A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Background

In this section, the process used to select the schools is described. Also, this section includes a description of the qualitative procedures used to acquire data at each school site. Finally, the section includes a brief description of the organization of each of the nine case study reports.

Selecting the Schools

In the fall of 1998, the U.S. Department of Education commissioned a set of case studies of nine high-performing urban, public elementary schools. The researchers identified nine urban elementary schools in which the majority of children met federal free or reduced-price lunch criteria and in which student performance on reading and mathematics assessments exceeded the average for schools in the state (or the average for schools in the nation, when nationally-normed assessments were used). Finding such schools was not easy.

Some states did not have a common statewide assessment system in the fall of 1998. In some states, such systems were under development or were in pilot phases. Some states did not have data about the achievement levels of individual schools (only district-wide data were available). In some cases, individual school data existed but were not easily accessible given the study?s short timeline. In some states where school achievement data were accessible, there were no urban schools, serving predominantly poor communities, in which the level of achievement in mathematics and reading exceeded state or national averages. In many such places, improvements in the achievement of some urban schools were noted, but the level of achievement was still substantially below the state or national average. Data collected by the Council of Chief State School Officers were valuable in identifying some schools. State department of education data made available through World Wide Web pages were particularly useful in some states. Also, staff in research and evaluation offices in state and district offices were helpful in making data available.

Fortunately, there were some states where data were available and accessible and in which several schools met all the criteria for inclusion in the study. Additional information was sought about those schools. In particular, an effort was made to remove from consideration any schools that had selective admissions criteria. For example, magnet schools that only admitted students with high academic grades or test scores were removed from the pool of schools under consideration. Also, a school was removed from consideration if it was determined that a large percentage of children had been exempted from the state assessment because of issues of language proficiency or disabilities. Similarly, a school was removed from consideration if there had been a substantial change in the demographics of the school that might explain the improvement in achievement. The researchers sought to be certain that the demographics of the schools included were typical of urban, high-poverty schools in every aspect.

Achievement test data from prior years—at least the last three years—were reviewed to examine trends in academic performance. In a few cases, schools were excluded from consideration because, even though performance was high, the performance had decreased in recent years. Finally, a few schools were removed from consideration if they had already received substantial attention in educational literature. Although the researchers respected the substantial accomplishments of these schools, this study was perceived as an opportunity to highlight schools that had not yet received substantial national attention.

Among the schools eligible for consideration, the researchers sought a sample that would provide great diversity. As such, the nine schools selected had varying ethnic and racial compositions. Also, the researchers selected some schools that had made dramatic, rapid turnarounds in performance and some that had a longer history of improvement.

Of course, it was necessary to obtain permission to visit and study the selected schools. Both schools and district offices needed to grant permission for the research activities. In a few cities, the school or schools that best met the selection criteria did not choose to participate in the study. In other cities, the researchers were more fortunate and were able to acquire permission to include their first-choice schools. Ultimately, nine high-performing, urban elementary schools were selected. These schools were in Atlanta, Ga.; Boston, Mass.; Chicago, Ill.; Detroit, Mich.; East St. Louis, Ill.; Houston, Texas; Milwaukee, Wis.; Cheverly, Md. (in metropolitan Washington, D.C.) and San Antonio, Texas. Table 1 provides a list of the nine schools.

Procedures

As described above, a variety of quantitative data were used to identify schools. Once schools were identified, the research team used qualitative data to generate case studies for each school. A team of two or three researchers visited each school. The research visits occurred over a two-day period.

During the visits the researchers interviewed principals, at least one teacher from each grade level, other campus administrators, and parents. In some cases, principals arranged for interviews with parents who played a major role at the school. Often, however, researchers were able to conduct on-the-spot interviews with parents who were picking up their children, volunteering, or otherwise visiting the campus. Often, the researchers used focus groups to gain the perspectives of several teachers or parents. Personnel from the district office were also interviewed. Either the superintendent or the administrator who supervised the principal of the school studied was interviewed. Before the site visits, phone conversations with principals were helpful in identifying important informants and arranging interviews. As well, after the site visits, phone conversations with principals helped provide clarifying information.

* in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area

The research team included 12 individuals with an array of backgrounds and skills. Six of the team members had prior experience as teachers. Three had been school administrators. All had experience as qualitative researchers. Their backgrounds included bilingual education, higher education, psychology, anthropology, policy, and special education.

In addition to interviews, the researchers observed a variety of settings, including classrooms at different grade levels, cafeterias, playgrounds, and hallways. Where possible, researchers observed staff meetings or other professional development activities. As well, a variety of documents were reviewed. Campus planning documents, program descriptions, meeting agendas, school budgets, achievement reports, and other documents were examined.

The phone calls, interviews, observations, and document reviews were structured to acquire a detailed picture of the current status of the school, as well as to acquire an understanding of how the school had improved over time. The researchers sought to understand not only the current status of each school?s reform efforts, but also sought to understand how the school transformed itself over the years. Thus, for example, if the current principal of the school had been at the school for only a year or two and important aspects of the school?s reform had been initiated three or four years prior, the researchers sought to identify and interview the previous principal. Intensive efforts were made to understand what had changed and how the changes were made. Table 2 summarizes the data collection efforts at each of the nine schools.

The researchers relied heavily on interviews with the various informants to construct a picture of the processes, events, and programs that were influential in bringing about improved academic performance. The researchers probed in response to the issues that emerged through the interviews and looked for confirmation of changes in observations and reviews of documents. What may have been important in the story of change at one school may have been absent or have had only minimal importance in the story of change at another.

The Case Study Reports

The research staff developed a case study report for each of the nine schools. Each report was intended to describe the school, what it had accomplished, and the major changes that led to success. Each case study begins with background information concerning the school. There is a description of the population served and the academic improvement achieved in recent years. In most cases, the reports draw a contrast between the achievement of the school in years prior to recent reform efforts and the current state of the school.

The origins of each school?s reform efforts were described in a section of each report entitled, "Starting Points." Then the majority of each case study report was devoted to a description of the major changes —from the perspectives of the people interviewed—that contributed to improved academic achievement. These changes were grouped into the four general areas.

In each of the nine schools there were important efforts to change the way educators related to students and the way students related to other students. Thus, there is a section in each report entitled, "Changing the School Climate." Central to the success of each school were efforts to improve teaching and learning. Therefore, each case report includes a section on "Changing Academic Instruction." Changes in parental and community relations were central to the success of each school; however, there was variation in the manner in which the schools sought to work with parents and community members. As such, there is a section in each report entitled, "Changing Relationships with Parents and the Community." Finally, a section entitled, "Changing the Organization of Schooling" describes how each school modified organizational structures, the use of personnel, the use of time, or the use of other resources to support the improvement process.

The case study reports do not provide an exhaustive description of the schools. In contrast, the reports are intended to describe key aspects of the process of school reform. The reports describe the difficult work of improving achievement in poor, urban communities. The reports highlight the successes, as well as some of the barriers and frustrations that have slowed or limited successes. Although each school has achieved important successes, each school continues to strive to improve achievement. Although the principals and teachers at the schools were justifiably proud of their achievements, often they were quick to note that there was still room for further improvement.

[Introduction]

[Differences Among the Nine Schools]