Research Complete, EBSCOhost.

Falch, T., & Ronning, M. (2007). The influence of student achievement on teacher

turnover. Education Economics, 15(2), 177-202. Education Research Complete,

EBSCOhost.

Fitzgerald, S. M., Rumrill, P. D., Jr., & Schenker, J. D. (2004). Correlational designs in

rehabilitation research. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 20(2), 143-150.

Farrell, M. G. (2011). The progress of students with disabilities on Pennsylvania's state

assessment compared to nondisabled peers. Ph.D. dissertation, Capella

University, United States -- Minnesota. Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses:

The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection. (Publication No. AAT 3457263)

Fram, S. M., Miller-Cribbs, M., Horn, J. E., & Van Horn, L. (2007). Poverty, race, and

the contexts of achievement: Examining educational experiences of children in

the U.S. South. Retrieved from http://www.citeulike.org/article/1795830

Gallard, F. A., (August, 2009). School District of Philadelphia announces the creation of

the Renaissance School Advisory Board: News Release. School District of

Philadelphia. Retrieved from www.phila.k12.pa.us/../RSAB-Press-Release-

082009.pdf

Gallard, F. A. (January 27, 2010). School District of Philadelphia launches major

turnaround school initiative- Renaissance School: News Release. School District

of Philadelphia. Retrieved from

http://phila.k12.pa.us/announcements/renaissance-release-masthead.pdf

Graue, E., & Rauscher, E. (2009). Researcher perspectives on class size reduction.

Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(9), 1-23. Retrieved from Education

Research Complete database.

Grossman, F. D. (April, 2011). Measure student proficiency and creating capacity: The

move toward end-of-course exams in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia Social

Innovations Journal. Retrieved from

http://philasocialinnovations.org/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl

e&id=269%3Ameasuring-student-proficiency-and-creating-capacity-the-move-

toward-end-of-course-exams-in-pennsylvania-&catid=19%3Adisruptive-

innovations&Itemid=30&showall=1

Good, T. L., Wiley, C. H., & Sabers, D. (2010). Accountability and educational reform:

A critical analysis of four perspectives and considerations for enhancing reform

efforts. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 138-148.

doi:10.1080/00461521003720171

Hanchon, T. A. (2011). Examining perfectionism through the lens of achievement goal

theory. North American Journal of Psychology, 13(3), 469-490. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/912383707?accountid=7374

Hallinan, M. (2008). Teacher influences on students’ attachment to school. Sociology of

Education, 81(3), 271-283. Retrieved from Education Research Complete

database.

Heros. (2009). The state of Tennessee’s student/teacher achievement ratio (STAR) project

final summary report 1985-1990. Retrieved on from www.heros-inc.org/star.htm

Howes, B. (November, 2008). Not by student-teacher ratios alone: A quantitative means

to a qualitative end. International School Journal, 28(1), 39-46. Retrieved from

Education Research Complete database.

HumRRO. (2004). Relationships among the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment

(PSSA) scores, SAT scores, and self-reported high school grades for the classes of

2002 and 2003. Retrieved from

staff.philau.edu/froeliche/eportfolio/Final_PSSA_SAT_Paper.pdf

Johanningmeier, E. V. (2010). A nation at risk and sputnik. American Educational

History Journal, 37(1/2), 347-365. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Johnson, B. (March, 2001). Toward a new classification of nonexperimental quantitative

research. Educational Research, 30(2), 3-13.

Le Floch, K. C., Martinez, F., Stecher, B., Taylor, J., Vernez, G., Birman, B. F., Garet,

M. S., & O’Day, J.(2007). No Child Left Behind –State and local implantation of

the No Child Left Behind Act volume III- Accountability under NCLB: Interim

Report. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reprints

/2007 /RAND _RP1303.pdf

Murphy, J. (2009). Closing achievement gaps: Lessons from the last 15 years (cover

story). Phi Delta Kappan, 91(3), 8-12. Retrieved from Education Research

Complete database.

National Forum of Education Statistics. (ED). (2009). Every school day counts: The

forum guide to collecting and using attendance data. NFES 2009-804. National

Forum on Education Statistics. Retrieved from Eric database.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The nation’s report card: Mathematics

2009. National Assessment of Education Progress at Grade 4 and 8. NCES 2010-

451. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from Eric database.

NCLD Public Policy Staff. (2009). No child left behind act (NCLB): An overview.

Retrieved from www.nclb.org./on-capital-hill/federal-laws-aamp-id/no-child-left-

behind-act-nclb-an-overview

NYSED. (2011). The George H.W. Bush years: America 2000 proposed. US Department

of Education NY State Archives. Retrieved from

http://www.archives.nysed.gov/edpolicy

/research/res_essay_bush_ghw_amer2000.shtml

Paredes, V. (July, 1991). School climate and student achievement executive summary.

Retrieved from www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebportal/custom/portlets/recordDetails

/detailmini.jsp?r

Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2010). Academic achievement report: 2009-

2010. Retrieved on from

http://paayp.emetric.net/District/Overview/c51/126515001

Rose, S., & Schimke, K. (March, 2012). Third grade literacy policies: Identification,

intervention, retention. Education Commission of the State. Retrieved from

www.ecs.org/html/Document.asp?chouseid=10154

Rowley, R. L., & Wright, D. W. (2011). No "White" Child Left Behind: The academic

achievement gap between Black and White students. Journal Of Negro

Education, 80(2), 93-107.

Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria, VA:

ASCD. ISBN:9780871203755.

School District of Philadelphia. (April, 2009). Imagine 2014 Five Year Strategic Plan.

Retrieved from, http://blogs.sj-r.com/isf/wp-content/uploads/Imagine2014.pdf

School District of Philadelphia Office of Accountability. (October, 2010). Annual Report

Card 2010. Retrieved from,

http://webgui.phila.k12.pa.us/uploads/dQ/cS/dQcSEx4f3dS jC9fZ29dL5Q/Final-

ES-Report-11-5-Brown.pdf

School District of Philadelphia. (2010a). Overview of Renaissance Schools. Retrieved

from http://webgui.phila.k12.pa.us/offices/r/renaissance-schools

School District of Philadelphia. (2010b). Renaissance school initiative: Year I. School

District of Philadelphia Office of Charter, Partnership and New Schools.

Retrieved from http://webgui.phila.k12.pa.us/office/r/renaissance-

schools/renaissance-schools-initiative-year-I

School District of Philadelphia. (2010c). School profile help. Retrieved from

www.webapps.phila sd.org/school_profile/help#econ

School District of Philadelphia. (2010d). Complete guide to the school annual report card

sixth edition. School District of Philadelphia Office of accountability. Retrieved

from www.webgul.phila.k12.pa.us/offices/accountability

School District of Philadelphia. (2011). Pennsylvania System of School Assessment

(PSSA) fact sheet. School District of Philadelphia Office of Accountability,

Assessment and Intervention. Retrieved from

http://www.phila.k12.pa.us/announcements/releases/pssa FactSheet.html

Shirvani, H. (2009). Does the No Child Left Behind Act leave some children behind?

International Journal of Learning, 16(3), 49-57. Retrieved from Education

Research Complete database.

Shuqiang, Z. (2009). The impact of economic disadvantage on academic achievement in

Hawaii: A multi-level analysis. International Journal of Learning, 16(7), 367-

382. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Smyth, T. S. (2008). Who is No Child Left Behind leaving behind? The Clearing House.

133-137.

SPSS. (2010). IBM statistical package from the social sciences. Retrieved from

http://www. spss.com/corpinfo/history.htm

Stenger, L. S. (December, 2006). AYP building level accountability profiles: Missouri

Public Schools 2004-2005. Ed.D. dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia,

United States.

Tavakolian, H. R., & Howell, N. (2012). Dropout dilemma and interventions. Global

Education Journal, (1), 77-81.

Taylor, J., Stecher, B., O’Day, J., Naftel, S., & Le Floch, K.C. (2010). State and local

implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act Volume IX- Accountability under

NCLB: Final report. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/.../nclb-

accountability/nclb-accountability-final.doc

The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (April, 1983). A nation at risk:

The imperative for educational reform. Retrieved from www.2ed.gov/pubs/

NatATRISK /risk/index.html

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Improving basic programs operated by local

educational agencies (Title I, Part A). Retrieved from

www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html

U. S. Department of Education. (1996). Goals 2000 a progress report. Retrieved from

www.2ed.gov/PDFDocs/96GRpt.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2010a). Archived: Executive summary of the no child left

behind act of 2001. Retrieved from

http://ww.2ed.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2010b). Elementary & secondary education no child left

behind legislation and policy. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/ states/index.html#nclb

U.S. Department of Education, National Center of Education Statistics. (2012). The

condition of education 2012 (NCES 2012-045) Table A-33-1. Retrieved from

nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-sde-1.asp

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2010). Student achievement guarantee in

education (SAGE) program overview. Retrieved from dpi.wi.gov/sage/index.html

Xiang, Y. (2009). Ethnic differences in achievement growth: Longitudinal data analysis

of math achievement in a hierarchical linear model framework. Ph. D.

dissertation, Boston College, United States.

Appendix A

Confidentiality Statement

100

Grand Canyon University

College of Doctoral Studies

3300 W. Camelback Road

Phoenix, AZ 85017

Phone: 602-639-6106

Fax: 602- 639-7820

DOES THE PERCENTAGE OF AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS,

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS, OR STUDENTS’

ATTENDANCE RATE AFFECT SCHOOLS’ ABILITY TO MAKE ADEQUATE

YEARLY PROGRESS IN THE WEST REGION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF

PHILADELPHIA

Confidentiality Statement

As an assistant working on the above research study at Grand Canyon University, I

understand that I must maintain the confidentiality of all information concerning research

participants. This information includes, but is not limited to, all identifying information

and research data of participants and all information accruing from any direct or indirect

contact I may have with said participants. In order to maintain confidentiality, I hereby

agree to refrain from discussing or disclosing any information regarding research

participants, including information described without identifying information, to any

individual who is not part of the above research study or in need of the information for

the expressed purposes on the research program.

_______________________ ____________________________ _________

Signature of assistant Printed Name Date

_______________________ ____________________________ ________

Signature of researcher Printed Name Date