Assignment 6

Turnaround Policy and Practice: A Case Study of Turning Around a Failing School with English-Language-Learners

Augustina Reyes • Andres Garcia

Published online: 4 September 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract In an era of school reform and high stakes accountability, the major challenge in education is to turnaround the nation’s lowest-performing schools.

National policy provides abundant resources with often restrictive prerequisites.

Research indicates that quality principals and teachers are the most important fac-

tors for turning around the lowest performing schools; however there is little

research in how to turnaround failing schools with high enrollments of students in

poverty, who are English-Language Learners, and who are Hispanic. The purpose of

this study is to understand how demography, policy and practices affect the edu-

cational edge of students in poverty, who are English-Language Learners, and who

are Hispanic. How do the practices of a school leader who is professionally/cul-

turally/linguistically responsive affect turnaround for a failing schools? How does

the personal and professional background of a Latino principal affect student per-

formance in a failing school? This research conducted a qualitative case study to

include principal interviews, principal observations, teacher interviews, and the use

of state and school archival data. Analyses included organizing data into data

themes and triangulating data themes, using principal background, principal pro-

fessional/cultural beliefs and practices, school context, teacher data, and archival

data. Conclusions confirm the need to conduct research to document and define the

performances for professionally/culturally/linguistically responsive principal mod-

els and their effect on student performance in historically failing schools. In addi-

tion, policymakers need to consider the organizational contexts of professional/

A. Reyes (&) Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, University of Houston,

340 Farish Hall, 4800 Calhoun Rd., Houston, TX 77204-5026, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

A. Garcia

Harris County Department of Education, 6300 Irvington Blvd, Houston, TX 77022-5618, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371

DOI 10.1007/s11256-013-0261-6

culturally/linguistically responsive leadership and teaching models as turnaround

school models.

Keywords No Child Left Behind (NCLB) � Turnaround schools � Urban schools � School policy � English-Language-Learners � Hispanic

In 2009, the New York Times declared education to be the greatest national shame

in the United States (Kristop 2009). Kristop use to think that US Health was the

greatest national shame, declaring that the US spends twice as much as European

nations, yet American children are twice as likely to die before the age of five as

Czech children and American women are eleven times as likely to die in childbirth

as Irish women. The author argues that education spending is important ‘‘for the

economy, for our children, and for our future.’’ He argues that America’s

educational edge was largely created because of its emphasis on mass education at a

time when other countries only educated elites or males; however, this edge was

eclipsed in the 1970s, following increases in low-income and minority student

populations. Since then one country after another has surpassed the US in education.

The purpose of this study is to understand how demography, policy and practices

affect the educational edge of high-poverty, high-Hispanic and high English-

Language Learners (ELL) in failing schools. Several studies have identified that

strong leadership, consistent focus on improving instruction, building a committed

staff, and data use with strategic teacher recruitment, management and intensive

professional development are components necessary to turnaround low-performing

schools (Calkins et al. 2007; Elmore 2003, 2010; Herman et al. 2008; Mintrop and

Trujillo 2005). A case study was conducted to explore the leadership practices of a

principal who turned around a persistently, low-performing school. The study also

explored how the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy guides principal practices in

context of a high-poverty neighborhood in one of the largest urban school districts

in the United States (NCLB 2002).

Policy, Demography, and Context

While US education policy has generated some academic progress for the low-

income students, the greatest challenge to literacy in the US is how to educate poor

and minority children while closing the achievement gap between high-poverty,

high-minority students and majority White students. According to Elmore (2004)

after 30 years of school reform the variability in student performance in core

content areas by demographic group remains persistently large (p. 3). ‘‘High-

performing classrooms and schools, especially in communities with high propor-

tions of low-income minority children are still the rare exception rather than the

rule’’ (Elmore 2004, p. 3).

Consistently low-performing failing schools are a national problem. These

schools are populated with concentrations of low-income children in poor

350 Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371

123

neighborhoods. Failing schools have increased with the increases in minority and

low-income students. In the 1980s Texas and other states responded to school

failures by mandating standards-based curriculum and accountability systems as

incentives to improve student and school performance. In 2001, the Bush

administration reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of

(1965) as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB 2002). NCLB became the foundation of

federal policy to serve children in poverty. The policy is grounded in punitive

accountability measures and sanctions that create high stakes education environ-

ments for poor children who are compared academically with affluent students.

NCLB, Title I, Part A, Section 1116 defines escalating sanctions against

borderline failing schools, including adequate yearly progress (AYP) or a minimum

level of school improvement (NCLB 2002). Other NCLB sanctions include a

revised school plan, a formal announcement to the community that the school is low

performing, and release of all students with options to transfer to other schools

(NCLB 2002). While developing a revised school plan is a positive feature, it

requires resources that are often transferred from the state to the district. These

resources are often in the form of outside consultants selected without much input

from the school. The policy requires no accountability from the consultants who

may be the historical roots of low-performing schools (NCLB, Title I, Part A,

Section 1116 2002). Section 1116 (b) (5) provides supplemental services like

tutoring from private tutoring services and technical assistance in the form of

consultants often selected by the state commissioner of education without input

from local districts or local schools. Section 1116 (b) (7) requires corrective action

that includes the removal of staff (NCLB 2002).

I used to think that policy was the solution. And now I think that policy is the

problem which may be best description for the federal policy intended to provide

services to poor children in the US (Elmore 2010, p. 1). Is it sensible to use

assessment policies to compare low-income urban minority schools with affluent

middle class suburban schools? In many high-poverty, minority schools teachers

work harder in being innovative teachers with fewer resources than teachers in

affluent middle class schools. In high-performing, high-poverty schools teachers

internalize responsibility for student learning. They examine their practices

critically, and abandon unsuccessful practices constantly searching for better

practices (Elmore 2005).

In 2009, the Obama administration drastically increased funds provided to SEAs

under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 targeted for

persistently lowest achieving schools to support rapid improvement using four

perspective intervention models (US Department of Education 2013a). In addition

the Department of Education created the Office of School Turnarounds to

coordinate the US Department of Education (DOE) (2013a) programs focused on

the lowest-performing schools. A deputy assistant secretary for Policy, Office of

Elementary Secondary Education in the US Department of Education’s Office of

Elementary and Secondary Education was appointed to lead the Office of School

Turnaround (US Department of Education 2013b). In 2009 federal policy for

serving children in poverty focused on turning around the lowest-performing

Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371 351

123

schools in the US: however the distribution of federal funds to the local schools is

grounded in the SEA policy (NCLB, Title I, Part A, Section 1111, 2002).

Demographics

The demographics of the lowest-performing schools show that in 2012 there were

12,445 schools or 14.3 % of all public schools in the US that were labeled as

persistently low performing (Hurlburt et al. 2012). Over 7,000 of the schools

identified were elementary schools and approximately 2,500 were middle schools

(Hurlburt et al. 2012). The schools identified disproportionately serve Black, Latino,

and low-income students perpetuating the achievement gap (Hurlburt et al. 2012;

Lachlan-Hache et al. 2012).

In 2010, the total US resident population was 308.7 million, of which 68 % were

White, 15 % were Hispanic, 12 % were African American, and 5 % were Asian

(US POPClock Projection 2009). In 2010 the US public school enrollment was at

51.7 million students of which 24 % were Hispanic, 15 % were African American,

and 4 % Asian (US Census Data 2012). US public school enrollments are comprised

of a minority student enrollment made up of 43 %. Twenty percent of school age

children speak a language other than English at home (Planny et al. 2008).

The 2010 census reported that the Texas child population growth was 979,065 of

which 77,736 were African American, 187,486 were White, and 932,012 were

Hispanic (Young, 2011). In the Dallas-Ft. Worth-Arlington urban area there was a

child population growth of 323,151, of which 49,918 were African American,

36,389 were White, and 250,703 were Hispanic. Houston-Sugarland/Baytown area,

the second major urban area in Texas, reported a child population growth of 294,000

of which Hispanics were 255,000 (Young 2011). Additionally, Harris County which

encompasses the Houston-Sugarland-Baytown area reported the second largest

concentration of Hispanics in the nation at 1,671,540 (Pew Research Hispanic

Center 2012).

While minority student enrollments are high, minority student achievement

remains low (Ramani et al. 2007). The projection is that minorities will make up

39 % of the total US population by 2020 (Ramani et al. 2007). By 2020, half of the

US public school students will be poor, non-white and Hispanic with half of those

students speaking a language other than English on their first day of school (Llagas

and Snyder 2003). The Latino population is a young population that has a major

survival interest in education.

Context

Historically Latino and African American students have had the lowest achieving

rates and the highest poverty rates in American public schools. Poverty data shows

that in 2005–2006, one-third of the Black students and one-third of the Hispanics

attended high-poverty schools compared to 4 % of the White students (NCES

2007). Low achievement is attributed to students attending high-poverty, high-

352 Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371

123

minority schools with consistently low-performance and less qualified teachers

(Ansell et al. 2004; Haskins and Sawhill 2007). Academically, Hispanics and other

minorities produce the lowest test scores (National Assessment of Educational

Progress, NAEP 2005; Noguera and Brown 2002). Eighth grade NAEP data showed

that 60 % of the nation’s Latino eighth graders were performing below basic level in

math compared to 23 % of the nation’s white eighth graders. The 2007 eighth grade

reading exam of National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that 46 % of

the African American students and 43 % of the Hispanic students scored below

basic (Murnane 2007).

Research shows that poverty is a complex reality that affects student achievement

(Rebell et al. 2012). Poverty and inequality reach throughout American society. The

challenge to policymakers is to understand the complexity of the poverty challenge

and confront it in new effective ways (**Rebell et al. 2012). Although poverty rates

are reported as official data by the US Census Data (2012), the unreliability of US

Census data under reports the real number of poor children depriving low income

children because the data are used to fund Title I programs. There are other

unofficial poverty data including US Department of Labor (2008) data. The

Collaboration for Poverty Research at the Harvard Kennedy School and Stanford

Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality report that 37 million Americans live

in poverty (Stanford Center 2009). According to the 2012 US Census data, 15.1 %

or 46.2 million citizens of the US population live in poverty with 9.9 % of Whites,

12.1 % for Asians, 27.4 % for Blacks, 26.6 for Hispanics (US Census Data 2012).

The US Department of Labor (2008) data show that as much as 17.7 % of the US

population or 16 million more (a total of 50.6 million) than the official measure live

in poverty (US Census Data 2012). Other data show that 22 % of all US children

live in poverty (US Census Data 2012). The data show that 37.7 % of Hispanic

children and 26.6 % of Black children live in poverty (Llagas and Snyder 2003;

Lopez and Velasco 2011; Rebell et al. 2012; Isaacs 2012; US Census Data 2012).

The problem with poverty data is the inconsistency between official and

unofficial data and the data’s inability to capture all the dimensions of poverty

including neighborhood effects. More current studies are looking a variety of

measures of poverty to determine an intensity level or the effects of concentrated

measures of poverty on student achievement (Kurki et al. 2005). Kurki et al. (2005)

looked at the effects of intensity of concentrated poverty using measures indicating

the extent to which poor families are likely to be in contact only with other poor

families. The measures were obtained from census tract data, and the poverty level

of the school neighborhood and the percentage of single-parent households with

children in the home (Kurki et al. 2005). Student achievement is effected by

concentrated measures of poverty because children in the lowest-performing

schools often only come in contact with other children in poverty. Children in

poverty are learning from other children in poverty who come from families who are

likely to be in contact only with other poor families. While the research shows the

relationship between poverty and achievement, NCLB punishes schools in poor

communities for not having the same resources that other more affluent middle class

neighborhoods have.

Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371 353

123

The challenge for American public education is to dramatically improve student

achievement in the worst-performing schools traditionally located in the poorest

communities in environments where children learn from each other and from their

environments (Calkins et al. 2007). Despite nearly three decades of reform

initiatives, most principals and teachers still do not know how to provide effective

instruction for millions of poor and minority students, nor does the research focus

on low-income students and family learning. Half of all poor, immigrant, and

minority children never earn a regular high school diploma. In 2007 Asians

received 81 % of the high-school diplomas and 77 % of the Whites received

diplomas. Minority students received diplomas at a rate of 54 % for African

Americans, 56 % for Hispanics and 51 % for American Indians (Alliance for

Excellent Education 2010).

This study was conducted to understand how demography, policy and practices

affect the educational edge of high-poverty, high-Hispanic and high English-

Language Learners (ELL) in persistently low-performing schools. A case study was

conducted to explore the leadership practices of a principal who turned around a

persistently, low-performing school. The study focused on the principal’s practices

in context of NCLB policies and a high-poverty neighborhood in one of the largest

urban school districts in the United States.

Several studies have identified that strong leadership, consistent focus on

improving instruction, building a committed staff, and data use with strategic

teacher recruitment, management and intensive professional development are the

components necessary to turnaround low-performing schools (Calkins et al. 2007;

Elmore 2003, 2010; Herman et al. 2008; Mintrop and Trujillo 2005).

Literature Review

Several strands of the literature were reviewed for this study including No Child

Left Behind (2002) which guided the federal government’s policy for to serve

children in poverty. The literature reviewed school turnaround recommendations

from NCLB, Title I, Part B, section 1,003 (g) and the Office of Turnaround Schools

(NCLB 2002). In addition the research was reviewed for recommendations for

turning around persistently low-performing schools, leadership literature, and

parental involvement. Parental involvement research was reviewed in context of

historical, social and cultural foundations.

NCLB introduced new terminology that has dominated accountability of public

schools but not necessarily the language of public school leaders; however with the

aging of NCLB, school accountability stakes are cresting. In 2007–2008, almost

30,000 schools out of 82,162 US schools failed to make adequate yearly progress

(AYP) (Hoff 2009). Almost half did not meet AYP for consecutive years qualifying

them for school improvement and on the path to school closure and reconstitution

(Hoff 2009). In 2012 there were 12,445 schools or 14.3 % of all public schools in

the US that were eligible for school improvement grants based on persistently low

performing criteria (Hurlburt et al. 2012).

354 Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371

123

The NCLB theory of accountability is grounded in testing students, measuring

their performance, and prescribing rewards and sanctions intended to cause schools

and the individuals to perform at a higher level. The ‘‘get tough’’ NCLB policy

provides bonuses for success and the threats of school closure for being consistently

low performing. Schools are required to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP).

Schools that do not meet AYP for 2 years under Section 1116, NCLB, Title I, Part,

Public Law 110-107 (2002) are identified by the local school district for school

improvement and subject to series of escalating interventions. Once the school is

officially labeled low performing, the district must notify the community of the

school’s status with a notice that students are eligible to transfer out of the school

out of the failing school into higher achieving schools with enrollment space. The

sanctions and the dismantling of the school start in the summer of year two of non-

AYP attainment. The law releases students from school attendance zones and

students become free agents, seeking non-existent better schools. The school no

longer has a captive student body. The school is required to develop a revised,

competitive school improvement plan for year three and year four of the parole

period in consultation with parents, teachers, and outside consultant experts

appointed by the state education agency (SEA).

The number of schools identified by federal and state policy for takeover by the

state education agency (SEA) has increased as the age of NCLB has increased

(Oluwole and Green 2011). However, state takeover is contingent on the state

NCLB plan, state politics, and in some states the state constitution. Those state

constitutions that specify that the local district is responsible for the day-to-day

school operations are constitutionally prohibited from taking over a state school as

in the state of Virginia (Oluwole and Green 2011).

The pre-NCLB wave of reconstitution showed that students attending reconsti-

tuted schools had higher achievement than students with similar backgrounds in

other schools. In 1993–1994, the consent decree called for the reconstitution of three

more schools which did not meet with the same success as the first wave of schools

due to the changes in rules for desegregation by the court. As a part of the Consent

Decree the reconstituted schools operated under the supervision of a court appointed

monitoring team working with experts (Siegel-Hawley 2008).

School reconstitution refers to the highly controversial practice of replacing the

school’s entire school staff from principal to custodian for as a remedy for school

failure. Unlike the NCLB reconstitution, the original reconstitution case allowed

faculty and students to reapply to the school. The assumption is that things are so

bad that there is no option but to close the school and start all over with the intent of

changing the school’s culture and the relationships in the school (Siegel-Hawley

2008). In the San Francisco Unified School District, Jennifer O’Day concluded that

replacing the faculty was not enough to improve reconstituted schools. She

cautioned about the following factors affect failing schools: (1) the effects of the

legacy of failure; (2) rebuilding a reconstituted school requires leadership,

resources, and a supportive district leadership; (3) reconstitution requires lead time

to recruit and train faculty and staff; (4) changing a school requires vision and a

long-range strategy; 5. If all is present, transformation takes a minimum of 5 years

(Siegel-Hawley 2008). Jennifer O’Day (2002) cautions that in order to achieve the

Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371 355

123

desired outcome the constituents must understand the outcomes expected and the

criteria being set.

Defining Turnaround Schools

Calkins et al. (2007) assert that there is little or no research on a level of scale for

turning around those schools that are most in need. Historically, change in high-

poverty, high minority, and low-performing schools has been neglected or has been

anemic at best. While there is extensive research on what does not work in high-

poverty, high-minority, and low-performing schools there is little research on what

works on a level of scale. Studies for changing secondary schools are almost

nonexistent. Some research reports schools that have made commendable

improvements in student performance or closed achievement gaps. However the

affected student populations were significantly different from the high-poverty,

high-minority urban populations that make up the chronically low-performing

schools identified by NCLB (Calkins et al. 2007).

The research reports on multiple barriers facing turnaround schools including

low-expectation culture, reform-fatigued faculty, inadequate leadership, insufficient

authority for fundamental change, high percentage of staff turnover, and high

percentage of teachers who chose not to teach in high-poverty schools (Calkins et al.

2007). Elmore and Fuhrman (2001) identified the school’s inability to respond to the

demands of external accountability. Schools exhibited deficient internal account-

ability that was determined by the degree to which individuals share common values

and student expectations, instructional practice, responsibility for student learning,

and individualized accountability for work and learning. A second major factor has

been the light-touch efforts of restructuring that appear to produce success in

average performing schools but do not produce successful turnaround of chroni-

cally-poor performing schools. Calkins et al. (2007) declares that turnaround is

different from school improvement because it focuses on the most consistently

underperforming schools and involves dramatic transformative change. The school

must change or be redefined or closed.

Reform-based intervention does not work for historically underperforming

schools. The change proposed by the reform movement has been too anemic to

produce the transformation needed by historically underperforming schools.

Reform-based intervention efforts are marked by: inadequate design, lack of

ambition, comprehensiveness, integration, and networking support. Furthermore, an

inadequate incentive change is driven more by compliance than buy-in (Calkins

et al. 2007). The true examples of turnaround schools are evident in more

advantaged neighborhoods with student populations that are different from high-

poverty, high-minority urban populations that comprise consistently under-

performing schools especially secondary schools (Calkins et al. 2007). While some

are able to sustain the growth over longer periods of time, most chronically under-

performing, high-poverty schools face the greatest challenge. Some under-

performing schools have been able to move from chronically poor to consistently

356 Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371

123

average but not good enough to achieve sustained increased performance (Calkins

et al. 2007).

Leadership

Leadership has consistently been identified as a factor in school improvement

including turning around consistently low performing schools. The research on

school leadership shows that leadership is a crucial factor in successful school

reconstitution (Johnson 2007; O’Day, Orr et al. 2005; Waters et al. 2003). School

leadership can account for about 25 % of the differences in students learning

(Leithwood et al. 2004; Waters et al. 2003). The research from leadership in private

organizations and school leadership conclude that the right leadership is just one of

the multiple factors, but a crucial one in turnarounds (Rhim et al. 2007). Leadership

theory stated that leadership meant more than simply knowing what to do—it’s

knowing how, when, where, why, and with whom to do it (Leithwood et al. 2004;

Spillane et al. 2003; Waters et al. 2003).

The demographics of students in K-12 school systems have changed and so have

the demands for school leaders to ensure high academic performance for high-

poverty and minority students regardless of background, race, ethnicity, language,

or disability. A more non-traditional leadership theory grounded in bilingual

education, English-as-a-second language, and socio-cultural factors was reviewed

for this study (Armendariz and Armendariz 2002; Calderon 1997; Garcia 2001;

Montecel and Cortez 2002; Vogotsky 1978; Trueba 1999). Understanding these

changes provided the premise and rationale for this study. Finally the literature for

traditional parental involvement programs was reviewed (Epstein 1995). After the

data were collected and analyzed, it became clear that the leadership practice used

by the principal crossed over into a non-traditional practice aligned with the

language, background, music, art, education level, and family economics (Trueba

1999; Vygotsky 1978).

Research Methods

An exploratory, qualitative case study research design was used to explore the

leadership practices that impact student achievement for high poverty, Hispanic, and

ELL students. The study was conducted over a 4-year period. Using a purposive

sample, a principal was selected from a school rated as high-performing as defined

by the state education agency. The school enrollment was approximately 700

primarily immigrant students who were 96 % low-income, 96 % Hispanic, and

63 % ELL. While this was a high-poverty school, US Census data for the school

showed that 47 % of the homes in the school-census-track area were owner-

occupied units (US Census Bureau 2009). A purposive sample allowed for a greater

likelihood of discovering the context-driven leadership practices explored and a

high-poverty, high-minority school that was turned around from lowest state

Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371 357

123

accountability rating to the highest state accountability rating (Silverman 2000;

Denzin and Lincoln 2003).

State and district archival documents were used to identify the school

characteristics. The campus exhibited other unique characteristics. James Elemen-

tary was constructed as a new facility in 1989. The Texas Academic Excellence

Indicator System (AEIS) reporting the state assessment data does not show any data

for James Elementary until the 1991–1992 report with references to test data for

1990–1991. The data show that while there was a 74.1 % passing rate for third

grade reading, only 34.5 % achieved mastery. In third grade math there was an

84.5 % passing rate with only a 20.7 % achieving mastery. The fifth grade data were

more alarming. The reading passing rate was 33.7 % with only a 2.9 % achieving

mastery. The fifth grade math passing rate was 25 % with no students achieving

mastery. In the third grade 55.6 % of the fifth graders were overage. Of the fifth

graders 15 % were overage. The data rated the school as acceptable or the lowest

state rating for 4 years between 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2000. Achievement data

were clearly low performing. While the data made gradual increases from 1993 to

1994 to 1998 to 1999, the school’s rating never increased beyond the state’s lowest

rating. Clearly school data indicated the campus started as a low performing school

and developed a history of low performance. In 1999, after the hiring of a dynamic

principal, the school saw an increase in the state assessment rating from acceptable

to recognized. In 2004 the school was rated as exemplary, the highest state rating.

Leadership Practices

The purpose of this study was to understand how demography, policy and practices

affect the educational edge of high-poverty, high-Hispanic and high English-

Language Learners (ELL) in low-performing schools. The study explored the

leadership practices of a principal in a failing elementary school with an enrollment

of high poverty, Hispanic, ELL students in a large urban school district in the South.

The influences of the NCLB policy for failing schools are discussed. The findings

for principal leadership practices were constructed from principal observations, the

practices espoused in principal interviews, and principal practices affirmed by

teacher interviews. The final data analyses required that different literature be

reviewed to explain data findings that expanded beyond the traditional professional

leadership practices. Socio-historical literature was reviewed to explain the

principal’s practices as a culturally and linguistically responsive school leader.

The data showed that the principal’s practices had a clear understanding of

traditional professional knowledge, skills, and experiences. However, the data also

indicated that the principal’s background knowledge and skills or social capital as a

culturally/linguistically responsive school leader connected him to the families and

teachers. The data revealed a cultural/professional principal role model shaped by

the principal’s social capital as a culturally/linguistically responsive school leader

resulted in increased student achievement.

The principal practices data from the study were analyzed and the findings

revealed one major theme. The principal’s practices revealed a principal model

358 Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371

123

grounded in professional knowledgeable with the cultural and linguistic knowledge

to act as a school leader and change agent. When the principal was assigned to the

school, he was charged with turning around a failing school. Prior to reporting as

principal, JD used 2 months as observation time to assess teacher quality, teacher

commitment to students, collegiality and collaboration, and other teacher charac-

teristics. He assessed school climate and culture to determine how the ethos of the

school affected the learning environment. He assessed the school’s physical

environment and parent visibility. His focus was on achievement through teaching

and learning (Elmore 2003; Leithwood et al. 2004; Waters et al. 2003; Spillane et al.

2003). He used change theory to address the displays of negative language with

students, parents, and other teachers (Heifetz and Linsky 2004). JD’s focus on

achievement included regular, massive review of school data, intensive staff

development, summer staff development opportunities, and curriculum grade-level

chairs for each grade. He established rapport and trust with key parents and placed

them in charge of connecting with other parents to build a parent organization. He

used creative budgeting to provide an after-school and Saturday arts program for the

school. JD’s use of traditional leadership practices included: (1) culture develop-

ment; (2) focus on achievement; (3) creative use of resources; (4) traditional

parental involvement.

As the data analyses progressed, it became apparent that the principal was also

using culturally/linguistic practices that were more aligned with non-traditional

leadership practices more aligned with historical, social, and cultural foundations

(Trueba 1999; Vygotsky 1978). The culturally/linguistic practices emerged from the

school context, the neighborhood context, family background, native arts, bilingual

education, English-as-a-second language, parental background, and administrator

background (Armendariz and Armendariz 2002; Calderon 1997; Garcia 2001;

Montecel and Cortez 2002; Vygotsky 1984; Trueba 1999, 2002). Culturally/

linguistic practices for the purpose of this study are aligned with the cultural, ethnic

identity of Latinos (Trueba 1999, p. 1). Culture as defined by Trueba (1999) may or

may not be shared with teachers, administrators, and all students. Trueba’s cultural

identity theory of Latinos is grounded in Vygotskian principles that ‘‘establish the

relationship among culture, language, and cognition as the foundation to understand

the role of culture to mediate the transmission of knowledge and intellectual

growth’’ (Trueba 1999, p. 19). According to Trueba, the mediation of the

transmission of knowledge and intellectual growth through appropriated cultural

symbols in the construction of academic knowledge must translate instruction into

pedagogical practices that permit immigrant children to engage in their own

development, to invest their own cultural and linguistic capital, and to advance

without prejudice (Trueba and Bartolomé 2000). Trueba (1999) defines cultural,

language and historical background as cultural capital to be used in the transmission

of knowledge and intellectual growth.

The principal’s culturally/linguistic practices confirmed the use of students’

cultural capital in the construction of academic knowledge to increase achievement

output. He focused on providing a comprehensive bilingual program. All school

communications with parents and the community were in Spanish and English. ‘‘I

make sure that they realize the school values and validate their culture, their

Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371 359

123

language, their traditions, their ways, their music, and their art.’’ The school

provided violin lessons, mariachi lessons, baile folklorico, and modern dance.

School Background

The principal in the study was faced with a school with a student enrollment that

increased from 700 to 800 primarily immigrant students who were 96 % low-

income, 96 % Hispanic, and 63 % ELL and a history of failing achievement (AEIS

2002, 2009). Under NCLB (2002) this school was a candidate for Year 2 AYP rating

with the consequences of being targeted for assistance, a revised school plan, and

notification to parents that their children were eligible for transfer to their school of

choice. While 47 % of the families in the school neighborhood own their own

homes (US Census Bureau 2009), the school is adjacent to a trailer park.

Principal Background

For purposes of this study, the principal will be referred to as JD. JD’s background

created the culturally/linguistic knowledge, skills, and social capital for a cultural/

professional principal model. JD who is the focus of this study is a bi-racial, middle-

aged man who was raised by his mother, a former urban principal who was born in

Mexico. His father was a bi-racial Texan with a mother who was also born in

Mexico. He was influenced by an extended family of seven aunts who were

Mexican and all professionals. He was rooted in a Mexican culture that appreciated

music, art, dance, and literature. He came from a culture where Mexicans got an

education and went to college. JD had such a great respect for the eight Mexican

women in his family that he chose his mother’s profession. JD had a teaching

content background in bilingual education and second language learning. He

believed in making the children’s culture part of the educational process and

instilling cultural pride in them. ‘‘You know their brown skin and where they come

from and who they are… all that is part of my philosophy.’’ JD had a great respect for parents, teachers and students. ‘‘I come in the morning, walk around the school,

ensure I am visible and interact with teachers, parents and students…My door is open. Parents know they can come in. I also stop by the Parent Center every day and

say Good Morning and I’m here.’’ The principal understood and valued the

neighborhood school community. ‘‘It’s interesting about the immigrant community

because I’ve always found in research that families make sacrifices, economic

sacrifices so mothers can stay home and now I see it first-hand.’’ JD appreciated that

while the families were poor, 80 % of the time he could call a home and a mother

would be there to answer the phone. He appreciated that they were hard-working

people. ‘‘It is labor intensive stuff, arduous, hard work. When a father comes to see me in the afternoon; they can’t come in the middle of the day because of the

refineries or whatever; they’re all black with soot.’’ He appreciated that poor parents

cared about their children’s future. JD’s bi-racial background has earned him the

name of gringo. ‘‘I know it is because of my name and looks. But once they get to

360 Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371

123

know me, they warm up. They know I am there for their children and I truly respect

and value who they are.’’

School Culture

JD was hired as the principal of James Elementary School (pseudonym) in April

2 months before his contract year. The period gave him time to observe school

operations.

I observed and assessed the campus and found a culture of negativity. I was

actually shocked! I saw (teacher) behaviors and language that expressed anti-

bilingualism, anti-kids of poverty and disgusting displays of socio-economic

and language intolerance toward children and their parents. Parents were non-

existent on the campus. Teachers worked in isolation.

The first major finding of this study was the significant role that school culture

played in fusing a staff that could turnaround the school from a consistently failing

school into a consistently high achieving school. The principal recognized the need

to actively reshape the culture by reinforcing positive aspects and working to

transform the negative aspects (Peterson and Deal 1999). The school literature

discusses the importance of focusing on leadership, achievement and culture but it

does not discuss how a new principal assesses school culture (Harvard Achievement

Gap Initiative 2007; Leithwood et al. 2004; Padron et al. 2002; Peterson and Deal

1999; Waters et al. 2003).

JD established an understanding of the school’s culture, assessed the culture and

concluded that the negative culture was an obstacle to the school’s core purpose and

mission. He informally interviewed every staff member on the campus and walked

the school every day for 6 weeks upon arrival. During the informal interviews, JD

asked the staff three basic questions:

1) If you were named principal of this school tomorrow, what is one thing you

would not change and why? 2) What is one thing would you change

immediately and why? 3) What is one thing that you want me to know about

you?

These short interviews with staff provided JD with an understanding of what was

most important to the staff and what they saw as critical influences to the school’s

performance. A teacher interviewee confirmed her experiences:

I felt I was working in a tense environment. There were two identifiable

teacher groups in the school, those who supported students and those who

antagonized students. The leader of the antagonistic group of teachers

continually made racial remarks toward bilingual teachers, Hispanic students,

parents, and other minority school employees. Bilingual teachers are

constantly insulted and could not do anything about it.

JD concluded that there were a couple of teacher bullies and that the majority of the

teachers were committed, capable, highly qualified teachers who feared retaliation,

Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371 361

123

confrontation and conflict with the dominate teacher group. Rather than confront

negative teacher behavior the majority of the teachers would isolate themselves and

ignore blatant negative teacher behavior. One teacher interviewee stated, ‘‘I would just

stay in my room most of the time as not to see those poor kids being treated badly.’’

According to Peterson (1999), some schools have negative subcultures with toxic

norms and values that hinder growth and learning. Toxic cultures lack a clear sense

of purpose, have norms that reinforce inertia, blame students for lack of progress,

discourage collaboration, and often have actively hostile relations among staff.

These schools are not healthy for staff or students (Peterson 1999). JD realized that

he was responsible for setting the school culture.

The principal is the one who is in control of the attitude of a school and the

one who sets the culture and the climate for the building. He or she is also the

one who either appreciates what the children bring to the building or doesn’t

appreciate it.

JD clarified expectations for professional behavior. By the end of the second

month of his tenure, the principal concluded that he would have to move toward

termination of two teachers in the transformation of school culture. Realizing that he

could not be paralyzed by the teacher removal process, he assigned an experienced

assistant principal with the process while he focused on reinforcing a positive school

culture focused on improving student learning and student achievement.

JD analyzed the data from his staff interviews and shared the findings with the

faculty. He reinforced the positive aspects of the culture and the school while

discussing the goal to turn the school into a high performing school while removing

any obstacles to the school goal. At the end of 1 year, the school accreditation rating

improved for the first time in 3 years. Staff was transformed into a unified

professional learning community working toward one mission and focused on

treating each other with respect, value, and dignity. While removing toxic teachers

was a priority, developing a cohesive group of teachers was the foremost goal.

We did so many great things that first year. We used our professional

development time together each week to get to know each other better, learn

about group dynamics and how individual styles can contribute to our team’s

strength. We provided professional development in large groups and small

depending on where the need was. We celebrated a lot. We set goals, made

action plans to meet the goals, monitored progress and celebrated every little

milestone. I sent teams of teachers to local and out-of-state conferences and

had them come back and share what they learned and how we could make our

school better. We dealt with problems and issues like professionals. We did

not always agree but we came to consensus if the action was what was best for

our students and community. We also avidly worked to bring parents into the

school in positive ways. We formed our first PTO group with only 3 mothers,

we opened a parent room for parents to meet, socialize and work on school

projects. We provided parenting classes aimed at showing off the children’s

talents teaching the importance of literacy and more importantly, establishing

a positive experience for students, parents and extended family members.

362 Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371

123

During the summer of year two, the school’s leadership team which included

several teachers, developed a professional development plan as a prerequisite to

improving student achievement. The professional development plan also centered

on bringing faculty together to reinforce the school’s mission, educating and

valuing all children. JD began his second year ready to focus on achievement,

implement a dual-language program, improve teachers’ usage of data to drive

instruction, continue to involve and value families in the educational process while

widening his distribution of power as to truly develop a community of learners and

leaders.

Finding Two: A Focus on Achievement

The second major finding of this study was the focus on raising student

achievement. Achievement was intertwined with building a culture of high

achievement. According to the research, raising achievement for all children while

narrowing racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic gaps remains the challenge for urban

school districts (Harvard Achievement Gap Initiative 2007). Although many factors

combine to make a successful school, most people agree that effective teachers and

effective school principals are the most important requirements for success,

especially when success is defined by the ability of the school to raise the

achievement of its students (Ladd et al. 2007).

As the instructional leader, JD focused his efforts on professional development

and using data to drive daily instruction and intervention while building a school

culture of high student achievement. JD created a war room where the progress of

instructional goals and objectives were reviewed weekly by teams of teachers and

other instructional leaders. Day-to-day observations and data charts could be seen

posted with each teacher’s name, their weekly achievement scores in reading and

math with their next steps for the following week. Although JD did not talk to one

grade level about another, the data charts remained up for all to see. Instructional

leaders would meet every week to go over student achievement progress and discuss

what needed to be done that week to bring up scores. When teachers did well, JD

would ask them to share what worked with their team. The use of daily data like

weekly tests and weekly assignments to make grade-level instructional judgments

was a common practice. The process developed was a living grade-level team

teaching process. One teacher expressed her apprehensions in sharing her teaching

results with others.

Data drives me crazy. At first, turning in my weekly assessment data and then

having my peers see what I did well or didn’t do well was hard for me. But JD

kept us focused on how to use data correctly. He never made us feel badly. But

he would say ‘‘OK so and so, as we can see this week’s instructional strategy

for teaching fractions did not work, so what are you going to do differently

next week? Who can help?’’ We learned that our data was not an evaluative

indicator of who we were as teachers but a tool to gauge whether or not

students mastered an objective and if the strategy we were using worked or

Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371 363

123

not. If it didn’t work - at least you had a whole team to help you out so you

didn’t make the same mistakes the next time.

Classroom observations, principal/teacher interviews, and the school-wide

professional development survey confirmed the principal’s commitment to provide

on-going quality staff development for teachers. JD added one half-day a week

bringing in experts, using the faculty as trainers, and creating a learner environment

where the whole group learned together.

Our professional development plan was well planned out, focused, and

provided plenty of follow up. We used our early release Fridays to do the hard

work, focus on instruction and raise scores, especially for the most at- risk

students. We looked at curriculum, how it was going to be tested and decided

what to do and what to use for struggling students. We shared best practices or

what was working. We used weekly evaluative data to drive our instruction.

We learned about ourselves and how we work in groups and we worked as

teams not individuals. We also made learning fun and optimized every

moment we could.

Staff development activities extended from the whole group to individuals and small

group encouragement and support to attend state and national conferences with the

responsibility to return and present the information to peers. Teachers were assisted

in applying for travel grants in the summer to learn about international best

practices. Several teachers traveled to Europe, South America, Japan and Korea.

I read everything I can about successful schools. This was a part of my own

professional development. Many of the articles relayed successful, innovative

ideas from other countries. As a result, I encouraged several of my brightest

young teachers to apply for summer grants. Investing in young teachers new to

the field of education just makes sense. The more master teachers I can

develop, the stronger my instructional program will be.

The school improvement plan (SIP) and school budget for 2002 showed that the

school spent approximately 10 % of their Title 1 funds on professional development

activities that included paying speakers to come to the school, travel for teachers to

attend various in and out of state conferences, food for training and the purchase of

additional instructional resources (School Improvement Report 2002). Oden and

Picus (2007) recommend that about 7 % of the total school budget be used for

professional development activities; however, we can only show Title I budget

costs. Interviewee # 1 stated:

I really thought I was one of the better teachers at the school but I was amazed

at how different my instructional practices changed when I learned about

better techniques for my bilingual students. My scores went from the 80’s to

the mid 90’s in only 1 year. I was so excited about my effectiveness as a

teacher. I just loved being at James.

As his first full year progressed, JD began to lay a foundation of support for one

major instructional initiative - bringing a dual-language program to James

364 Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371

123

Elementary. Loaded with the most current research on successful programs, JD

stated to build support for the program with the faculty and the community.

According to Childress et al. (2007a, b), any reform plan of action must include

stakeholder buy into the plan. JD worked on educating his community about the

value of the program and how it would help improve student achievement.

Community support and stakeholder buy-in was accompanied by capacity building

using staff development (Childress et al. 2007a, b). JD added dual language training

to his early release Friday professional development calendar. He put teachers in

charge of the academic program. ‘‘My job is to hire the right people, put them in the

right places, meet regularly to review data, provide the right professional

development activities and purchase whatever my teachers need to help students

achieve.’’

The principal combined the culture of respect and high achievement with the

culture of music, art, dance, and literature. JD developed an unofficial fine arts

program. His only challenge was that he did not have a budget with which to fund a

fine arts program in a high poverty, second-language-learning-immigrant commu-

nity. JD used management options in decentralized budgeting to convert a campus

position into program funding. He wrote a grant to the Japanese government for a

Japanese teacher to come to James Elementary School to teach Suzuki violin after

school. He hired a Mariachi student from the local high school for visual and

performing arts for $10.00 an hour to teach mariachi music to elementary school.

I truly believe in the power of fine arts. I know the research about music and

young kids. It will increase their meta-cognition and increased meta-cognition

increases achievement. In addition, it is a great vehicle for providing children

with new experiences while bringing in their parents and families to enjoy the

performances.

The third major change that turned around at James Elementary was the

recognition of the importance of parents in the education in the education of low-

income students. According to Cooper and Christie (2005), traditional parent

involvement may be more accessible to middle income parents who have more

access to school reform, organizational, and administrative information than the

poor, the working class, and the parents of ELL. Parents of ELL must also negotiate

language in their attempts to access school-related and participation information.

According to Cooper and Christie (2005) urban parents who want to advocate for

their children and who demand extensive educational reform face the challenge of

seeking the knowledge and power to do so in a system that is inclined to resist their

efforts.

While traditional parent involvement theory may be applicable to all parents,

there may be an attitude among school administrators that ‘‘education as an

institution’’ has programmed itself to ‘‘listen to a few’’ who typically are not low-

income parents of color or parents who do speak a second language (Cooper and

Christie 2005). The traditional parent involvement models represent a more status

quo model designed for a few selected parents. These models recommend

techniques for engaging parents with student academic growth outside of schools

and may be identified as status quo (Armor et al. 1976; Becher 1984; Coleman and

Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371 365

123

Hoffer 1987; Collins et al. 1982; Epstein 1995; Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler

1997). The non-traditional parent involvement theory is grounded in the social,

historical, culture, and class (Trueba 1999). The data in this study revealed non-

traditional leadership practices on how JD framed parental involvement model

within a social, cultural, and historical context that produced high performance for

traditionally low-performing students. Culture for the purpose of the non-traditional

theory is aligned with the cultural, ethnic, linguistic identity of Latinos as the

context specific population in a specific elementary school (Trueba 1999). In

another environment it may be another unique group of parents that present a

different context. According to the school district demographic data (AEIS 2003)

and the US Census Data (2012), James Elementary was comprised of a student

enrollment of 97 % Hispanic and 65 % ELL. The school was unique because while

it had 96 % low-income students, the families were working poor and primarily

home owners. Forty-seven percent of the parents owned their homes and the

majority of the women were traditional, stay-home moms. According to the

interviews,

The school has between 25-30 % mobility rates, the parents are blue collar,

and mostly the males go to work. More and more of my mothers seem to be

going to work but I think most of them probably stay at home…They stay home, when you call, I would say 90 % of the time, maybe 80 % of the time,

they pick up the phone if you call in the middle of the day for whatever reason

and talk about Juanito or Maria. They are going to be there, someone will

answer the phone.’’ By Mexican education standards which may be higher

than US standards, the parents were well educated. My Mexican-American

parents have a ninth, tenth grade education and understand, so to speak, the

American system.

JD’s focus on changing school culture, increasing teacher professionalism, and

incorporating the arts of the community attracted parents. The school welcomed and

incorporated parents in a parent center that provided space for parents to meet and

volunteer in the school. The school held its open house a week before school started.

The school invited every member of the extended family, including siblings, aunts,

uncles, and grandparents. JD used his staff development time to impress upon

teachers the importance of having parents participate in the education of their

children.

I asked my staff to bring pictures of their children and we made a faculty-child

collage and titled it Future Grads. It was beautiful and the teachers were so

proud and just beamed when they talked about their prides and joys. I then

asked the staff to raise their hands if they had school-aged children. Of course,

the majority raised their hands. Then I asked them if their children were doing

well and again the majority raised their hands. Then I asked how many were

involved in their child’s education and as predicted – all stated yes and we

spent some time talking about how considering they were all working full

time… I brought out a James Elementary collage of maybe 50 pictures of present students from James. I hung it side by side and asked – if your children

366 Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371

123

are successful because you, their parent, is involved, then what makes our

students here at James any different? Are these beautiful faces any less

deserving of having their parents involved? It was almost surreal. I could see

the light bulbs turn on as teachers thought about what I was saying. This began

what I call the birth of an amazing parental involvement program.

The school’s parent center involved parents in learning activities, including

parent English-as-a-Second-Language and general educational development (GED)

test preparation. Parents were chaperons for out-of-town student performance and

competition trips. While the trips enriched the lives of students who rarely left their

neighborhoods, it also exposed parents to experiences that as a family they could not

afford. Parents assisted with Saturday Mariachi and Ballet Folkloric practices. JD

actively involved parents asking them for their opinions on school progress and

direction as well as bake sales. Spillane et al. (2003) uses distributive leadership as

it involves teachers as school leaders. JD extended distributive leadership to the

parents as school leaders.

By the end of JD’s second year at James Elementary, achievement increased to

the highest state accreditation level or exemplary. The school increased from 80 to

92 % in reading and increased from 88 to 97 % in math. A school that would have

been targeted for three consecutive years of the lowest state rating was turned

around into a school with the state’s highest achievement rating.

Conclusions

In all federal policy there is a friction between the intentions of federal policy and

state policy. While the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution specifies that

education is a state’s right, the General Welfare Clause allows the federal

government to assist in the national needs in education (Syrett et al. 1961). In a

broad interpretation of the General Welfare Clause Congress can act to assist

national needs in education so long as it does not favor any specific section of the

country over any other (Syrett et al. 1961). In context of the US Constitutional

friction, laws like NCLB provide state enforcement flexibility. NCLB is grounded in

flexibility in state implementation of the policy. States were given the flexibility to

choose students’ ELA and math exams, to define proficiency levels on those exams,

to set yearly performance benchmarks, to determine the minimum number of

students that must belong to a subgroup to be accountable under AYP rules, to select

grade levels to test, and to incorporate flexibility in determining schools’ ratings

(Davidson et al. 2013). In Texas the Commissioner of Education is the final word on

school accountability sanctions. The Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part 2,

Rule §97.1001 (a) establishes that the commissioner of education establishes the

Texas district and campus rating standards (Texas Administrators Code 2011).

NCLB policy may not have supported the practices of a culturally/linguistically/

professional leadership model that was used to turnaround a historically-low

performing, high-poverty school. The school had 3 years of the lowest state

achievement performance. JD created change with his teaching staff that was not

Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371 367

123

possible from a prescribed campus intervention team (NCLB 2002). Outside

consultants rarely have commitment to the school, community, or to the staff. Most

outside consultants will not have the historical and cultural knowledge and skills to

involve low income and Spanish-speaking parents in the change process. JD used

his teachers and parents to create change, commitment, and responsibility in family

and community culture. Change included school culture and teacher professional-

ism. JD created respect for parents and community by bringing them into the school

space. One invites friends and family into your home space. He worked to create

parental involvement with similar techniques he used with teachers.

The school was a candidate for school closure but using some unorthodox

management skills and a culturally/linguistic/professional school leadership model,

the principal was able to remove toxic staff and change the existing teaching staff.

After observing in the school and interviewing teachers prior to becoming a

principal, JD created a plan to involve teachers, parents, business, and other staff in

turning around the school. He hired an assistant principal who was responsible for

connecting with the community and removing toxic materials from the school. He

knew teachers and parents would either support him or leave the school. Rather than

becoming a pariah, the school became a high achieving school.

The reality of using unorthodox management skills and a culturally/linguistic/

professional school leadership model to create change is that a principal can lose his

job. The practice of mobilizing teachers and parents to tackle tough school

challenges while disrupting status-quo is dangerous (Heifetz and Linsky 2004).

While NCLB provides Title I resources for failing schools, in Texas those resources

are tied to an intervention team appointed by the Commissioner of Education.

NCLB would not have funded the cultural, linguistic, and art programs that

promoted achievement. NCLB as a policy source penalizes high-poverty and high

ELL failing schools rather than feature the cultural and linguistic social capital of

some failing campuses.

References

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2010). Fact sheet: High school dropouts in America. Washington, DC:

Alliance for Excellent Education.

Ansell, S. E., McCabe, M., Park, J., & Skinner, R. (2004). Quality counts 2003: ‘‘If I can’t learn from

you…’’. Education Week, 12(17). Retrieved June 8, 2013, from http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/ qc/archives/QC03full.pdf.

Armendariz, A., & Armendariz, E. (2002). An administrative perspective of a two-way bilingual

immersion program. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 169–179.

Armor, D., Conry-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., et al. (1976). Analysis of

the school preferred reading program in selected Los Angeles minority schools. Santa Monica, CA:

Rand Corporation (ED 130 243).

Becher, R. M. (1984). Parent involvement: A review of research and principles of successful practice.

Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education (ED 247 032).

Calderon, M. (1997). Improving Latino education: Preparing teachers and administrators to serve the

needs of Latino students. ETS Policy Notes, 8(1), 5–6.

Calkins, A., Guenther, W., Belfiore, G., & Lash, D. (2007). The turnaround challenge. Boston, MA: Mass

Insight Education and Research Institute, Inc.

368 Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371

123

Childress, S., Elmore, R., Grossman, A., & Johnson, M. (2007a). How to manage urban school districts.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Childress, S., Elmore, R. F., Grossman, A., & Johnson, S. M. (2007b). Managing school districts for high

performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Coleman, J. B., & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private high schools: The impact of communities. New

York: Basic Books, Inc.

Collins, C. H., Moles, O. C., & Cross, M. (1982). The homeschool connection: Selected partnership

programs in large cities. Boston, MA: Institute for Responsive Education.

Cooper, C. W., & Christie, C. A. (2005). Evaluating parent empowerment: A look at the potential of

social justice evaluation in education. Teachers College Record, 107(10), 2248–2274.

Davidson, E., Reback, R., Rockoff, J. E., & Schwartz, H. I. (2013). Fifty ways to leave a child behind:

Idiosyncrasies and discrepancies in state’s implementation of NCLB. Cambridge, MA: National

Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w18988.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Publications.

District Document. (2002). School Improvement Report. Texas School District.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (No Child Left Behind, NCLB). (2001). NCLB. Public

Law, 115 Stat. 1425, pp. 107–110.

Elmore, R. F. (2003). Knowing the right things to do: School improvement and performance-based

accountability. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices.

Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard Education Press.

Elmore, R. F. (2005). What (do-called) low-performing schools can teach (so-called) high-performing

schools. Harvard Education Newsletter, 21(5), 1–4.

Elmore, R. F. (2010). I used to think… and now I think…Reflections on the work of school reform. Harvard Education Newsletter, 26(1), 1–11.

Elmore, R. F., & Fuhrman, S. H. (2001). Holding schools accountable: Is it working? Phi Delta Kappa

International, 83(1), 67–72.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta

Kappan, 76, 701–712.

Garcia, E. (2001). Hispanic education in the United States. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,

Inc.

Haskins, R., & Sawhill, I. (2007). The next generation of antipoverty policies, The Future of Children,

Princeton-Brookings, 17(2).

Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2004). When leadership spells danger. Educational leadership, 61(7),

33–37.

Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., & Redding, S. (2008). Turning around

chronically low-performing schools: IES practice guide (NCEE 2008-4020 US). Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Hoff, D. J. (2009). Schools struggling to meet key goal on accountability. Education Week, 28(16).

Retrieved from the internet Mar 1, 2009 at http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/12/18/16ayp.

h28.html.

Hoover-Dempsey, K., & Sandler, H. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s

education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3–42.

Hurlburt, S., Therriault, S. B., & Le Floch, K. C. (2012). School improvement grants: Analyses of state

applications and eligible and awards schools (NCEE 2012-4060). IES, Biography of US Office of

Turnaround. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved on June 14, 2013, from

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20124060/pdf/20124060.pdf.

Isaacs, J. B. (2012). The recession’s ongoing impact on America’s children: Indicators of children’s

economic well-being through 2011. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.

Johnson, D. P. (2007). Challenges to no child left behind, title I and Hispanic students locked away for

later. Education and Urban Society, 19(3), 382–398.

Kristop, N. D. (2009). Our greatest national shame. The New York Times, Op-Ed. Retrieved from http://

www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/news/op-ed-our-greatest-national-shame.

Kurki, A., Boyle, A., & Aladjem, D. (2005). Beyond free lunch—Alternative poverty measures in

educational research and program evaluation. American Institutes for Research: An AERA

presentation in Montreal, Canada.

Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371 369

123

Lachlan-Hache, J., Naik, M., & Casserly, M. (2012). The school improvement grants rollout in America’s

great city schools. Washington, DC: Council of Great City Schools.

Ladd, H. F., Vigdor, J. L., & Wheeler, J. (2007). High poverty schools and the distribution of teachers

and principals, Working Paper for CALDER.

Leithwood, K., Seashore, L., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student

learning. Retrieved September 14, 2005, from http://wallacefoundation.org.

Llagas, C., & Snyder, T. D. (2003). Status and trends in the education of Hispanics (NCES 2003008).

National Center for Education Statistics. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003008.

Lopez, M. H., & Velasco, G. (2011). The toll of the great recession: Childhood poverty among Hispanics

sets record, leads nation. Washington, DC: Pew Trust Foundation.

Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2005). Corrective action in low-performing schools. Lessons for NCLB

implementation from state and distract strategies in first-generation accountability systems. CSE

Report 657.

Montecel, M., & Cortez, J. (2002). Successful bilingual education programs: Development and the

dissemination of criteria to identify promising and exemplary practices in bilingual education at the

national level. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 1–21.

Murnane, R. J. (2007). Improving the education of children living in poverty. Future of Children, 17(2),

161–182.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2005). The nation’s report card: Reading 2003.

Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/

pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005453.

NCES. (2007). Enrollment in educational institutions, by level and control of institution: Selected years,

fall 1980 through fall 2007. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_002.

asp.

NCLB, Public Law 110-107, Title I, Part A, Section 1111, 2002.

NCLB, Public Law 110-107, Title I, Part A, Section 1116, 2002.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Public Law 110-107, 2002.

Noguera, P., & Brown, E. (2002). Educating the new majority. The Boston Globe. Retrieved on March 21,

2009, from http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/er/newmaj1.html.

O’Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review,

70(3). Retrieved on March 1, 2009, from http://gseweb.edu/*hepg/oday.html. Oden, A., & Picus, L. (2007). School finance—A policy perspective. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oluwole, J., & Green, P. C, I. I. I. (2011). State takeovers of school districts: Race and the equal

protection clause. Indiana Law Review, 24, 343.

Orr, M. T., Byrne-Jimenez, M., McFarlane, P., & Brown, B. (2005). Leading out from low-performing

schools: The urban principal experience. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(1), 23–54.

Padron, Y., Waxman, H., Rivera, H., & Gundlach, L. (2002). Educating Hispanic students: Effective

instruction practices. Santa Cruz: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence

University of California.

Peterson, K., & Deal, T. E. (1999). Shaping school culture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pew Research Hispanic Center. (2012). Latinos by geography. Retrieved June 4, 2012, from http://www.

pewhispanic.org/2012/03/16/latinos-by-geography/.

Planny, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Provanik, S., Kena, G. et al., (2008).The condition of education 2008

(NCES 2008-031). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education

Sciences, US Department of Education.

Public Law 110-107, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), 2002.

Ramani, A. K., Gilbertson, L., & Fox, M. A. (2007). Status and trends in the education of racial and

ethnic minorities. Washington, DC: National Center for Education.

Rebell, M., Wolff, J. R., & Rogers, J. R. (2012). The campaign for educational equity. New York, NY:

Columbia University Press.

Rhim, L. M., Kowal, J. M., Hassel, B. C., & Hassel, E. A (2007). School turnarounds: A review of the

cross-sector evidence on dramatic organizational improvement. Center on Innovation and

Improvement. Retrieved on http://www.centerii.org/survey/downloads/Turnarounds-Color.pdf.

Siegel-Hawley, G. (2008). The integration report (Issue 13). Los Angeles, CAL: The Civil Rights Project

at UCLA Graduate School of Education.

Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage Publications.

370 Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371

123

Spillane, J., Diamond, J., & Jita, L. (2003). Leading Instruction: The distribution of leadership for

instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(5). Retrieved October 1, 2003, from http://faculty.ed.

uiuc.edu/westbury/JCS/Vol35/Spillane.HTM.

Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality. (2009). Harvard Kennedy School and Stanford University to

Collaborate on Poverty Research Project. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/

news/press-releases/poverty-research-project-jan09.

Syrett, H. C., Chernow, B. A., & Diamant, I. R. (1961). The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. New York:

Columbia University Press.

Texas Education Agency. (2002). Academic excellence indicator system (AEIS). Austin, TX: Texas

Education Agency.

Texas Education Agency. (2003). Academic excellence indicator system (AEIS). Austin, TX: Texas

Education Agency.

Texas Education Agency. (2009). Texas school law bulletin §39.054(e). St. Paul, Minn.: West

Publication.

Texas Education Agency. (2009). Texas administrators code. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

Trueba, E. T. (1999). Latinos unidos. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Trueba, E. T., & Bartolomé, L. I. (2000). Immigrant voices: In search of educational equity (pp. 37–74).

Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

US Census Bureau. (2009). American factfinder. Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://www.cenusus.gov.

US Census Data. (2012). Income, expenditures, poverty, and wealth: Poverty 2009 Retrieved from http://

www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth/poverty.html.

US Department of Education. (2013a). Office of elementary and secondary education. Retrieved on June

14, 2013, from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/index.html.

US Department of Education. (2013b). Biography of US office of turnaround. Office of elementary and

secondary education. Retrieved on June 14, 2013, from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/

ost/jasonbio.html.

US Department of Labor. (2008). Creating consistent poverty measure over time testing NAS procedures:

1996–2005. Washington, DC: DOL.

US POPClock Projection. (2009). Retrieved on 2009-03-25-09. http://www.census.gov/population/www/

popclockus.html.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells

us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. McREL.

Young, M. E. (2011) Dallas, houston gain most child population of U.S. Metro Areas. Dallas News.

Urban Rev (2014) 46:349–371 371

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.