lectura 4

Fall 2006 / Volume 6, Number 2

Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies

Representations of Teacher Quality, Quantity, and Diversity in a National Mathematics and Science ProgramPatricia S. Moyer-Packenham, Johnna J. Bolyard, Hana Oh, Patricia Kridler, and Gwenanne Salkind

Cultural Dimensions in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics: Implications for Minority Retention ResearchJeffry L. White, James W. Altschuld, and Yi-Fang Lee

El Escalafón y el Doble Turno: An International Perspective on School Director PreparationCharles L. Slater, Mike Boone, Sarah Nelson, Maria De La Colina, Elizabeth Garcia, Leticia Grimaldo, Grace Rico, Sonia Rodriguez, Cheryl Sirios, Damaris Womack, Jose Maria Garcia Garduno, and Ruth Arriaga

Why Parents Choose Charter Schools for Their Children with DisabilitiesJane Finn, Katherine Caldwell, and Tara Raub

“It Wasn’t Fair!” Educators’ Recollections of Their Experiences as Students with GradingThomas R. Guskey

1

41

60

91

111


From the Editor’s Desk

What might an “optimal” design of a preparatory and professional development programs for mathematics or science teachers look like? More broadly, what interventions are truly fundamental in efforts to enhance the quality of teachers of science and mathematics, at all levels? This issue of the Journal leads off with an interesting report on the work of awardees in one federally-funded program that has had as its major objective increasing the number, quality, and diversity of teachers in these two disciplinary fields. The research reported here comes from the Math and Science Partnership Program Evaluation (MSP-PE), as supported by the National Science Foundation. We are pleased to share space for highlighting this most interesting project, particularly with attention to the “prevalent themes” and “common interventions” thought to influence teacher quantity, quality and diversity. Back to back with our lead article—and in part almost a thematic extension of that article—is a provocative piece that looks more specifically at the phenomenon of underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. After looking at retention and attrition rates for underrepresented minorities, authors White, Altschuld and Lee conclude that cultural factors such as a sense of familial obligation and responsibility to a larger community may well serve to influence decisions related to staying in school, dropping out, or switching academic majors. Clearly, if the authors are correct, efforts to promote diversity among minority students pursuing majors in science, mathematics, and the applied technologies will need to take cultural factors into account to the extent that they can be shown to help shape students’ decisions about their academic careers. For a change of pace we look next at the school director appointment process and the structure of time in Mexican and U.S. schools—part of a much broader international study of first-year principals in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Jamaica, South Africa and Turkey. Several issues are examined with respect to El Escalafon, the process by which school directors are appointed.


Based on interviews with half a dozen first-year directors in Sonora, Mexico, and six Texas principals, Prof. Slater and his colleagues determined that school directors in both countries struggle with issues involving parental expectations of their children, relations with teachers and staff, and the structure of the school day. What emerges is a display of the internal contradictions and cultural orientation of both educational systems—on the Mexican side, a hierarchical system allegedly currently breaking down, a system profoundly challenged by the imposition of a factory model of education ill-suited to the culture in which it is expected to function. The authors of our next offering utilized open-ended structured interviews with the parents of children with disabilities who had enrolled their offspring in charter schools. The question was why the parents had chosen this type of school for their children. Staff flexibility, teacher accessibility, attentiveness and school size were all identified as contributing factors that favored the charter school over its regular public counterpart. We conclude with a provocative account of educators’ recollections of their own experiences as students with grading. Predictably, the author concludes, as he puts it, “the need for specific training and professional development for educators … on effective grading practices and policies seems clear.” A final thought: readers will have noticed that recent issues of the Journal have tended to carry more articles about schooling and educational practice than about policy issues and analysis, as such. Consequently, we want to reiterate our invitation to readers to submit for editorial consideration pieces weighted more toward policy analysis and assessment than has been the case with some of our recent articles.

-- Christopher J. Lucas Editor

�

Representations of Teacher Quality, Quantity, and Diversity in a National Mathematics and Science Program

Patricia S. Moyer-Packenham, Johnna J. Bolyard, and Hana OhGeorge Mason University

Patricia KridlerAuburn Middle School

Gwenanne Salkind Fairfax County Public Schools

AbstractGrowing awareness of the importance of teacher quality in mathematics and science has stimulated a variety of national reports and funded initiatives for the purpose of improving teaching and learning in K-12 schools. This study examined the work of awardees in one federally-funded program that included a focus on increasing the number, quality, and diversity of mathematics and science teachers. Secondary data sources were used to understand representations of mathematics and science teacher quality, quantity, and diversity reported by awardees, and to identify interventions awardees implemented to influence teacher quality, quantity, and diversity. Results indicated a primary focus on the development of teacher characteristics such as subject knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and instructional practices. Seven common interventions were implemented across the program to influence the quality of individual teachers and the quantity and diversity of the teacher population. Three prevalent themes in the secondary documents included: a) awardees’ knowledge of and implementation of research-based professional development practices; b) a shift in emphasis to include specialized subject knowledge preparation for elementary teachers, in addition to the traditional emphasis on subject knowledge for middle and high school teachers; and c) involvement of STEM faculty and Teacher Leaders in various collaborative relationships, in activities at all levels (K-12) and in both mathematics and


�science. Intervention efforts to influence teacher quantity and diversity were in their initial stages and limited in scope. These findings are discussed with reference to the impact of the program on the quality, quantity, and diversity of mathematics and science teachers.

Introduction

Teacherqualityinmathematicsandsciencehasasignificantimpactontheteachingandlearningprocess(Ferrini-Mundy&Schmidt,2005;Hiebertetal.,2003;Lindquist,2001;Silver&Kenney,2000).Aspolicy,suchastheNoChildLeftBehindActof2001(NCLB,2002)andresearch, includingtheTIMSSinternationalcomparisonsofstudentperformance(Hiebertetal.,2003),convergearoundmathematicsandscienceissues,itisclearthattheimportanceof teacherquality in thesecontent-specificareas isofnationalsignificance.Althoughthequalityofmathematicsandscienceteachershasgainednationalprominenceinpolicystatementsandeducationalreformefforts(ConferenceBoardoftheMathematicalSciences,2001;CouncilofScientificSocietyPresidents, 2004;NationalCouncil ofTeachers ofMathematics,1991,2005;NationalResearchCouncil, 1996;NationalScienceTeachersAssociation’s,2002,2004),understandingthemeaningofteacherqualityisacomplexissue. Teacher quality includes not only the characteristics of individualteachers,butalsothecharacteristicsoftheteacherpopulationasawhole.Whenwerefertoimprovingateacher’ssubject-specificknowledgeinadisciplinesuchasmathematicsorscience,wearereferringtothequalityofindividualteachers.Whenwerefertotheexaminationofteacherturnoverorteachershortagesinsubject-specificareasortotheimportanceofadiverseteachingforce,wearereferringtothequalityoftheteacherpopulation.Teacherquality,then,isacomplexconstructencompassinganarrayofdifferentcharacteristicsthatarenoteasilydefined,assessed,categorized,ormeasured.

In July1999,U.S.SecretaryofEducationRichardRileyannouncedtheappointmentoftheNationalCommissiononMathematicsandScienceTeaching for the 21stCentury (theGlennCommission) to investigate thequalityofmathematicsandscienceteachingandexaminewaystoincreasethenumberandqualityofmathematicsandscienceteachersinK-12schools.Theresultingreport,Before It’s Too Late (NationalCommissiononMathematics


3andScienceTeachingforthe21stCentury,2000),highlightedtheimportanceofqualityeducation inmathematicsandscience topreparestudents tobecompetitiveinanincreasinglyglobalsociety.Thisfocusonteacherqualityinmathematicsandsciencehasresultedinseveralnationalinitiativesfundedbythefederalgovernment,underthedirectionofagenciessuchastheNationalScienceFoundation(NSF)andtheDepartmentofEducation,toinitiateMath and Science Partnership ProgramsforthepurposeofimprovingmathematicsandscienceteachingandlearninginK-12schools.ThegoalsoftheNSFsMathandSciencePartnership(MSP)Programarestatedasfollows:

MSP serves students and educators by emphasizing strongpartnershipsthat tacklelocalneedsandbuildgrassrootssupportto:• Enhanceschools’capacitytoprovidechallengingcurriculaforallstudentsandencouragemorestudentstosucceedinadvancedcoursesinmathematicsandthesciences;

• Increasethenumber,qualityanddiversityofmathematicsandscienceteachers,especiallyinunderservedareas;

• Engageandsupportscientists,mathematicians,andengineersat local universities and local industries toworkwithK-12educatorsandstudents;

• Contributetoagreaterunderstandingofhowstudentseffectivelylearnmathematicsandscienceandhowteacherpreparationandprofessionaldevelopmentcanbeimproved;and

• Promoteinstitutionalandorganizationalchangeineducationsystems—fromkindergartenthroughgraduateschool—tosustainpartnerships’promising practices and policies (National Science Foundation,2007).

The present study was designed to examine more closely theimplementationofoneofthesegoals;namely,thewayinwhichawardeesintheMSPProgram“increasethenumber,qualityanddiversityofmathematicsandscienceteachers…”(item#2).Ourinvestigationfocusedonthreemajorconstructs:thequalityofindividualmathematicsandscienceteachers,thequantityofmathematicsandscienceteachersintheteacherpopulation,andthediversityofmathematicsandscienceteachersintheteacherpopulation;and examined these constructs along two dimensions: representations


4and interventions. In the sections that followwe review the literature onteacherquality,quantity,anddiversity;presentfindingsbasedonsecondarysourcedocumentsprovidedbyMSPProgramawardeesthatilluminatetheirrepresentationsofteacherquality,quantity,anddiversitywithintheirwork;anddiscuss the interventionsidentifiedbyawardeestoinfluencequality,quantity,anddiversityspecificallyformathematicsandscienceteachers.Thesefindingsleadtoadiscussionoftheimplicationsofawardees’workonteacherquality,quantity,anddiversityformathematicsandscienceeducation.

Research on Teacher Quality, Quantity, and Diversity

Toestablishabackgroundagainstwhich toexamine representationsof teacher quality,we usedBolyard andMoyer-Packenham’s (in press)review identifyingsixcharacteristicsofmathematicsandscience teacherscommonlyexamined for their relationship tostudentoutcomes.Thesesixcommonlyusedcharacteristicsincluded:1)generalability,2)experience,3)pedagogicalknowledge,4)subjectknowledge,5)certificationstatus,and6)teacherbehaviors,practices,andbeliefs.Wealsousedcharacteristicsintheliterature related to the teacherpopulation.Thesecharacteristics included:attrition,migration, and retention (for teacherquantity) (Ingersoll, 2006a;Ingersoll,2006b;Johnson,Berg,&Donaldson,2005);andthedemographiccompositionoftheteachingforce,theimportanceofhavingadiverseteachingforce,andmethodsandstrategiesforimprovingteacherdiversity(forteacherdiversity) (Clewell&Villegas, 1998;Dandy, 1998; Darling-Hammond,Dilworth,&Bullmaster,1996;Holloway,2002;Jorgenson,2001;Loving&Marshall,1997;Newby,Swift,&Newby,2000;Shen,Wegenke,&Cooley,2003;Torres,Santos,Peck,&Cortes,2004).Amongthesecharacteristicsarevariablesgatheredthroughassessmentmeasures(i.e.,responsestotestitemsorteachingperformanceduringanobservation)andnonassessmentmeasures(i.e., highest degree obtainedor number of years of teaching experience)(AmericanStatisticalAssociation,2007).

Teacher Quality: Characteristics of Individual Mathematics and Science Teachers Subject knowledge isconsideredbymanytobeanimportantcharacteristicofmathematicsandscienceteachers.Researchindicateslinksbetweenteachers’


5subjectmatter preparation and teacher effectiveness (Darling-Hammond,2000;Darling-Hammond&Youngs,2002;Rice,2003;Wilson&Floden,2003;Wilson,Floden,&Ferrini-Mundy, 2001),with themost consistentresults showingpositive links between teachers’mathematics knowledgeandsecondarystudents’mathematicsachievement(Wilson&Floden,2003).GoldhaberandBrewer(1997a;1997b)foundthatteachersholdingbachelor’sormaster’s degrees inmathematics had a statistically-significant positiverelationshiptohighschoolstudents’mathematicsachievement(comparedtoteacherswithoutadvanceddegreesorout-of-subjectdegrees).Inscience,theyfoundholdingabachelor’sdegreeinscience(ratherthanhavingnodegreeoraBAinanothersubject)tohaveastatisticallypositiverelationshipwithstudentachievement(Goldhaber&Brewer,1997a).AlaterstudyfoundsimilarpositiveresultsforteachershavingamathematicsBAorMAonsecondarystudents’mathematicsachievement,butnosignificantrelationshipbetweenasciencedegreeandsecondarystudents’scienceachievement(Goldhaber&Brewer,2000).Studiesoftherelationshipbetweenthenumberofcoursestakeninthesubjectandstudentachievementhavefoundgenerallypositiveresultsformathematics(Chaney,1995;Monk,1994).Inscience,resultsaregenerallypositivebutdependupontheareaofsciencestudied(e.g.,physical,earth,orlifesciences)(Chaney,1995;Druva&Anderson,1983;Monk&King,1994). Studiesofmathematicsandscienceteachers’pedagogical knowledge havereportedpositiveeffectsofeducationtrainingonteachers’knowledgeandpractices(forexample,seeAdams&Krockover,1997;Gess-Newsome&Lederman,1993;Valli&Agostinelli,1993).Studiesexaminingtherelationshipbetweendegreesineducationasameasureofteachers’pedagogicalknowledgeandstudentoutcomeshavebeenmixed.Atthesecondarylevel,studiesindicatethatcourseworktakeninsubject-specificpedagogyispositivelyrelatedtosecondarystudents’achievement,particularlyinmathematics(Chaney,1995;Monk,1994).WilsonandFloden(2003)notethatmuchoftheresearchfocusesonteachereducationprogramsratherthanspecificcoursesorexperiences. Researchalsoexaminestherelationshipbetweenteachers’ behaviors, practices, and beliefsandstudentoutcomes.Peterson,Fennema,Carpenter,andLoef(1989)foundasignificantrelationshipbetweenfirst-gradeteachers’pedagogical content beliefs about addition and subtraction and studentachievement.Inscience,theuseofhands-onlaboratories(Burkam,Lee,&


6Smerdon,1997)andinquiry-basedteachingpractices(VonSecker,2002)weresignificantlyrelatedtosecondarystudents’scienceachievement.Otherstudiesshowassociationsbetweencharacteristicsofhigh school science teachersandbetterclassroomdiscipline(Druva&Anderson;1983),andkindergartenteachers’instructionalpracticesandstudentgainsinmathematics(Guarino,Hamilton,Lockwood,&Rathbun,2006). Mathematicsandscienceteachers’certification statusisfrequentlyusedasameasureof theeffectsofknowledgegainedfromteacherpreparation(Darling-Hammond, Berry,&Thoreson, 2001). Researchers comparethosewhoarefullycertifiedandthosewhoholdprovisionaloremergencycertification(Evertson,Hawley,&Zlotnik,1985;Fetler,1999;Goe,2002;Goldhaber&Brewer,2000).Severalstudiesindicateanadvantageinfavoroffullycertifiedteachersonmeasuresofstudentachievementandteacherperformance evaluations (Darling-Hammond, 2000;Evertson,Hawley,&Zlotnik,1985;Fetler,1999).Mathematicsstudentachievementhasalsobeenfoundtobepositivelyassociatedwithhavingateacherwhoiscertifiedin-field(Hawk,Coble,&Swanson,1985;Goldhaber&Brewer,1997a,1997b).Severalstudiesshownosignificantdifferencesormixedresultswhencomparingtheteaching performances of regularly versus alternatively certified teachersonsubjectareaandprofessionalknowledgetests(Hawk&Schmidt,1989),performanceratings(Hawk&Schmidt,1989;Lutz&Hutton,1989;Sandlin,Young,&Karge,1992),teachingconcernssurveys(Houston,Marshall,&McDavid,1993;Sandlinetal.,1992),andteacherobservationsandstudentachievement(Miller,McKenna,&McKenna,1998). Researchers frequently investigate years of teaching experience as a teacher quality characteristicwith several studies reporting positiverelationships between teachers’ years of experience and effectiveness(Ehrenberg&Brewer, 1995;Ferguson, 1991;Fetler, 1999;Goldhaber&Brewer,1997b;Greenwald,Hedges,&Laine,1996;Hanushek,1992,1996;Murnane&Phillips,1981).Hawkins,Stancavage,andDossey(1998)foundstatistically-significantassociationsbetweenteacherexperienceand4th- and 8th-gradestudents’mathematicsachievement.Rivkin,Hanushek,andKain(2005)foundstudentsofbeginningteachersperformingsignificantlyworsethan thoseofexperienced teachers inmathematics. Inscience,DruvaandAnderson’s (1983)meta-analysisof65studies foundstudentoutcomes insciencepositivelyrelatedtoteachers’experience.Howevertherelationship


7wasnotparticularlystrong.Otherstudiesexaminingtherelationshipbetweenteacherexperienceandstudentachievementhavereportedmixedornoresults(Ferguson&Ladd,1996;Hill,Rowan,&Ball,2005;Rowan,Correnti,&Miller,2002). General ability refers to teachers’ general intellectual academic andverbal abilities, often including evidence of language andmathematicalproficiency.Studiesgenerallyreportapositiverelationshipbetweenmeasuresofteachers’generalandverbalabilitiesandtheireffectiveness(Ehrenberg&Brewer,1994;Ferguson,1991;Ferguson&Ladd1996;Greenwald,Hedges,&Laine, 1996;Hanushek, 1971;Strauss&Sawyer 1986).Other studiesindicatemixedornegativeresults(Ehrenberg&Brewer,1995;Guyton&Farokhi,1987;Hanushek,1992;Murnane&Phillips,1981).

Teacher Quantity: Turnover and Retention of Mathematics and Science Teachers Theentryandexitofteachersintoandoutoftheprofessionhasbeencharacterizedasa“revolvingdoor.”Ingersoll(2001)arguesthatthissituationisnotaresultofshortagesofteachersorteacherretirements,butratherteacher turnover,definedasdepartureofteachersfromtheirteachingjobs.Statisticsindicatethatthecurrentteachingforcewilllosealmosthalfofitsprofessionalsinthenextfewyearsandoneinfivenewteacherswillnotremaininteachinglongenoughtoreachtheirfourthyear(Johnson&Birkeland,2003). Twoimportantelementsofteacherturnoverareteacher attrition(leavingtheprofession)andteacher migration(movingfromoneschooltoanother)(Johnsonetal.,2005).Whenschoolsreportashortageofmathematicsandscienceteachers,theyareoftenreferringtobothoftheseelements.Overtime,researchhasshown thatabout15percentofAmerica’s3million teachersleavetheirschoolsorleaveteachingeachyear,andafter5years,46percentof teachers leavetheteachingprofession(Ingersoll,2006a;2006b).Thesenumbersareevenmorestartlingfornewteachers,wholeaveatarateofalmost50percentafterfouryears,andforteachersinsmall,urban,poorschools,wheretheturnoverratesare26percenteachyear. Schools searching formathematics and science teachers alreadyknowhowdifficult it is to find replacementswith annual turnover ratesformathematics and science teachers at about 16percent and15percentrespectively, compared to 9 percent for social studies and12percent for


8English(Ingersoll,2006b).Acloserexaminationofturnoverformathematicsandscienceteachersshowsthatreasonsforleavingteachingincludepursuingotherjobs(28%)andretiring(11%).While40percentofmathematicsandscienceteacherswholeavedosobecauseofdissatisfaction,only29percentofallteachersinthegeneralpopulationreportleavingteachingbecauseofdissatisfaction.Formathematicsandscienceteachers,dissatisfactionmostfrequently includespoor salary, poor administrative support, poor studentmotivation,andstudentdisciplineproblems(Ingersoll,2006a).Recruitingmoreandmoreteacherswillnotaddresstheseproblems.Schoolsmustdesigninductionandretentionplansthattakeintoaccountschoolworkingconditionsiftheywanttheirmathematicsandscienceteacherstostayinteaching. Research on teacher induction shows thatwhen afirst-year teacherhasafullinductionexperience(includingcollaborationwithamentorinthesamesubjectfield,teachernetworkingandbeginnersseminarswithothernewteachers,reducingnewteachers’coursepreparations,providingateacher’saide, face timewith school administrators, regularly scheduled commonplanningand release time for thementorandnew teacher toobserveandanalyzeteaching),thereisastatisticallysignificantimpactontheretentionofthatteacher(Smith&Ingersoll,2004).Unfortunatelyonlyonepercentofnewteachersreceivethistypeofcomprehensivesupport(Smith&Ingersoll,2004). High teacher turnover inmathematics and science hasmany costs.Research shows that teacher turnover increases the variation in studentoutcomes across grades and cohorts in a school, with differences inmathematicsachievementsignificantly related to teacher turnover (Rivkinetal.,2005).Unfortunatelyforstudents,thehighestturnoverratesareinthepoorest schoolswheremathematicsand science teachersareneededmost(Neild,Useem,Travers,&Lesnick,2003).Therearealsofinancialcoststoschoolsinrecruiting,hiring,induction,andprofessionaldevelopment(TexasCenterforEducationalResearch,2000).A2000studyfoundthatschoolsinTexasspendover$329milliondollarseachyearasaresultofa15.5percentteacher turnover rate.Other estimates report that, across theNation, $2.6billionislostannuallybecauseofteacherturnover(AllianceforExcellentEducation,2004).


� Diversity of the Teaching Force ThestudentpopulationinAmerica’sschoolsisincreasingindiversityintermsofraceandethnicity;however,thediversityoftheteacherpopulationhasnotfollowedthistrend(Dandy,1998;Newbyetal.,2000;Shenetal.,2003;Torresetal.,2004).Datafromanationallyrepresentativesampleofpublicschoolteachersindicatesthatschoolshavemadeslightincreasesintheracialandethnicdiversityoftheteachingforceintheyearsbetween1987-1988and1999-2000;however,duringthistime,thenumberofmaleteachersdecreased(Shenetal.,2003).Althoughthereareincreasesinthenumbersofdiverseteachersinthenewteacherpopulation,retentionofnewteacherscouldpreventthesegainsfromimpactingthediversityoftheteachingpopulationovertime(Darling-Hammondetal.,1996;Kirby,Berends,&Naftel,1999;Shenetal.,2003). Barrierstoincreasingdiversityintheteachingforceincludetoofewminority students prepared for post-secondary education as a result ofinadequateK-12 education, small numbers ofminority students enrollingin teachereducationprograms,andfinancialandeconomicconsiderations(Clewell&Villegas,1998).Anotherbarriercitediscompetencytesting(eitheraspartoftherequirementsforateachereducationprogramorforlicensure)forwhichresearchindicateshigherfailureratesforminoritystudentsthanforWhitestudents(Darling-Hammondetal.,1996;Kirbyetal.,1999;Latham,Gitomer,&Zimonek,1999).Whilethereissomeevidencetoindicatethattestingrequirementsnegativelyimpactthediversityoftheteachingforce,thereisalsoevidencethattheyarenotthesourceoftheproblem,asthemajority(81%)oftheoverallpopulationofteachercandidatestakingthetestsiswhite(Lathametal.,1999). The importance of a diverse teaching force. Theimportanceofincreasingthediversityoftheteachingforceisdescribedasnecessaryinordertoreducegapsinachievementbetweenwhiteandnonwhitestudents(Darling-Hammondetal.,1996).Argumentsfocusontheneedandimportanceofrolemodelsandteacherswhocanrelatetostudents’backgroundsandexperiences(Loving&Marshall,1997;Riley,1998).Thepedagogicalbenefitsofadiverseteachingforce include the advantages teachers of colormay have in successfullybuildingrelationshipsandrelatingtostudentsfromminoritygroupsbyusingtheir personal experiences to connectwith learners (Clewell&Villegas,1998;Darling-Hammondetal.,1996).Therearealimitednumberoflarge-


10scalestudieson therelationshipbetweensame-race teachersandminority(and general) student achievement (Torres et al., 2004).Results indicatemixedevidenceforadirectcorrelationbetweenteacherdiversityandstudentacademicperformance(Ehrenberg,Goldhaber,&Brewer,1995). Strategies that impact teacher diversity. Thereareseveralrecommendationsto improveminority teacher recruitment and retention.These include:improving theK-12 educational experiences ofminority students; earlyidentificationofpotentialfutureteachers;recruitmentofteachereducationcandidatesat thecommunityand juniorcollege levels; implementationofprogramsthatsupportminorityteachercandidatesthroughouttheeducation,initialcertification,andinductionprocesses(includingmentoringprograms);recruitmentofcandidatesfromnon-traditionalpopulations(second-careersor paraeducators); and recruitment of candidates from liberal artsmajorsandundergraduates havingnodeclaredmajor (Clewell&Villegas, 1998;Darling-Hammondetal.,1996;Holloway,2002;Jorgenson,2001;Loving&Marshall,1997;Newbyetal.,2000). Earlyidentificationprogramsexposequalifiedhighschoolormiddleschoolstudentstoteachingthroughcadetortutoringprograms.Theseeffortsraiseawarenessofandinterestinteachingasaprofessionandsupportandencouragestudentstoprepareforandentertheprofession (Loving&Marshall,1997;Newbyet al., 2000).Programsdesignedtoencouragepara-educatorstobecometeachershavebeenfoundtoplayaroleindiversifyingtheteachingforce(Haselkorn&Fideler,1996),andthereisevidencethattheseprogramshavehigherretentionratesthanmanytraditionalteachereducationprograms(Dandy,1998;Haselkorn&Fideler,1996). Otherstudiesindicatethatalternativecertificationprogramsmayserveasasourceforrecruitingminorityteachers(Kirbyetal.,1999;Shen,1998).Findingsofonestudyindicatethatalternatively-certifiedteachersaremorelikelytobefemale,beteachinginelementaryschools,andexpresslessdesiretocontinueteachinginthelongterm(Shen,1998).Therefore,whilealternativecertificationmightcontributetodiversity in termsofraceandethnicity, itdoesnot in termsofgender (Shen,1998).Shen (1998) further found thatwhilealternativelycertifiedteachersaremore likely to teachmathematicsandscience,alternativelycertifiedminorityteachersarelesslikelytoholdabachelor’sinmathematics,science,orengineeringthanalternativelycertifiedwhiteteachers.


�� Asourreviewoftheresearchonteacherquality,quantity,anddiversityindicates, several characteristics of individual teachers andof the teacherpopulationareinfluentialintherelationshipsbetweenmathematicsandscienceteachersandthestudentstheyteach.ThepurposeofthepresentstudywastoexaminedatafromtheNationalScienceFoundation’sMathandSciencePartnership (NSF-MSP)Program in an effort to determine howawardeesin theprogramrepresentedcharacteristicsof teacherquality,quantity,anddiversity,andwhatinterventionsawardeesimplementedtoinfluencethosecharacteristicswithintheirawards.Thefollowingresearchquestionsguidedthisanalysis:a)Whatarerepresentationsofmathematicsandscienceteacherquality,quantity,anddiversityamongawardeesintheMSPProgram?andb)Whatinterventionsdoawardeesimplementtoinfluenceteacherquality,quantity,anddiversitycharacteristicswithintheirawards?

Methods

Data Sources Thedatasources in thisstudycamefromfundedpartnerships in theNationalScienceFoundation’sMathandSciencePartnership (NSF-MSP)ProgramawardedbetweenFY2002 andFY2004.TheNSFdescribes thefollowingfourcomponentsoftheMSPProgram:

• Comprehensive Partnerships implement change across theK-12continuuminmathematics,science,orboth.

• TargetedPartnerships focus on improved student achievement in anarrower grade range or disciplinary focus inmathematics and/orscience.

• Institute Partnerships developmathematics and science teachers asschool-anddistrict-basedintellectualleadersandmasterteachers.

• Research,Evaluation,andTechnicalAssistance(RETA)activitiesassistpartnershipawardeesintheimplementationandevaluationoftheirwork(NationalScienceFoundation,2007).

Thepresentstudyexamineddatafrom48awardsinthreeofthesecategories,including:12ComprehensivePartnerships,28TargetedPartnerships,and8InstitutePartnerships.RETAawardswerenotincludedintheanalysisduetothenatureandscopeoftheirworkin“assisting”theotherawardcategories.


�� Eachpartnershipwasrequiredtoaddressthequalityofthemathematicsandscienceteachingforceandtodocumentitsprogresstowardstheteacherqualitygoalsandbenchmarksitestablished.AwardeessubmittedAnnualandEvaluationReportsdescribingthisprogress,andpostedpapers,presentations,andwebpagesinelectronicmediaforms.Thesesecondarydocumentsweretheprimarysourceofdatafortheanalysis.Inthepresentanalysis,researchersreviewed132AnnualandEvaluationReportsprovidedtotheNSF,withthelengthofeachreportrangingfrom15to707pages.Thesereports,alongwithawardeeswebsites,publishedpapers,andpresentations,werethesecondarysourcedocumentsfortheanalysis.DatareviewedforthispaperwereobtainedfromdocumentsavailabletoresearchersbetweenJanuary2005andFebruary2006.

Procedures Theexaminationwasconductedusingqualitativemethodsforadocumentanalysisofsecondarydatasources(Miles&Huberman,1994;Patton,1990)andwasusedtoidentifyawardees’narrativedescriptionsofcharacteristicsand interventions influencingmathematics and science teacher quality,quantity,anddiversity(Bogdan&Biklen,1998).Themethodsofanalysisemployedbothacontentanalysis,usingacategoricalsystemfororganizingtheinformation(Fraenkel&Wallen,1993),andaconceptanalysis,tounderstandthemeaningandusageof terms(McMillan&Wergin,2002).Theunitofanalysiswastheindividualaward.Becauseofthecomplexnatureofawardees’reports,theresearchteamusedhandcoding(ratherthanelectronicsoftware)tobetterpreservethecontextandcontentoftheinformationcontainedinthereports.Ateamofsixreadersconductedtheanalysis,and30percentofthedocumentswerereadbytwodifferentreaderstoensurereliability.Awardees’reportstotheNSFwereavailabletoresearchersinanelectronicformatthatwaspasswordprotected.Projectwebsites,publications,andconferencepapersweregenerallyavailablethroughinternetaccess.

Three-Phase Analysis Researchersanalyzeddatasourcesinthreephases.Duringthefirstphase,researchersidentifiedbroadthemestoguidetheinitialreadingofthereports,basedonreviewsoftheliterature.Additionalthemesandsub-themesemergedduringthereadings.Duringthisphase,researchersreadthroughreportsin


13theirentiretyandsearchedawardees’websites,publications,andconferencepresentationsforsupportinginformation.Readersusedananalyticprotocoltocodeinformationandwritesummaries.Theprotocolincludedatablefordocumentingthepresenceofthemes,asectionforwritingdetailedsummaries,andareferencesectiontorecordpagenumbersandappendicesfromwhichtheinformationwasextractedsoresearcherscouldreturntothedocumentstoreviewinformationinitsoriginalcontext.Researchersmetweeklytocrosscheckthemesandcomparecodedcategories. Therewereseveralchallengesinorganizingthelargevolumeofreportdata: some awardees included extensive information about activities incomparisonwithotherawardeesthatincludedlittleinformation;informationwasscatteredinnumerousplacesthroughoutreports,whichrequiredextensivereadingtoconnectcommonthemes;and,informationwassometimespresentedinawaythatwasuncleartoareaderoutsidetheaward,usingtermssuchas“thefaculty,”“theteachers,”or“theschool,”withoutspecificallyidentifyingthefaculty,teachers,orschooltowhichthedescriptionwasreferring.Researcherscross-referenceddifferentsourcestopiecetogetherinformation. Duringthesecondphaseoftheanalysis,twoPh.D.-levelresearchersreadandcodedallofthewrittensummaries,usingopenandaxialcodingtoexaminethemesanddefinecategories(Strauss&Corbin,1998).Themainpurposeofaxialcodingwastogainabetterunderstandingofthecategoriesby identifyingpropertiesanddimensionsaround their“axis.”Researchersfocusedonanindividualtheme,suchasTeacherLeadership,andreadallofthewrittensummariesonthatthemeusingaconstantcomparativemethod(Strauss,1987).Duringthisprocess,researchersdeterminedmajorcategoriesandsub-categories,wrotedescriptionsofthecategories,andextractedexamplesfromthereports. Duringthethirdphaseoftheanalysis,researchersusedthecategoriesinakey-wordsearchprocessthroughthereportsforthepurposeofcategoricalaggregation(Stake,1995).UsingthesearchtoolonAdobeAcrobatReader,researchersusedavarietyofkeywordstoconductexhaustivesearchesforinformationonthepropertiesofthecategories.Bytheendofthethirdphase,researcherscreateddocumentswithlistsofexamplesfromawardees’reportsfor each category related to teacher quality, quantity, and diversity, andcompiledalistoffrequenciesacrossthe48awards. Inanefforttosynthesizethenarrativeresultsforpresentation,researchersdevelopedacategoricalorganizationframeworkforeaseofcomparingthe


14prominenceofmajor themesamong the representationsand interventionsidentified by awardees.This framework uses the following categories:Category3(C3)=representationsandinterventionsdiscussedandidentifiedby70-100%ofthe48awardees;Category2(C2)=identifiedby40-69%of the48 awardees;Category1 (C1)= identifiedby10 - 39%of the48awardees;andCategory0(C0)=identifiedby0-9%ofthe48awardees.Thesecategoriesweredeterminedbygroupingthefrequenciesofrepresentationsandinterventions,andfirstremovingthebottom0-9%(or0to4awards)ineachgrouping.Whenoccurrenceswerereportedin0-9%oftheawards,theseoccurrencesweredeterminedtobearareoruniqueactivityamongtheawards in theprogram(C0).Thenextsetsofoccurrencesweresectionedinto thirds. In the lowest thirdofoccurrenceswere those items thatwerereportedin10-39%oftheawards(or5-18awards,C1).Inthemiddlethirdofoccurrenceswerethoseitemsthatwerereportedin40-69%oftheawards(or19-33awards,C2).Inthetopthirdofoccurrenceswerethoseitemsthatwerereportedmostfrequentlyacrosstheawardsintheprogramby70-100%ofawards(or34-48awards,C3).ThesecategorieswereassignedtogivethereaderasenseoftheportionofawardsreportingeachthemeacrosstheentireMSPProgram.Throughouttheresults,thiscategorizationisusedtoidentifythemostcommonrepresentationsandinterventionsofteacherquality,quantity,anddiversitythatarepartoftheworkoftheawardeesintheMSPProgram.

Results

Researchersidentifiedavarietyofmajorthemesofteacherqualitythatcenteredoncharacteristicsofindividualteachers,characteristicsoftheteacherpopulation,andinterventionsreportedasinfluencesonteachercharacteristics.TheframeworkinFigure1representsageneralorganizationofthesethemesfromthereports.Allofthe48awardsprovideddescriptiveinformationonincreasingthequalityofindividualmathematicsandscienceteachersandonincreasingteacherquantity.Fewerawardsprovideddescriptiveinformationonincreasingteacherdiversity. The results are organized around twomajor themes that addressour research questions: 1)what awardees identify as representations ofmathematics and science teacher quality, quantity, and diversity, and 2)


15interventionsawardeesimplementtoinfluenceteachercharacteristics.Thefirstsectionoftheresultsreportsrepresentationsofteacherquality,quantity,anddiversityidentifiedbyawardees.Thesecondsectiondiscussesinterventionsawardeesimplementedtoinfluenceteachercharacteristics.Examplesfromawardees’documentsarepresentedtoprovideacontextforthethemes.Thecategories(i.e.,C3,C2,C1,andC0)showninparenthesesareusedasawaytogroupandidentifythefrequencyofgivenrepresentationsandinterventions.Thesethemes,alongwiththeirexamples,provideinsightsintothesubstanceofawardees’workintheMSPProgram.

Figure1Major Themes in Awardees’ Documents

REPRESENTATIONSofTeacherQuality

IndividualCharacteristics PopulationCharacteristics

SubjectKnowledge Quantity(numbersofteachers) PedagogicalKnowledge Diversity(race/ethnicity) Behaviors/Practices/Beliefs

INTERVENTIONSInfluencingTeacherQualityCharacteristics

InserviceTraining/Prof.DevelopmentPreserviceTraining TeacherLeadership LinkingTeacherswithSTEMFaculty Recruiting Stipends/Compensation Induction

Representations Awardeesdescribedvariousrepresentationsofteacherquality,quantity,anddiversity.Representationsofthequalityofindividualteachersfrequentlydescribedbyawardeesincluded:subjectknowledge,pedagogicalknowledge,andbehaviors, practices, andbeliefs.Representationsof thequantity anddiversity of teachers included: numbers of teachers and race/ethnicity,respectively.TheseresultsaresummarizedinTable1.


16

Representations that characterized teacher quality. Awardeesreportedvarious representations to characterize the quality of individual teachers.

Table1Frequency of Representations Reported by Awardees that Characterize Teacher Quality, Quantity, and DiversityConstructs Representations Frequency

TeacherQualitySubject Knowledge C3TestScores C2Certification,Degrees,Courses C2

PedagogicalKnowledge C3Surveys C2Observations C2Certification,Degrees C2

Behaviors,Practices,Beliefs C3Surveys C2Observations C2

TeacherExperience C2

TeacherQuantityMSPAwardQuantity C3TeachersRecruited/Participation C3Hours/DaysTeacherTraining C2TeachersRetained C1

University-LevelQuantity C2PreserviceEnrollment C2ProgramCompletion C1

School-LevelQuantity C2TeacherMobility C2TeachersRetained C1TeachersHired C1

TeacherDiversityDemographicData/RaceandEthnicity C2Minorities Recruited C1MinoritiesReceivingScholarships C1

Note: N =48awards.C3=representationsidentifiedby70-100%ofthe48awards;C2=representationsidentifiedby40-69%ofawards;C1=representationsidentifiedby10-39%ofawards;andC0=representationsidentifiedby0-9%ofawards.


17Essentiallytheserepresentationswereawayforawardeestooperationalizeteacherqualitycharacteristicswithintheirawardactivities.Subjectknowledge(C3), pedagogical knowledge (C3), and behaviors, practices, and beliefs(C3)wereidentifiedmostfrequentlyamongawardeesascharacteristicsofindividual teacher quality.Awardees use of representations for teachers’subject knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, andbehaviors, practices, andbeliefswasconsistentwiththeresearchliteratureoncharacteristicsofteacherquality.Alessernumberofawardeesdiscussedteacherexperience(C2)andgeneralability(C1)asarepresentationofteacherquality.Thisisadivergencefromtheresearchliteraturewhereteacherexperienceandgeneralabilityarefrequentlyusedasrepresentationsofteacherquality. Wefurtherunpackedsubjectknowledge,pedagogicalknowledge,andbehaviors,practices,andbeliefstodeterminewhatrepresentedtheseconstructsforawardees.Intermsofsubjectknowledge,themostcommonrepresentationwasascoreonatestofmathematicsorsciencesubjectknowledge(C2).Testsincludedstandardizedtests,testsdevelopedbyawardeesthemselves,ortestsdevelopedbyResearchEvaluationandTechnicalAssistance(RETA)awardsintheMSPProgram.Anothercommonrepresentationofateachers’subjectknowledgewastheteacher’ssubjectpreparation,includingsubject-specificcertification,degrees,andcoursestakeninmathematicsorsciencecontent(C2). In termsof pedagogical knowledge, the representations reportedbyawardeesdifferedfromsubjectknowledgeintypeandfrequency.Themostfrequently-used representations of pedagogical knowledge reported byawardeeswereresponsesonsurveys,observationsofteaching,andteachers’certification or degree (all designated asC2). Surveys and observationsdocumented teachers’ knowledge of state and national standards, use ofstandards-basedcurricula,anduseofreform-orientedteachingmethodsandmaterials.Unlikesubjectknowledge,wherescoresontestswereafrequentlyusedrepresentationofteacherknowledge(C2),scoresontestswereoneoftheleastlikelyrepresentationsofpedagogicalknowledge(C0).AdiscussionofthespecificinstrumentsusedbyawardeestoassessteacherknowledgeispresentedinanotherpublicationoftheMSPProgramEvaluation(MSP-PE)(Moyer-Packenham,Bolyard,Kitsantas,&Oh,inpress). Themostcommonrepresentationsofmathematicsandscienceteachers’behaviors,practicesandbeliefswereresponsesonasurveyandbehavioral


18observations (bothC2).Surveysandobservationprotocolsweredesignedto document changes in teachers’ beliefs and classroompractices.Otherrepresentations of teachers’ behaviors, practices, and beliefs thatweredescribedwithlessfrequencyincludedresponsestointerviewquestionsandwrittendocuments(bothC1). Representations that characterized teacher quantity. Alloftheawardsreportedsomeformofinformationonteacherquantity.Awardeesrepresentedteacherquantityinthreemainsub-categories:MSP Award Quantity,University-Level Quantity,andSchool-Level Quantity.MSPAwardQuantityincludeddata collected on participants inMSPAward activities;University-LevelQuantity included data collected on participants involved in courses andprogramsofaparticipatinguniversity;andSchool-LevelQuantityincludeddata collected on participants from the participating schools. In the sub-category,MSPAwardQuantity,mostawardeescollecteddataonthenumberofteachersparticipatinginawardactivities(C3).Otherdatainthissub-categorytrackednumbersofhoursordaysoftrainingcompletedbyteachers(C2),andnumbersofteacherscontinuinginMSPactivitiesfromyeartoyear(C1).Thesub-categoryUniversity-LevelQuantitywasrepresentedbythenumberofpreserviceenrollmentsinuniversityprograms(C2)andthenumberofteacherscompletinguniversityprograms(C1),wheretheuniversityprogramswerepartoftheactivitiesoftheaward. Inthesub-categorySchool-LevelQuantity,themostcommonrepresentationwasnumericalanddescriptiveinformationaboutthemobilityofteachersinschoolswherethoseteacherswerealsoawardparticipants(C2).Awardeesdescribedteachersanddistrictcontactsretiring,teachersleavingorbeinglaidofffromtheschoolsystem,andtheterminationofschoolpositions.Withlessfrequency,awardeesdescribedtheretentionofteachersinparticipatingMSPschools(C1)andnumbersofMSPparticipantshiredbyschoolsystems(C1). Representations that characterized teacher diversity. While teacherdiversity(i.e.,race/ethnicity)wasdiscussedfrequentlyinawarddocuments,manyoftheseincludedgeneralstatementssuchas,“teacherdiversityisoneoftheproject’skeyfeatures”or“increasingdiversityisanimportantgoal.”Awardeesreportedadesireforincreasingthenumberofminoritystudentsinteachertrainingprogramsorincreasingminorityhiresinschooldistricts;however,somereportslackeddetailedinformationonhowtheawardwoulddocument an increase in thediversityof its participating teachers.Of theawardsthatdidprovidethisinformation,manyweretrackingdemographic


�� datathatfocusedonchangesinthediversityofthemathematicsandscienceteachersparticipatingintheaward(C2).Someawardsdiscussedincreasesinthenumberofminoritiesrecruitedtoawardactivities(C1)andminoritystudentsreceivingscholarships(C1)asrepresentationsofincreasesinteacherdiversity.Informationongenderappearedinfewreports(C0).

Interventions Awardees discussed a variety of interventions designed to influenceteachercharacteristicswithintheirpartnerships.Someinterventionsinfluencedonearea(quality,quantity,ordiversity)morethananother,buttosomedegreethe interventions impactedmultiple areas and characteristics.Themostcommoninterventionsreportedbyawardeesaregroupedbythefrequencywithwhichtheyappearedinawardees’documentsandpresentedinTable2.These interventions include: InserviceTraining/ProfessionalDevelopment(C3),PreserviceTraining(C3),TeacherLeadership(C3),Recruiting(C3),LinkingSTEMFacultywithTeachers (C2),Stipends/Compensation (C2),andInduction(C1).Thefollowingsectionsfurtherunpackthemostcommoninterventionsbyprovidingexamplesfromawardees’activities. Interventions focusing on the quality of inservice and preservice teacher training. InserviceTraining/ProfessionalDevelopment(PD)for individualteacherswasdiscussed in all of the awards.These interventions includedcourses,workshops,institutes,andotherteachertrainingactivities,includingthoseleadingtocertificationanddegreesinmathematicsandscience.Newcertificationprogramsforteacherswerereportedinanumberofawards(C2),mostcommonlyasawaytodevelopcertificationandendorsementoptionstomeet the “highlyqualified” status or to obtain an add-on certificate orendorsementinadditiontoteacherlicensure.Forexample,onecertificationprogramforelementaryteachersincludedfivemathematicscontentcoursesthatwerespeciallydesignedtoincreasesubjectknowledge.Othercertificationoptionsforinserviceteachersincludedasummercertificationinsecondarymathematics andNationalBoardCertification.Most certification effortsfocusedonensuringthatthoseteachingmathematicsandsciencewerecertifiedto teach those subjects.Manyof these inservice trainingandprofessionaldevelopmentinterventionswerepairedwithteacherleadership. All awardees described some form of teacher leadership in theirdocuments(C3).Additionally,teacherleadershipwasdescribedinallgradebands (elementary,middle, secondary), in bothmathematics and science,


20

andinformalteacherleaderpositionswithintheaward,schoolsystem,oruniversity.Examplesof teacher leadershiproles includedcoaches,mentorteachers, lead teachers, department chairs, curriculum specialists,masterteachers,andlocally-basedstaffdevelopers.Insomecasesawardeesutilizedteacherleadershiprolesalreadyinplaceintheschoolsystem(i.e.,departmentchairpersonorcurriculumspecialist);whileinothers,teacherleadershiproles

Table2Frequency of Interventions Reported by Awardees to Influence Teacher CharacteristicsInterventions Examples Frequency

InserviceTraining/ProfessionalDevelopment

Courses,Workshops,Institutes(includingthoseleadingtoCertificationandDegrees);IncreasingSubjectKnowledge

C3

PreserviceTraining NewCourseandProgramDevelopment(includingthoseleadingtoCertificationandDegrees);IncreasingSubjectKnowledge;RevisingStudentTeaching

C3

TeacherLeadership FormalandInformalRoles(includingCoaches,MentorTeachers,LeadTeachers,DepartmentChairs,CurriculumSpecialists,MasterTeachers)

C3

Recruiting NumbersRecruitedtoMSPandUniversityActivities;TargetedRecruitingActivitiesforMinorityTeachers

C3

LinkingSTEMFacultywithTeachers

STEMFacultyTeachingCourses,ProvidingExpertise,DesigningNewPrograms

C2

Stipends/Compensation FinancialandMaterialIncentives(includingstipends,tuitionwaivers,classroomsetsofmaterials,manipulatives,scienceequipment,laptopsandcalculators)

C2

Induction MentoringNewSTEMTeachers C1

Note: N=48awards.C3=interventionsidentifiedby70-100%ofthe48awards;C2=interventionsidentifiedby40-69%ofawards;C1=interventionsidentifiedby10-39%ofawards;andC0=interventionsidentifiedby0-9%ofawards.


�� wereconstructedaspartoftheaward’sactivities.Thelargestresponsibilityofteacherleadersdescribedbyawardeeswastoprovideprofessionaldevelopmentforinserviceteachertraining(C3).Theprofessionaldevelopmentdeliveredbyteacherleadersincludedusingteachernetworksandprofessionallearningcommunities(PLCs),peerobservationsandfeedback,peercoaching,peersupportstructures,andstudygroups(C2).Toalesserextent,teacherleadersengaged in curriculumwork, helped to set and achieve school andMSPgoals,andperformedadministrativetasks(alldesignatedasC1).Trainingforleaderswasreportedinmanyawards(C3),withthemostcommonattributesofleadershiptrainingbeingthedevelopmentoftheteacherleaders’subjectknowledge, leadership skills, dispositions, andpedagogical strategies (alldesignatedasC2). Mostoftheinserviceteachertraining/professionaldevelopment(PD)focusedondevelopingteachers’knowledgeintermsofcontentandpedagogy(C3). Efforts to improve or increase teachers’ subject and pedagogicalknowledgewerecommonlydescribedasintertwined,withawardeesusingterminologysuchaspedagogical content knowledge (Shulman,1986)andmathematical knowledge for teaching (Ball, 1991).A focus on subjectknowledge is traditionally emphasized forhigh school teachers;however,awardeesinthisprogramemphasizedsubjectknowledgeforteachersatallgradelevels. OtherPDactivitiesincludedavarietyofelements.Awardeesfrequentlydescribedtheuseofcurriculummaterials(C3)intheirPDactivities,includingFOSSkits,DevelopingMathematical Ideas (DMI),GreatExplorations inMath andScience (GEMS), and standards-basedNSF-funded curriculummaterials.TheuseofinquiryscienceduringPDactivitieswasreportedoften(C2).OtherPDwork focusedon assessment, such as developingvariousmethodsofstudentassessment,developingtestitems,andinterpretingtestitemdata(C2).PDseminarsfocusedonanalyzingstudents’thinkingusingstudentproductsandvideotapedepisodesofstudentsworking(C2).Awardeesincorporatedtheuseofmathematicsandsciencestandardsdocuments(C2)inanefforttounderstandthecontentsofthestandardsdocumentsandalignstandardswithinstruction.Theyalsousedtechnologyandmathematicstools(includingmanipulatives)(C2). In addition to the teacher quality interventions focusedon inserviceteachers,therewerealsoteacherqualityinterventionsfocusedonpreservice

��teachers(C2),withthemostcommonofthesefocusingonthedevelopmentofnewcoursesandnewprogramsforpreservice teachers thatwouldleadtocertificationanddegrees.Awardeescreatedsubject-focusedpreparationprogramsinmathematicsandscienceatvariouslevelsthroughoutK-12,andalternativecertificationprogramsformathematicsandsciencemajors.Newcourseofferingsspecificallyfocusedonincreasingpreserviceteachers’subjectknowledge(C1)(e.g.,coursessuchasLinear Algebra,Cells and Molecules,and Discrete Probability and Statistics).Otherawardeesdescribedrevisingstudentteachingprogramsandinternships(C1). Manypreserviceandinserviceteacherqualityinterventionslinkedfacultyinthefieldsofscience,technology,engineeringandmathematics(STEM)withK-12teachers(C2).STEMfacultywereidentifiedastheprovidersanddesignersofmultipleinserviceandpreserviceteacherdevelopmentactivitiesamongtheawards,includingthosethatweremathematicsandsciencefocused,thosethatfocusedonpreservicerecruitment,andthosethatwerefocusedattheelementary,middleandhighschoollevels(C2).(ForacompletediscussionofSTEMfacultyengagement,seeMoyeretal.,2007).STEMfacultyworkedwitheducationfaculty,teachers,andteacherleaderstodesign,revise,andteachcoursesforteachereducationprograms,summerworkshops,andin-serviceteacherprogramsinmathematicsandscience(C2).STEMfacultyalsoservedinmanagementroles(suchasdirectingprojectactivities)orleadershiproles(suchasdirectingthedevelopmentofanewcourseorcoursesequenceformathematicsandscienceteachers)(C2).Insomeawards,STEMfacultyservedinadvisoryor“expert”roles,includingattendingprofessionaldevelopmentsessionstoprovideon-sitesupport,participatinginstudygroups,orbeingavailableforonlinediscussionsandmentoring(C1).TheincreasedpresenceofSTEMfacultyinwasreportedasameansforincreasingteachers’subjectknowledge. Interventions focusing on teacher quantity and diversity. Allawardeesreportedrecruitingasthemostcommoninterventionforinfluencingteacherquantityanddiversity(C3).Someawardees’recruitingplansincludedafocuson diverse studentswith scholarship offers tominority students enteringteachertrainingprogramsandothersupportstructurestopromoteminorityenrollmentinprogramsleadingtomathematicsandscienceteachingcareers(C1).STEMfaculty involvementwascommon in the recruitingactivitiesforpreserviceteachers(C2).Asdiscussedpreviously,manyawardsutilizedteacherleadershipintheirinterventions.Inadditiontoworkingtosupport


23the professional development of inservice teachers, teacher leaders alsoimpacted teacherquantityanddiversity.Byservingasmentorandmasterteacherstheywerepartoftherecruitingandinductionprocessforbringingnewmathematicsandscienceteachersintotheprofession,includingthosefromminoritypopulations,therebyinfluencingthequantityofnewteachersandthediversityoftheteachingforce. Otherrecruitingactivitiestoincreasethenumbersofmathematicsandscience teachers included providing school-based experiencesmatchingrecruitswithexemplaryteachers(C1);developingrecruitingtools,documents,recruitment videos, brochures, and information sessions about careers inteaching(C1);attractinguniversitySTEMstudentsintoteachingprograms(C1); designingmentoring programs for high school students to recruitthem into teaching (C1); engaginghigh school anduniversity students inmathematicsandscienceactivitieswithyoungerstudentstopromoteinterestin teaching as a career (C1); and forming after-school science and futureteacherclubsinhighschools(C1). Themost frequently-reported representationof teacher quantitywasthenumberofteachersparticipatinginawardactivities;therefore,stipendsand compensationwere viewed as an intervention to potentially increaseparticipationand,thereby,increaseteacherquantityfortheaward(C2).Thetypesofstipendsandcompensationreportedbyawardeestoincreaseteacherparticipation included: stipends for participating in inservice training andPDactivities(C2),stipendsforservinginnewleadershiproles(C1),tuitionwaiversorreimbursementsforuniversitycourses(C1),andclassroomsetsofmaterialsincludingmathematicsmanipulatives,scienceequipment,laptopsandcalculators(C1). Teacherinductionwasdescribedasaninterventiontoinfluenceteacherquantityanddiversity,butwithlessfrequencythantheotherinterventionspreviouslydiscussed(C1).Inductionactivitiesweredescribedasformalandinformalevents ranging induration.Commoninductionexperiencesweredescribedason-sitePD,newteacherworkshops,andSaturdayseminars(C1).Someinductionexperienceswereprovidedbyteachercoaches,throughstudygroups,orasonlinementoring,includingone-to-onementoring,aswellasgroupinductionactivitiesformathematicsandscienceteachers(C1).


24Limitations Oneofthebenefitsofexamininganentiregroupofawardsforthemesisalsoalimitation.Whileresearchersgainedvaluableinsightsabouttheentireportfolioofawards,detaileddescriptionsofindividualawardscouldnotbehighlighted.Becauseresearchersbelievedthatinsightsfromtheportfolioofawardsmaybringtotheforethevalueoftheprogramasawhole,wechosethismethodofbroadexamination.Eachawardhasitsownevaluationinplaceandtheseindividualevaluationsmaybringtolightuniquecharacteristicsoftheindividualawards.Becausethisanalysisprovidesaviewoftheawardsasoneentity,majorshiftsinteacherquality,quantity,anddiversityworkacrosstheawardscanbeidentified. Thedescriptive andnarrative nature of awardees’ documentswas alimitingfactorintheanalysis.Self-reportdocumentspreparedbyawardeesmaynotprovideacompleteandaccurateaccountofthefullscopeorimpactofawardees’activities.Insomecasestheuseoftermswasunclear,orareferencetoaparticulargrouporactivitywasincomplete.However,researchersinthepresentstudybelievedthatawardeeshadsomechoiceinwhattoincludeintheirdocuments.Theseselectionswereindicativeofwhatawardeesfoundofmostimportancetotheirwork.Theself-selectionofinformationtoincludeinthereportsandthesectionsofthereportswhereinformationwasexpandeduponorlimitedwereimportantdatainandofthemselves.Whilecertainaspectsofreportingwererequiredacrosstheprogram,therewasstillgreatlatitudeinthelevelofdescriptionawardeeswererequiredandpermittedtosubmitasareport,asevidencedbytherangeinthelengthoftheirreports.

Discussion

Theseresultsprovideabroadviewoftheworkofawardeesinamajormathematics and science program focused on influencing teacher qualitycharacteristics.Thefindingsillustratehowawardeesrepresentteacherqualitycharacteristicsintheirworkandwhatinterventionstheyreportasinfluencesonthosecharacteristics.Severalkeyfindingsemergefromouranalyses.

Improving Individual Teacher Quality Characteristicsofindividualteachers,inparticularsubjectandpedagogicalknowledge,arediscussedextensivelyinthedocuments.Awardees’language


25on teacher knowledge emphasizes the importance of subject knowledge,andthisemphasisissimilartorecentpolicyandprofessionalorganizationstatements, aswell as research (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Ferguson&Womack,1993;Goldhaber&Brewer,1997a;Monk,1994;Wilson&Floden,2003).Inaddition,thereisanevidentshiftacrossthisprogramofawardstoplaceincreasedemphasisonthedevelopmentofsubjectknowledge,notjustformiddleandhighschoolteachers,butalsoforelementaryschoolteachers,asevidencedbythecourseandprogramdevelopmentforinserviceteachersattheelementarylevel.Thisknowledgeisspecializedtotheworkofteachersatthislevel(Ball,1991).Whilecertificationforelementaryteachersdoesnotcurrentlyrequireadditionalmathematicsandsciencecoursework,theemphasisinthisportfolioofawardscouldindicateafuturetrendinthepreparationandprofessionaldevelopmentofelementaryteacherstargetedtowardspecializedknowledgeforteachingmathematicsandscience.Inaddition,theprominenceofsubjectpreparationatalllevelsamongtheawardsplacesrenewedemphasison the importanceofmiddle school teachershavingstrongpreparation inmathematicsandsciencecontent. Whilemuch of the pure research in the general domain of teacherqualityusescharacteristicssuchasyearsofexperience,generalability,andcertificationstatusasrepresentationsofteacherquality,awardeesinthepresentstudyweremorelikelytofocusonteachers’subjectknowledge,pedagogicalknowledge,andbehaviors,practices,andbeliefs.Inthecontextofthisawardsprogram,theseresultsarenotsurprising.Theawardsarefundedbasedonasetofproject-specificgoalsandplansfordemonstratingandassessingprogresstowardsthosegoals.Itmakessensethatawardeeswouldfocusonsubjectmatter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and behaviors, practices andbelief,becausethesearecharacteristicsofteachersoverwhichawardees’workmayhavesomeinfluence.Teacherqualityisacomplexconstruct.Awardees’useofmultiplerepresentationsandinterventionsrevealstheirawarenessofthecomplexityinherentininfluencingtheseconstructs.Anawarenessofthiscomplexity alsomakes thembetter able to focusondocumenting teachergrowthasitrelatestoteachers’participationintheactivitiesoftheaward. Thefindingsshowthatawardeeshaveadoptedresearch-basedpracticesinthedesignofprofessionaldevelopmentexperiences(Loucks-Horsley,Hewson,Love,&Stiles,1998).Forexample,alarge-scaleempiricalcomparisonontheeffectsofcharacteristicsofprofessionaldevelopmentonteacherlearning


26foundsignificantpositiveeffectsonthreecorefeatures:focusingoncontentknowledge,promotingactive learning,andfosteringcoherencewithotherlearningactivities(Garet,Porter,Desimone,Birman,&Yoon,2001).Thestudyalsofoundthatstructuralfeatures,includingtypeofactivity,durationoftheactivity,andcollectiveparticipation,significantlyaffectteacherlearning.Inthepresentstudy,awardeesdemonstrateastrongemphasisonmathematicsandsciencesubjectpreparationandPDthatcontainsactivelearning.Coherenceandcollectiveparticipationwerefosteredbyusingteacherlearningnetworksin the samesubjectareas,grade levels, andschools.Thesecharacteristicsindicatedthatawardeeswereknowledgeableaboutthetypesofinterventionsthathavebeenshowntobeeffectiveininfluencinggrowthinmathematicsand science teachers.

Improving Teacher Quantity and Diversity Tracking thequantityanddiversityof the teachersengaged in theseawards is documented atmultiple levels across theprogram.While thesedataareaconstantlymovingtargetforawardees,mostwereabletoreportparticipationanddemographicdataon their teacherparticipants. In termsofinfluencingteacherquantity,someofthemostcommonlyreporteddatawerethenumbersofparticipantsrecruitedtotheawardanditsactivities.TheresearchonteacherquantityindicatesthatteacherturnoverisaprimaryreasonthatadditionalmathematicsandscienceteachersareneededeachyeartofillvacanciesinK-12schools(Ingersoll,2006a;2006b).Forthisreason,awardeescouldplaceadditionalemphasisoninduction,mentoring,andretentioneffortsformathematicsandscienceteacherssothattheseindividualsremainintheteachingprofession. Whilesomeofthefactorsthatcausemathematicsandscienceteachersto leave theprofessionareoutof the controlof the awards (i.e., salaries,administrativesupport,studentbehavior,andstudentmotivation)(Ingersoll,2006a),thereareavarietyofretentionstrategiesthatcanbeimplementedtooffsetthesenegativeinfluences.Oneimportantreasonforawardeestofocusonretentioneffortsthatinfluencethequantityofmathematicsandscienceteachersisthatsupportstructuresthatareputintoplacenowhavethepotentialtolastbeyondthelifeoftheaward.Thesesupportstructurescouldinfluencetheretentionofmathematicsandscienceteachersinaschooloradistrictlongaftertheawardfundingends.Inaddition,therearemanypotentialfindingsthat


27couldemergebyviewingthecollectiveeffortsoftheseawardstoinfluencemathematics and science teacherquantity.Across theprogramof awards,potentialstudiescouldexamineretentioneffortsthatareparticularlyeffectiveunderappliedconditions,providingadditionalevidenceonwaysofretainingmathematics and science teachers. Aswithteacherquantity,influencingteacherdiversityinvolveschangingpopulationcharacteristicsratherthancharacteristicsofindividualteachers,andchangingpopulationcharacteristicstakestime.Researchonteacherdiversityindicateanumberofstrategiesforincreasingthediversityoftheteachingforceover time.Someof these include: improvingK-12educationforminoritystudents,earlyidentification,targetedrecruiting,andsupportthroughvariousstages of teacher education (i.e., initial certification, induction, on-goingprofessional development) (Clewell&Villegas, 1998;Darling-Hammondetal.,1996;Holloway,2002;Jorgenson,2001;Loving&Marshall,1997;Newbyetal.,2000).Themostcommoneffortsdirectedtowardimprovingteacherdiversityamongtheseawardsinvolvedrecruitingminoritycandidatesandimplementingsupportstructuresforminoritycandidates.However,theseactivitieswerereportedbyalessernumberofawards(C1,10-39%ofawards).Whilesomeawardeeshaveselectedresearch-basedimplementationstrategiesforinfluencingteacherdiversity,wide-spreaduseofthesestrategieswasnotevidentinthedocumentsreviewedduringthisanalysis.

Promising Interventions TheinvolvementofSTEMfacultyandTeacherLeaderswasevidentthroughouttheportfolioofawards,acrosssubjectareasandgradelevels,andamongpreserviceandinserviceteacherdevelopmentactivities.TheresultsshowedSTEMfacultymostcommonlyinvolvedascourseinstructors,programdesigners,andcontentexperts,whichcapitalizesonthetypeofworkSTEMfacultydoattheuniversity,andinsomecases,pullsthemoutoftheuniversityenvironmentandintoK-12schools.Forsomethiswasunfamiliarterritory,andSTEM faculty struggled to identifywhere they “fit in.” In addition,traditionaluniversityrewardstructuresforSTEMfacultyoftenhindertheirinvolvementinmathematicsandscienceeducationwork.However,asSTEMfacultyandeducatorsworkedthroughthedesignoftheaward’sactivities,theygainedabetterunderstandingofeachother’swork.AdiscussionbyHymanBassintheBulletin of the American Mathematical Societydescribesthelong


28traditionofcontributionsofnotedresearchmathematicianstomathematicseducationwork(Bass,2005).HehighlightstheimportanceofmathematiciansdevelopinganunderstandingoftheworkofK-12mathematicssothattheycanseewaysthattheirownmathematicalknowledgecancontributetosolutionsformathematicseducationproblems.Asevidencedbytheseawards,manySTEMandeducationfacultyacrossthecountryarecurrentlyworkingtogethertoimprovemathematicsandscienceeducation. Astheawardsend,itwillbeinterestingtoexaminehowthecollaborativerelationships formed amongSTEM faculty, education faculty, andK-12educationwillinfluencetheirfuturecollaborativeworkinK-12mathematicsandscienceeducation.TheMSPProgramawardsprovidedopportunitiesforuniversityfacultyandK-12educatorstounderstandeachothers’professions,pedagogy,and language.Continuinginitiativeshave thepotential tobuildupontheworkstatedduringtheaward.Inparticular,themathematicsandscienceteacherturnoverchallengesfacedbythefieldofeducationarealsofacedinSTEMfieldsintermsofthoseearningSTEMdegrees.RecentreportsshowthattheproportionofstudentsearningdegreesinSTEMfieldshasalsodeclined,andthatfactorscontributingtothisdeclineincludesubparteacherqualityatthehighschoolandcollegelevelsandpoorhighschoolpreparation,amongothers(Ashby,2006).TheseareinterrelatedchallengesthatfacebothSTEMandeducationfaculty,providingacommongoalintheimprovementofmathematicsandscienceteachingatalllevelsK-16. The findings suggest that awardees view teacher leadership as animportantelementintheirinterventioneffortsforimprovingteacherquality,quantity,anddiversity.Whileteacherleadershipisaconstructthathasbeenexaminedintheliteratureforseveraldecades(Hatch,White,&Faigenbaum,2005;Rowan,1990;Smylie,1994),recently,therehasbeenincreasedinterestinteacherleadership,includingbroaderviewsoftheconstruct,anditseffectsonteachingandlearning(Spillane,Halverson,&Diamond,2001;York-Barr&Duke,2004).Muchoftheexistingliteratureonteacherleadershipfocusesonformalrolesofleadership,characteristicsofteacherleaders,andconditionsthatfacilitateteacherleadershipdevelopment;lessresearchfocusesontheeffectsof teacher leadership,particularlyonother teachersandstudents (Smylie,1995;York-Barr&Duke,2004).Thepurposesofteacherleadershipmodelsintheliteratureincludeincentivestoretain,reward,andmotivateteachers;ameansofimprovingteachingandlearningbyprovidingopportunitiesfor


�� teacher development, growth, and collaboration; and ameansof utilizingorganizationalresourcesinordertosupportandsustainreformefforts(Mijus&Harris,2003;Smylie,1995,1996;Webb,Neumann,&Jones,2004;York-Barr&Duke,2004).Thesewerecommonelementsinthedescriptionsofleadershipactivitiesoftheawardees.Anunderlyingassumptionamongawardees’wasthatteacherleadershipwasavehicleforinfluencingteacherquality,quantity,anddiversityinasystematicway.Forexample,whenascienceteacherleaderwithsubjectspecificskillsmentorsanewminorityscienceteacher,theteacherleaderhasthepotentialtoinfluencethenewteacher’ssubjectandpedagogicalknowledge(influencingteacherquality),andtomentorandsupportthenewminorityteacherthroughthefirstfewdifficultyearsofteaching(influencingteacherquantityanddiversity). Mostoftheexistingresearchontheeffectsofteacherleadershiphasfocusedontheeffectsonteacherleadersthemselves(York-Barr&Duke,2004).Evidenceoftheeffectsofteacherleadershipoutsidetheindividualleaderismoreunclear.Animportantelementforfutureresearchonteacherleadershipisafocusonhowleadershipinfluencesteachersandstudentsattheclassroomor“microlevel”(Coggins,Stoddard,&Cutler,2003).Theawardsinthepresentstudyareinauniquepositiontocontributetothisresearch.Withmanyawardsengagedinteacherleadershipwork,andmanydifferentleadershipconfigurationsamongtheawards,thereismuchopportunityforresearchthathasbeenabsentfromtheliterature.Theimpactofmathematicsandscienceteacherleadersonthequality,quantity,anddiversityofteachersiscertainlyworthyoffurtherstudy,andawardeesinthisprogramareinthepositiontoconductthispotentiallymeaningfulresearch.

Conclusion

Severalimportantinsightshaveemergedfromthisexamination.Amongtheawardsthereisarenewedemphasisontheimportanceofsubjectpreparationformathematicsandscienceteachers,andinparticular,ashiftinemphasistoincludespecializedsubjectknowledgepreparationforelementaryteachers.Thisshiftmayhavefutureeffectsonthedesignofpreparationandprofessionaldevelopmentprogramsforteachersattheelementarylevel.Awardeesinthisprogramfocuson thegrowthof teachers in termsof thosecharacteristicsoverwhich theyhave influence, and at the same time they recognize the


30complexity of influencing anddocumenting teacher change.Thefindingsfromtheirownresearchhasthepotentialtoinformeducationalresearchoneffectivepracticesfordocumentingteachergrowthinappliedsettings.Effortsto influence teacher quantity anddiversity are only in their initial stagesformanyawards,as thesearepopulationcharacteristicsandchanging thecharacteristicsofapopulationtakestime.TheinfluenceofTeacherLeadersandSTEMfacultyisprominentthroughouttheawards,astheyareengagedinactivitiesatalllevels(K-12)andinbothsubjectareas(mathematicsandscience).Thefoundationofcollaborationdevelopedduringtheactivitiesoftheawards,amonguniversityfacultyandK-12education,hasthepotentialtocontinuetoinfluenceK-12mathematicsandscienceeducationforyearstocome.Throughtheirworktheseawardshavemadegainstowardimprovingthequality,quantity,anddiversityofthemathematicsandscienceteachingforce.Thevalueoftheseeffortswillberevealedasawardeesdocumentanddisseminatenewknowledgefromtheirinitiativesandexperiences.

***

This research is part of theMath andSciencePartnershipProgramEvaluation(MSP-PE),supportedbyContractNo.0456995fromtheNationalScienceFoundation.TheMSP-PE is led byCOSMOSCorporation,withRobertK.YinofCOSMOSservingasPrincipalInvestigator(PI)andJenniferSchererservingasoneofthreeCo-PrincipalInvestigators.AdditionalCo-PrincipalInvestigatorsandtheircollaboratinginstitutions(includingdisciplinedepartments andmathematics centers) are PatriciaMoyer-PackenhamofGeorgeMasonUniversityandKennethWongofBrownUniversity.OthercollaboratinginstitutionsincludeVanderbiltUniversityandTheMcKenzieGroup.Anyopinions,findings,andconclusionsorrecommendationsexpressedinthismaterialarethoseoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsoftheNationalScienceFoundation.


31References

Adams,P.E.,&Krockover,G.H.(1997).Beginningscienceteachercogni-tionanditsoriginsinthepreservicesecondaryscienceteacherprogram.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34,633-653.

AllianceforExcellentEducation.(2004).Tapping the potential: Retaining an developing high-quality new teachers.Washington,DC:Author.

AmericanStatisticalAssociation.(2007).Using statistics effectively in mathematics education research.RetrievedFebruary25,2007,fromhttp://www.amstat.org/research_grants/pdfs/SMERReport.pdf

Ashby,C.M.(2006).Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics trends and the role of federal programs(GAO-06-702T).Washington,DC:USGovernmentAccountabilityOffice.

Ball,D.(1991).Researchonteachingmathematics:Makingsubjectmatterknowledgepartoftheequation.InJ.Brophy(Ed.),Advances in Research on Teaching(Vol.2,pp.1-41).Greenwich:JAIPress.

Bass,H.(2005).Mathematics,mathematicians,andmathematicseducation.Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 42(4),417-430.

Bogdan,R.C.,&Biklen,A.K.(1998).Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods.Boston:AllynandBacon.

Bolyard,J.J.,&Moyer-Packenham,P.S.(inpress).Areviewofthelit-eratureonmathematicsandscienceteacherquality.Peabody Journal of Education.

Burkam,D.T.,Lee,V.E.,&Smerdon,B.A.(1997).Benderandsciencelearninginearlyhighschool:Subjectmatterandlaboratoryexperiences.American Educational Research Journal, 34, 297-331.

Chaney,B.(1995)Student outcomes and the professional preparation of eighth-grad teachers in science and mathematics.Arlington,VA:Nation-alScienceFoundation.(ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.ED389530)

Clewell,B.C.,&Villegas,A.M.(1998).Diversifyingtheteachingforcetoimproveurbanschools:Meetingthechallenge.Education and Urban Society, 31, 3-17.


32Coggins,C.T.,Stoddard,P.,&Cutler,E.(2003,April).Improving instruc-

tional capacity through school-based reform coaches.PaperpresentedattheannualmeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,Chicago,IL.

CouncilofScientificSocietyPresidents.(2004).The need for well-qualified science and math teachers.RetrievedMarch5,2006,fromtheCouncilofScientificSocietyPresidentsWebsite:www.nctm.org/news/2004_12_cssp_position.pdf

ConferenceBoardoftheMathematicalSciences(CBMS).(2001).The Mathematical Education of Teachers – Issues on Mathematics Education (vol.11).Providence,RI:AmericanMathematicalSociety.

Dandy,E.B.(1998).Increasingthenumberofminorityteachers:Tappingtheparaprofessionalpool.Education and Urban Society, 31, 89-103.

Darling-Hammond,L.(2000).Teacherqualityandstudentachievement:Areviewofstatepolicyevidence.Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1).RetrievedFebruary2005fromhttp://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1

Darling-Hammond,L.,Berry,B.,&Thoreson,A.(2001).Doesteachercer-tificationmatter?Evaluatingtheevidence.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23,57-77.

Darling-Hammond,L.,Dilworth,M.E.,&Bullmaster,M.(1996).Educa-tors of Color. Washington,DC:NationalAllianceofBlackSchoolEduca-tors.(ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.ED474898)

Darling-Hammond,L.,&Youngs,P.(2002).Defining“highlyqualifiedteachers”:Whatdoes“scientifically-basedresearch”actuallytellus?Edu-cational Researcher, 31(9),13-25.

Druva,C.A.,&Anderson,R.D.(1983).Scienceteachercharacteristicsbyteacherbehaviorandbystudentoutcome:Ameta-analysisofresearch.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20,467-479.

Ehrenberg,R.G.,&Brewer,D.J.(1994).Doschoolandteachercharac-teristicsmatter?EvidencefromHighSchoolandBeyond.Economics of Education Review, 13(1),1-17.

Ehrenberg,R.G.,&Brewer,D.J.(1995).Didteachers’verbalabilityandracematterinthe1960s?Colemanrevisited.Economics of Education Review, 14(1),1-21.


33Ehrenberg,R.G.,Goldhaber,D.,D.,&Brewer,D.J.(1995).Doteachers’race,gender,andethnicitymatter?EvidencefromtheNationalEduca-tionalLongitudinalStudyof1988.Industrial and Labor Relations Re-view, 48,547-561.

Evertson,C.M.,Hawley,W.D.,&Zlotnik,M.(1985).Makingadifferenceineducationalqualitythroughteachereducation.Journal of Teacher Edu-cation, 36(3),2-12.

Ferguson,P.,&Womack,S.T.(1993).Theimpactofsubjectmatterandeducationcourseworkonteachingperformance.Journal of Teacher Edu-cation, 44,55-63.

Ferguson,R.F.(1991).Payingforpubliceducation:Newevidenceonhowandwhymoneymatters.Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28,465-498.

Ferguson,R.F.,&Ladd,H.F.(1996).Howandwhymoneymatters:AnanalysisofAlabamaschools.InH.F.Ladd(Ed.),Holding schools ac-countable: Performance-based reform in education(pp.265-298).Wash-ington,DC:BrookingsInstitution.

Fetler,M.(1999).Highschoolstaffcharacteristicsandmathematicstestresults. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(9).Retrievedfromhttp://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n9

Ferrini-Mundy,J.,&Schmidt,W.H.(2005).Internationalcomparativestudiesinmathematicseducation:Opportunitiesforcollaborationandchallengesforresearchers.Journal for Research in Mathematics Educa-tion, 36(3),164-175.

Fraenkel,J.R.,&Wallen,N.E.(1993).How to design and evaluate re-search in education(2nded.).NewYork:McGraw-Hill,Inc.

Garet,M.S.,Porter,A.C.,Desimone,L.,Birman,B.F.,&Yoon,K.S.(2001).Whatmakesprofessionaldevelopmenteffective?Resultsfromanationalsampleofteachers.American Educational Research Journal, 38(4),915-945.

Gess-Newsome,J.,&Lederman,N.G.(1993).Preservicebiologyteachers’knowledgestructuresasafunctionofprofessionalteachereducation:Ayearlongassessment.Science Education, 77,25-45.

Goe,L.(2002).Legislatingequity:ThedistributionofemergencypermitteachersinCalifornia.Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(42).Re-trievedJune2,2005,fromhttp://epaa.asu.edu/v10n42/


34Goldhaber,D.D.,&Brewer,D.J.(1997a).Evaluatingtheeffectofteacherdegreeleveloneducationalperformance.InW.J.Fowler(Ed.),Develop-ments in School Finance, 1996(pp.197-210).Washington,DC:NationalCenterforEducationStatistics,U.S.DepartmentofEducation.

Goldhaber,D.D.,&Brewer,D.J.(1997b).Whydon’tschoolsandteach-ersseemtomatter?Assessingtheimpactofunobservablesoneducationalproductivity.The Journal of Human Resources, 32,505-523.RetrievedMay25,2005,fromJSTORdatabase.

Goldhaber,D.D.,&Brewer,D.J.(2000).Doesteachercertificationmat-ter?Highschoolteachercertificationstatusandstudentachievement.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2),129-146.

Greenwald,R.,Hedges,L.V.,&Laine,R.D.(1996).Theeffectofschoolresourcesonstudentachievement.Review of Educational Research, 66,361-396.

Guarino,C.M.,Hamilton,L.S.,Lockwood,J.R.,&Rathburn,A.H.(2006).Teacher qualifications, instructional practices, and reading and mathematics gains of kindergarteners. Research and development report (NCESNo.2006-031).Washington,DC:NationalCenterforEducationStatistics.

Guyton,E.,&Farokhi,E.(1987).Relationshipsamongacademicper-formance,basicskills,subjectmatterknowledge,andteachingskillsofteachereducationgraduates.Journal of Teacher Education, 38(5),37-42.

Hanushek,E.(1971).Teachercharacteristicsandgainsinstudentachieve-ment:Estimationusingmicrodata.The American Economic Review, 61,280-288.

Hanushek,E.(1992).Thetrade-offbetweenchildquantityandquality.The Journal of Political Economy, 100(1),84-117.RetrievedJanuary20,2006,fromJSTORdatabase.

Hanushek,E.(1996).Amorecompletepictureofschoolresourcepolicies.Review of Educational Research, 66,397-409.

Haselkorn,D.,&Fideler,E.(1996).Breaking the class ceiling: Paraeduca-tor pathways to teaching.Belmont:MA:RecruitingNewTeachers.


35Hatch,T.,White,M.E.,&Faigenbaum,D.(2005).Expertise,credibility,andinfluence:Howteacherscaninfluencepolicy,advanceresearch,andimproveperformance.Teachers College Record, 107,1004-1035.Down-loaded5/4/06fromBlackwellSynergyhttp://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/tcre/107/5

Hawk,P.P.,Coble,C.R.,&Swanson,M.(1985).Certification:Itdoesmatter. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3),13-15.

Hawk,P.P.,&Schmidt,M.W.(1989).Teacherpreparation:AcomparisonofTraditionalandalternativeprograms.Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5),53-58.

Hawkins,E.F.,Stancavage,F.B.,&Dossey,J.A.(1998).Schoolpoliciesandpracticesaffectinginstructioninmathematics:FindingsfromtheNationalAssessmentofEducationalProgress.Washington,DC:U.S.De-partmentofEducation,OfficeofEducationalResearchandImprovement.(ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.ED424116)

Hiebert,J.,Gallimore,R.,Garnier,H.,Givvin,K.B.,Hollingsworth,H.,Jacobs,J.,etal.(2003).Teaching Mathematics in Seven Countries: Re-sults from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study(No.NCES2003-013Revised).WashingtonD.C.:U.S.DepartmentofEducation,NationalCenterforEducationStatistics.

Hill,H.C.,Rowan,B.,&Ball,D.L.(2005).Effectsofteachers’mathemat-icalknowledgeforteachingonstudentachievement.American Educa-tional Research Journal, 42(2),371-406.

Holloway,J.H.(2002).Mentoringfordiversity.Educational Leadership, 59(6),88-89.

Houston,W.R.,Marshall,F.,&McDavid,T.(1993).Problemsoftradition-allypreparedandalternativelycertifiedfirst-yearteachers.Education and Urban Society, 26(1),78-89.

Ingersoll,R.M.(2001).Teacherturnoverandteachershortages:Anorga-nizationalanalysis.American Educational Research Journal, 38(3),499-534.

Ingersoll,R.M.(2006a).Is there really a shortage of mathematics and sci-ence teachers?RetrievedJune15,2006,fromhttp://hub.mspnet.org/in-dex.cfm/12703


36Ingersoll,R.M.(2006b).Understandingsupplyanddemandamongmath-ematicsandscienceteachers.InJ.Rhoton&P.Shane(Eds.),Teaching Science in the 21st Century,(pp.197-211).Arlington,VA:NSTAPress.

Johnson,S.M.,Berg,J.H.,&Donaldson,M.L.(2005).Who stays in teaching and why: A review of the literature on teacher retention.Cam-bridge,MA:HarvardGraduateSchoolofEducation.RetrievedJune15,2006,fromwww.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt

Johnson,S.M.,&Birkeland,S.E.(2003).Pursuinga“senseofsuccess:Newteachersexplaintheircareerdecisions.American Educational Re-search Journal, 40(3),581-617.

Jorgenson,O.(2001).Supportingadiverseteachercorps.Educational Leadership, 58(8),64-67.

Kirby,S.N.,Berends,M.,&Naftel,S.(1999).Supplyanddemandofmi-norityteachersinTexas:Problemsandprospects.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21,47-66.

Latham,A.S.,Gitomer,D.,&Zimonek,R.(1999).Whattheteststellusaboutnewteachers.Educational Leadership, 56(8),23-26.

Lindquist,M.M.(2001).NAEP,TIMSS,andPSSM:Entangledinfluences.School Science and Mathematics, 101(6),286-291.

Loucks-Horsley,S.,Hewson,P.W.,Love,N.,&Stiles,K.E.(1998).De-signing professional development for teachers of science and mathemat-ics.ThousandOaks,CA:CorwinPress,Inc.

Loving,C.C.,&Marshall,J.E.(1997).Increasingthepoolofethnicallydiversescienceteachers:Amid-projectevaluation.Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8,205-217.

Lutz,F.W.,&Hutton,J.B.(1989).Alternativeteachercertification:Itspolicyimplicationsforclassroompersonnelpractice.Educational Evalu-ation and Policy Analysis, 11,237-254.

McMillan,J.H.,&Wergin,J.F.(2002).Understanding and evaluating educational research(2nded.).UpperSaddleRiver,NewJersey:MerrillPrenticeHall.

Mijus,D.,&Harris,A.(2003).Teacherleadership—improvementthroughempowerment?Anoverviewoftheliterature.Educational Management and Administration, 31,437-448.

Miles,M.B.,&Huberman,A.M.(1994).Qualitative data analysis(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.


37Miller,J.W.,McKenna,M.C.,&McKenna,B.A.(1998).Acomparisonofalternativelyandtraditionallypreparedteachers.Journal of Teacher Edu-cation, 49,165-176.

Monk,D.H.(1994).Subjectareapreparationofsecondarymathematicsandscienceteachersandstudentachievement.Economics of Education Review, 13(2),125-145.

Monk,D.H.,&King,J.A.(1994).Multilevelteacherresourceeffectsinpupilperformanceinsecondarymathematicsandscience:Thecaseofteachersubjectmatterpreparation.InR.G.Ehrenberg(Ed.),Choices and consequences: Contemporary policy issues in education(pp.29-58).Ithaca,NY:ILRPress.

Moyer,P.S.,Kitsantas,A.,Bolyard,J.J.,Huie,F.,Irby,N.,&Oh,H.(2007).A focused analysis of MIS survey items: Who are the designers and providers of preservice and inservice teacher activities in the MSP Program?Unpublishedmanuscript.

Moyer-Packenham,P.S.,Bolyard,J.J.,Kitsantas,A.,&Oh,H.(inpress).Theassessmentofmathematicsandscienceteacherquality.Peabody Journal of Education.

Murnane,R.J.,&Phillips,B.R.(1981).Whatdoeffectiveteachersofin-ner-citychildrenhaveincommon?Social Science Research, 10,83-100.

NationalCommissiononMathematicsandScienceTeachingforthe21st Century.(2000).Before it’s too late: A report to the nation from the na-tional commission on mathematics and science teaching for the 21st cen-tury.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofEducation.RetrievedFebruary20,2007fromhttp://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/report.pdf

NationalCouncilofTeachersofMathematics.(1991).Professional stan-dards for teaching mathematics.Reston,VA:Author.

NationalCouncilofTeachersofMathematics.(2005).Highly qualified teachers.RetrievedApril25,2006fromhttp://www.nctm.org/about/posi-tion_statements/qualified.htm

NationalResearchCouncil.(1996).National Science Education Standards. RetrievedFebruary22,2007fromtheNationalAcademiesWebsite:http://books.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/4.html

NationalScienceFoundation.(2007).MSP goals, structure and composi-tion.RetrievedFebruary21,2007,fromhttp://www.nsf.gov/ehr/MSP/nsf05069_3.jsp


38NationalScienceTeachersAssociation.(2002,February).Learning condi-

tions for high school science.RetrievedApril25,2006,fromhttp://www.nsta.org

NationalScienceTeachersAssociation.(2004,July).Science teacher prep-aration. RetrievedApril25,2006,fromhttp://www.nsta.org

Neild,R.C.,Useem,E.,Travers,E.F.,&Lesnick,J.(2003).Once & for all: Placing a highly qualified teacher in every Philadelphia classroom. Philadelphia,PA:ResearchforAction.

Newby,D.E.,Swift,K.L.,&Newby,R.G.(2000).Encouragingandre-cruitingstudentsofcolortoteach.Multicultural Education, 8(1),8-14.

NoChildLeftBehindActof2001,Pub.L.No.107-110,115Stat.1425(2002).

Patton,M.Q.(1990).Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.

Peterson,P.L.,Fennema,E.,Carpenter,T.P.,&Loef,M.(1989).Teachers’pedagogicalcontentbeliefsinmathematics.Cognition and Instruction, 6, 1-40.

Rice,J.K.(2003).Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington,DC:EconomicPolicyInstitute.

Riley,R.W.(1998).Ourteachersshouldbeexcellent,andtheyshouldlooklikeAmerica.Education and Urban Society, 31, 18-29.

Rivkin,S.G.,Hanushek,E.A.,&Kain,J.F.(2005).Teachers,schools,andacademicachievement.Econometrica, 73(2),417-458.

Rowan,B.(1990).Commitmentandcontrol:Alternativestrategiesfortheorganizationaldesignofschools.Review of Research in Education, 16,353-389.

Rowan,B.Correnti,R.,&Miller,R.J.(2002).Whatlarge-scale,surveyresearchtellsusaboutteachereffectsonstudentachievement:InsightsfromtheProspectsstudyofelementaryschools.Teachers College Re-cord, 104,1525–1567.

Sandlin,R.A.,Young,B.L.,&Karge,B.D.(1992).Regularlyandalterna-tivelycredentialedbeginningteachers:Comparisonandcontrastoftheirdevelopment.Action in Teacher Education, 14(4),16-23.

Shen,J.(1998).Alternativecertification,minorityteachers,andurbanedu-cation.Education and Urban Society, 31(2),30-41.


39Shen,J.,Wegenke,G.L.,&Cooley,V.E.(2003).Hasthepublicteachingforcebecomemorediversified?Nationalandlongitudinalperspectivesongender,race,andethnicity.Educational Horizons, 81,112-118.

Shulman,L.S.(1986).Thosewhounderstand:Knowledgegrowthinteach-ing. Educational Researcher, 15(2),4-14.

Silver,E.A.,&Kenney,P.A.(2000).Results from the seventh mathematics assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress.Reston,VA:NationalCouncilofTeachersofMathematics.

Smith,T.M.,&Ingersoll,R.M.(2004).Whataretheeffectsofinductionandmentoringonbeginningteacherturnover?American Educational Research Journal, 41(3),681-714.

Smylie,M.A.(1994).Redesigningteachers’work:Connectionstotheclassroom.InL.Darling-Hammond(Ed.),Review of research in educa-tion(Vol.20,pp.129-177).Washington,DC:AmericanEducationalRe-searchAssociation.

Smylie,M.A.(1995).Newperspectivesonteacherleadership.Elementary School Journal, 96,3-7.

Smylie,M.A.(1996).Frombureaucraticcontroltobuildinghumancapi-tal:Theimportanceofteacherlearningineducationreform.Educational Researcher, 25(9),9-11.

Spillane,J.P.,Halverson,R.,&Diamond,J.B.(2001).Investigatingschoolleadershippractice:Adistributedperspective.Educational Re-searcher, 30(3),23-28.

Stake,R.E.(1995).The art of case study research.ThousandOaks,CA:SAGEPublications.

Strauss,A.(1987).Qualitative analysis for social scientists.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Strauss,A.,&Corbin,J.(1998).Basics of qualitative research.ThousandOaks,CA:SAGEPublications.

Strauss,R.P.,&Sawyer,E.A.(1986).Somenewevidenceonteacherandstudentcompetencies.Economics of Education Review, 5,41-48.

TexasCenterforEducationalResearch.(2000).The cost of teacher turn-over.Austin:TexasStateBoardforEducatorCertification.


40Torres,J.,Santos,J.,Peck,N.L.,&Cortes,L.(2004).Minority teacher

recruitment, development, and retention. Providence,RI:BrownUniver-sity,TheEducationAlliance.(ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.ED484676)

Valli,L.,&Agostinelli,A.(1993).Teachingbeforeandafterprofessionalpreparation:Thestoryofahighschoolmathematicsteacher.Journal of Teacher Education, 44,107-114.

VonSecker,C.(2002).Effectsoninquiry-basedteacherpracticeonscienceexcellenceandequity.Journal of Educational Research, 95, 151-160.

Webb,P.T.,Neumann,M.,&Jones,L.C.(2004).Politics,schoolimprove-ment,andsocialjustice:Atriadicmodelofteacherleadership.The Edu-cational Forum, 68,254-262.

Wilson,S.&Floden,R.E.(2003).Creating effective teachers: Concise Answers for Hard Questions. An Addendum to the Report “Teacher prep-aration research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations.”Edu-cationCommissionoftheStates.(ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.ED476366)

Wilson,S.M.,Floden,R.,&Ferrini-Mundy,J.(2001).Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. A research report prepared for the U.S. Department of Education.Seattle:CenterfortheStudyofTeachingandPolicy,UniversityofWashington.RetrievedMarch2005fromhttp://www.ctpweb.org/

York-Barr,J.,&Duke,K.(2004).Whatdoweknowaboutteacherleader-ship?Findingsfromtwodecadesofscholarship.Review of Educational Research, 74,255-316.

41

Cultural Dimensions in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics: Implications for Minority Retention Research

Jeffry L. WhiteAshland University

James W. AltschuldOhio State University

Yi-Fang LeeNational Chi Nan University

AbstractThe college retention rates for underrepresented minorities (URM) in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) are lower than other groups. One reason may be that the studies often do not view premature departure from a cultural perspective. This exploratory investigation focused on developing an instrument that employed a cultural perspective to detect differences based on racial/ethnic group affiliation. The instrument derived from the literature is examined using principal components analysis in an attempt to discover the underlying constructs and identify meaningful variables. Multivariate analysis was used for comparing groups. A description of the study is presented and its application with a sample of underrepresented minorities from 15 public and private universities in Ohio.

Introduction

The number of underrepresented minorities (URM) earning college degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) are significantly lower than white and Asian students (Armstrong & Thompson, 2003; Astin, Parrott, Korn, & Sax, 1997; Jonides, 1995; Marguerite, 2000; Mashburn, 2000; Morrison, 1995; Swail, Redd, & Perna, 2003; Wyer, 2003). More than half of African-American and Native American students entering


42STEM drop out or change majors and two-thirds of Hispanics fail to matriculate (Astin, 1993). Successful persistence is influenced by many factors such as high school preparation, grade point average, past course work in math and science (George, Neale, Van Horne, & Malcom, 2001) and maintenance of interest (White, Altschuld, & Lee, 2006). This study was designed to probe an area needing more investigation - the role of culture and its effect on STEM retention rates (Seymour, 1992; Seymour & Hewitt, 1994; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997).

Review of the Literature

For more than a quarter century, Tinto’s (1975, 1987) theory on retention has been one of the models for understanding why some students leave post secondary institutions early. Tinto espouses that in order to be successful, students must adapt to the dominant culture of the institution. In other words, “…the more marginal one’s group is to the life of the college, the more likely is one to perceive oneself as being separate from the institution” (Tinto, 1993, p. 60).

His paradigm has not been without critics when applied to minorities (Attinasi, 1994; Kraemer, 1997; Rendón, Jalomo & Nora, 1996; Tierney, 1992). The problem is that the model fails to take into consideration the unique experiences of diverse students (Braxton, Sullivan & Johnson, 1997; Hurtado, 1997; Nieto, 1996; Velásquez, 1996; Zambrana, 1988).

While many studies indicate culture affects student perceptions, and in turn their satisfaction and academic interest (Astin, 1993; Kuh, Schuh, Whitt & Associates, 1991; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991), universities have been slow to adopt such a cultural lens in programs designed to improve persistence (Kuh, 2001). Mertens and Hopson (2006) note this and suggest institutions “go beyond business as usual” (p. 48) in examining STEM departure. To that end Kuh and Love (2000) offer the following propositions:

1. The university experience and decision to leave, is influenced by the student’s cultural meaning making system.

2. The culture of origin influences the importance placed on attending college and persistence toward educational goals.

3. Knowledge of students’ cultures of origin and cultures of immersion is necessary to understand their ability to successful navigate the culture


43 of the institution.

4. The likelihood of persistence is inversely related to the cultural distance between the student’s culture of origin and culture of immersion.

5. Students that negotiate greater cultural distances must become acclimated to the dominant culture of immersion or join one or more enclaves in order to persist.

6. The amount of time students spend in their culture of origin following matriculation is positively related to level of stress and probability of persistence.

7. The likelihood of persistence is related to the degree a student is socio-culturally connected with the academic program and groups of common interest.

8. Students who are engaged with one or more enclaves in the cultures of immersion have higher probabilities of persistence if the group values academic success and persistence. (p. 201)

In the first proposition, the emphasis is on how students view and engage with the university. The second and third acknowledge that college students come from many diverse backgrounds and college campuses are multi-cultural in nature. Numbers 4, 5, and 6 introduce the concept of cultural distance and elaborate on the challenges URM encounter when they arrive on campus. Success is interrelated with how well students traverse the distance between the campus community and culture of origin. Finally, in the last two propositions, the importance of connections with the culture of origin is noted as a determinant for academic success.

In relation to non-white students, criticism of Tinto (1975, 1987, 1993) has primarily focused on the assimilation and acculturation assumptions which somewhat fail to capture their experiences. When Kuh and Love’s (2000) propositions are taken into consideration, the disparity between Tinto’s theory and practice becomes apparent and as a result, many researchers call for alternatives that examine departure from a cultural perspective (Braxton, Sullivan & Johnson, 1997; Hurtado, 1997; Nieto, 1996; Velásquez, 1996; Zambrana, 1988). The eight propositions are a possibility in this regard.


44The Role of Culture and Conflict with the Sciences

Ibarra’s (1999) theory of multicontextiality posits that today’s postsecondary students are products of multiple cultural contexts. Many minority students come from cultures that value interdependence and collective contribution and do not attend college just for themselves, but rather to benefit family and community (Gregory & Hill, 2000). Choice of academic majors can almost be a collective rather than an individual decision. Expanding on Ibarra’s (in press) assumptions, Seymour and Hewitt (1997) see these “cultural imperatives” (p. 337) as significant for persistence in STEM. They are not shared equally across ethnic groups. A comparison of aspects of them is depicted in Table 1.

Table 1Comparison of Cultural Values

Cultural ValueAfrican

American(urban)

African American (suburban)

Hispanic AsianAmerican

NativeAmerican

(reservation)

NativeAmerican

(other)

Community service Yes No Yes No Yes No

Role model Yes Yes Yes No Yes No

Academics and family Yes No Yes No Yes No

Parents define goals No No No Yes No No

Self assertiveness No Yes No No No No

Self reliance and autonomy Yes Yes No No No Yes

Supportive peer group No No Yes No Yes No

Source: Adapted from Persistence of Interest in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics: An Analysis of Persisting and Non-Persisting Students (p. 54) by J. L. White, 2005. Copyright © 2005 Jeffry L. White.

For the first entry in Table 1, many minorities report a strong sense of obligation to repay their communities for the support received while in college (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). This obligation is viewed as an essential component of the student role that cannot be deferred until graduation, which


45 in turn leads to a conflict between the rigorous demands of STEM programs and the need to give back to the community while in school.

Another relevant idea here is the sense of role model obligation (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). As successful college students, they serve as examples to others. If they begin to struggle in STEM, they’ll consider dropping out or moving to another (possibly less rigorous) discipline. In African-American households regardless of economic status, persistence in a particular academic major is not as essential as graduation from college. For the most part, family and friends support the decision to switch to a non-STEM major as long as students do not drop out of college.

Asian-Americans tend to be an exception to this point (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). They view their parents as taking an authoritarian approach in educational decision making. STEM majors and grades earned are associated with financial success and social prestige. Switching majors is not socially acceptable or culturally valued.

The rigorous nature of STEM can create family problems for some minority students. Conflict arises for some when they have to balance academic demands and family responsibilities reaching even to the extended family (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). There is a need to return home for celebrations or crises that non-minorities see as important only in the immediate family. The responsibilities for inner-city blacks and Hispanics often include making financial contributions to the family group. This is in stark contrast to Asian-American students who are expected to devote full attention to their roles as students.

Students of color are typically more self-effacing than white students and less likely to take action when encountering problems on campus (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997), except for African-Americans from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. Those from lower socioeconomic strata have longstanding cultural reasons for viewing themselves as being in an oppressive system. This view does not foster assertiveness on campus whereas affluent black students are self-assertive in the pursuit of academic and career goals. The latter have moved to a stance where they will be more action-oriented in this regard.

Many Hispanic, Native-American, and Asian students report problems in developing self-reliance and autonomy on campus (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). The social norms however, are different for these groups. Asian-Americans have feelings of limited personal control and authoritarian parents. Lower


46autonomy and self-reliance are also culturally derived for Native-American and Hispanic students. They describe the extended family as their main source of affirmation and its demands can come into conflict with the academic press of STEM disciplines. Native-American and Hispanic students also report being homesick for family-centered activities. This is amplified when few other Native-Americans and Hispanics are around and may lead to a switch to majors that have more representatives from their own ethnicity.

Among all ethnic groups, African-Americans are the only group to culturally encourage and promote self-reliance (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). For the most part, they become more responsible at an earlier age such as helping with childcare, assistance with the elderly or having part-time jobs to help support the immediate or wider family. Like older and non-traditional students, they typically will have periods of interrupted education.

The concepts of self-reliance and assertiveness are different. For example, affluent African-American families view assertiveness as necessary for the success of young black men and women (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). Self-reliance, on the other hand, relates to the economic survival or self-sufficiency of the family unit.

While the demands of extended families can create academic problems for some URM in STEM, they also can be a source of affirmation and emotional support. Students struggling in class frequently turn to family members. When they are unavailable, they will substitute people on campus (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997).

There are also subtle variations in how some groups deal with academics. While nearly all minorities in the STEM disciplines benefit from peer study groups, Native-American and Hispanic students look to them for support similar to that received from family and friends (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). Conversely, self-reliance and autonomy may clash with the function of the peer study group for African-Americans. A lack of understanding of the rigor of the STEM majors can also contribute to this problem. Many black students arrive on campus without sufficient knowledge of the importance of peer learning to academic progress. These students are particularly at risk for premature departure when they are alone and struggling academically.

For Asian-Americans, peer group work provides little assistance to students experiencing academic difficulties (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). Asian-American study groups reflect the family values of good grades and pressure


47 to succeed. Success is supported whereas failure elicits rejection and social disapproval. Support and affirmation are given to the students doing well but not to those seeking emotional assistance.

Seymour and Hewitt’s (1997) views about culture are somewhat antithetical to the assumption that college students must conform to the institutional culture rather than the system adopting strategies to meet their needs (Ibarra, 1999). Ibarra (in press), in support of Seymour and Hewitt, contends that higher education is at a critical juncture and must redefine itself within a multicultural context. The entries in Table 1 provide an overview of how group membership defines student response to college situations and they may suggest ways of studying underrepresentation in the STEM fields.

Key Questions Guiding the Study

An investigation was undertaken to collect evidence about cultural dimensions. The researchers were interested in creating an instrument with items related to culture and whether they would be useful in differentiating groups.

Context of the Study The Ohio Science and Engineering Alliance (OSEA) is a group of 15 public and private institutions with the goal of increasing the number of URM earning baccalaureate degrees in STEM. The consortium is a five-year project funded by the National Science Foundation’s Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation. The universities are engaged in a variety of retention activities including research internships, mentoring, tutoring, supplemental education, and others. Underrepresented minorities make up approximately 11% (4,304) of the undergraduate enrollment at the OSEA schools (38,848) and have departure rates similar to those nationwide (Hayes, 2002; Ohio Science and Engineering Alliance, 2003).

Methodology

Study Design and Sampling The study was exploratory. Its purpose was to determine how well the instrument worked and to illuminate differences among students based on


48group membership. It was conducted in concert with the overall evaluation of OSEA programs and activities (Altschuld, Lee, & White, 2005). Due to the qualitative nature of Seymour and Hewitt’s (1997) original work, there was no preexisting scale. Based upon their ideas about culture, the authors constructed a Web-based instrument and distributed it to a sample of URM (n = 1,217) randomly selected from the OSEA database. A MANOVA was employed to detect group differences. Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and internal consistency measures were also used to determine the quality of the instrument.

Descriptive Results The study achieved a return rate of approximately 14%, consistent with the expectations for on-line surveys (Dillman, 2004). A frequency distribution of the respondents (n = 166) based on gender, class rank, and race/ethnicity is presented in Table 2.

Table 2Characteristics of Respondents

Variable Attribute Frequency Percent Cumulative %

Gender(n = 166)

Male 70 42.2 42.2Female 95 57.2 99.4Missing 1 0.6 100.0

Class Rank(n = 166)

Freshmen 42 25.3 25.3Sophomore 39 23.5 48.8

Junior 34 20.5 69.3Senior 48 28.9 98.2Other 2 1.2 99.4

Missing 1 0.6 100.0

Race/Ethnicity(n = 166)

African-American 100 60.2 60.2

Hispanic 47 28.3 88.5Native American 3 1.8 90.3

Bi-racial 9 5.4 95.7Other 6 3.6 99.3

Missing 1 0.6 100.0Other Race/

Ethnicity(n = 6)

African 2 33.3 33.3Jamaican 1 16.7 50.0Missing 3 50.0 100.0


49 More females responded to the survey (57%) and the distribution was relatively proportionate across class ranks. Nearly two-thirds identified themselves as African-American and less then a third (28%) as Hispanic. Five percent of the sample indicated they were bi-racial and the “other race/ethnicity” classification consisted of African (2) and Jamaican (1) students.

InstrumentationAs noted, the study was exploratory, serving as a base upon which a

more comprehensive instrument could be developed at a later time. Due to the nature of the OSEA evaluation, only a small number (10-13) of items could be embedded in the overall evaluation form. With that in mind, an initial pool of survey questions was conceptualized and developed. An item classification table was employed to guide item writing. Items were reviewed by a panel and an outside reviewer and than pilot-tested with a group of STEM students participating in a major OSEA summer activity. Items with little or no variability were excluded and suggestions for rewording or phrasing were incorporated into a final version.

Subjects were asked to rate their agreement with 11 cultural statements. A 5-point Likert scale was used with a neutral mid-point and in which 1 = Strongly Disagree up to 5 = Strongly Agree. The data were treated as being (at a low level) interval in nature (Guttman, 1977; Velleman & Wilkinson, 1993). The means and standard deviations for the 11 items are presented in Table 3.

The overall mean was 3.88 (SD = 1.10). Most of the statements had means averaging 4.00 with two exceptions. In Q6, 28.8% of the students disagreed or disagreed strongly and 17.9% were neutral. In item Q5, more than 45% disagreed or disagreed strongly, 20.2% were neutral, and nearly 30% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. On the other hand, more than 50% of the respondents to Q1 strongly agreed that their education should be used to improve the quality of life in their community. Less than 6% disagreed or disagreed strongly with this statement. The Pearson inter-item correlations are presented in Table 4. Since all items are designed to measure aspects of culture, intercorrelations were expected and generally ranged between .10 and .70. The very high and very low correlations are underlined in the table. For example, the correlation between Q2 and Q3 (.763) may have been influenced by placement on the survey - an order effect. It could also be the result of socially desirable responses.


50Table 3Means and Standard Deviations of Survey Items

Survey Items N* M SDQ1: My education should be used to improve the quality of life in my community. 166 4.25 .98

Q2: My STEM study is important for service to my community. 165 3.98 1.01Q3: I should be a STEM role model for young people in my community. 164 4.07 1.02Q4: Graduation from college is more important even if I switch to a non-STEM major. 166 4.13 1.24

Q5: I have conflicts between my family responsibilities and the demands of my STEM major. 166 2.80 1.48

Q6: Family and friends play a significant role in shaping my educational goals. 166 3.49 1.34

Q7: I can be assertive in dealing with issues I face on campus. 166 4.08 .94Q8: I support my friends regardless of their academic performance. 166 4.10 .96Q9: I feel comfortable in my campus community. 166 4.03 1.05Q10: I feel comfortable in my STEM classrooms and labs. 165 3.81 1.07Q11: I am confident in my ability to achieve in my STEM classes. 165 3.99 .99Average 165.55 3.88 1.10

Note: *Varying N indicates non-response to item.

Table 4Pearson Inter-item Correlation Matrix

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11Q1 1.00Q2 .685 1.00Q3 .523 .763 1.00Q4 .212 .275 .226 1.00Q5 .071 .176 .152 .063 1.00Q6 .125 .228 .233 .180 .257 1.00Q7 .298 .371 .376 .173 .169 .327 1.00Q8 .414 .424 .370 .233 .210 .141 .398 1.00Q9 .360 .316 .230 .305 .000 .126 .264 .489 1.00Q10 .310 .340 .349 .196 .025 .081 .201 .318 .600 1.00Q11 .281 .408 .436 .246 .134 .111 .254 .273 .409 .664 1.00

The correlation between Q1 and Q2 (.685) was not surprising since bothstatements are related to the student’s service to his or her community. Analogously, the correlation (.664) between feeling comfortable in STEM


51 classrooms (Q10) and confident in one’s ability to achieve in STEM (Q11) may be due to the similar content of the items. The same rationale may apply to the relationship (.600) of feeling comfortable on campus (Q9) and in STEM classrooms (Q10). When examining low intercorrelations, most were < .300 and associated with Q5 (I have conflicts between my family responsibilities and the demands of my STEM major).

Validity and Reliability of the InstrumentSince these concepts about culture in the literature overlap, it was

necessary to look at the underlying dimensions of the scale. Principal components analysis (PCA) is suitable for this situation, i.e., it reduces the data and helps identify meaningful clusters inherent in the dataset (Dunteman, 1989). Consistent with this investigation, PCA is also recommended as an exploratory tool.

The sample size was sufficient (MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, & Hong, 1999; Stevens, 2002) and an orthogonal rotation was performed, followed by an oblique one. They yielded parallel results, so the simpler orthogonal rotation became the main focus of interpretation (Stevens, 2002). Then the internal consistency of the instrument was examined via Cronbach’s (1951) alpha. Table 5 contains a breakdown of the PCA, including the factor loadings, commonalities, amount of variance explained and reliability coefficients.

Table 5Results of PCA with Item Loadings, Commonalities, Variance Explained and Reliability Coefficients

Derived Variable Item Loadings Commonalities Variance Reliability

#1: Obligation to community Q1 .812 .702

37.2%.852

(n = 165)Q2 .881 .846Q3 .818 .736

#2: Responsibility to family and friends

Q5 .711 .52512.6%

.391

(n = 168)Q6 .761 .575

#3: Comfortable and confident feelings

Q9 .815 .687

9.9%.790

(n = 166)Q10 .856 .763

Q11 .725 .590


52The Kaiser Criterion (eigenvalues ≥ 1) and Scree Plot indicated retention

of three components, accounting for approximately 60% of the total variance. Three items (Q4, Q7, Q8) loaded on two or more of the components and were dropped. From the eight retained items, two (Q5, Q6) had the lowest commonalities and reliability values. This was consistent with the findings from the low mean scores (Table 3) and intercorrelation matrix (Table 4). Two of the retained components had strong factor loadings (.70+) and high alpha coefficients (.80+).

The greatest amount of variability in the instrument (37.2%) is due to the obligation to the community derived from Component #1. The smallest amount (9.9%) is found in Component #3, comfortable and confident feelings. While Component #2, responsibility to family and friends, accounted for 12.6% of the variance, it also had the lowest measure of internal consistency (.391).

Multivariate Analysis of Variance The group sizes were reviewed for sufficiency before attempting to detect differences. With only a few Hispanic, Native American, biracial and other (no race/ethnicity specified) respondents, a decision was made to collapse these students into one group for comparison with African Americans. The results of the MANOVA are presented in Table 6.

Table 6Multivariate Analysis of Cultural Dimensions Survey

Effect Value FHypothesis

dfError

df PPartial

ε²

Intercept Pillai’s Trace .774 64.333a 8.000 150.000 .000 .774

Wilk’s Lambda .226 64.333a 8.000 150.000 .000 .774

Hotelling’s Trace 3.431 64.333a 8.000 150.000 .000 .774

Roy’s Largest Root 3.431 64.333a 8.000 150.000 .000 .774

Group Pillai’s Trace .159 1.626 16.000 302.000 .061 .079

Wilk’s Lambda .847 1.621a 16.000 300.000 .062 .080

Hotelling’s Trace .174 1.616 16.000 298.000 .064 .080

Roy’s Largest Root .112 2.115b 8.000 151.000 .038* .101

Note: a = exact statistic; b = statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level; * p < .05.


53 The Wilk’s Lambda value (Λ = .847, p = .062) indicated non-significance as did the omnibus multivariate statistic Pillai’s Trace = .159: F (16,302) = 1.626, p = .061. Wilk’s Lambda is more commonly used for overall significance and Pillai’s criterion is more robust with declining sample sizes (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1998). Conversely, the p-value for Roy’s Largest Root indicated significance (p < .05). This statistic is the largest characteristic root “difference” (Harris, 1985) and can sometimes be equated with the largest eigenvalue representing the proportion of explained to unexplained variance (Field, 2005). It also measures the maximum possibility of actual differences existing between the groups on an item. From the Partial Eta Squared (ε = .101), approximately 10% of the variability was attributed to the group effect. Post hoc testing (Scheffe) denoted significance (p < .05) on one item, (Q1) my education should be used to improve the quality of life in my community. It should be noted that the dilemma with Roy’s Largest Root is that when dealing with small sample as was the case in this study, it can be less robust than the other multivariate tests.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the results, we postulate that items dealing with culture are a viable option to pursue and study further when conducting retention research. Two of the identified components, obligation to community and responsibility to family/friends, resonate with the thinking of Seymour and Hewitt (1997) and account for nearly half of the instrument’s total variance. The third, comfortable and confident feelings, is also found in the literature (Prenzel, 1992; White, Altschuld, & Lee, 2006). These components are most likely important in regard to academic decisions and related to staying in school and/or STEM. Survey items loading on two or more components will require revision. Item Q4 (Graduation from college is more important even if I switch to a non-STEM major) is one such example. This is because graduating from college and graduating with a specific major (STEM or otherwise) are two different constructs. This line of questioning came from the view that, for some groups, graduation from college was paramount regardless of type of degree earned. Q7 (I can be assertive in dealing with issues I face on campus) loaded on multiple components for similar reasons. The reason for this may be that it


54asked for the student’s agreement with a statement about assertiveness and whether they confronted (dealt with) the issues they faced on campus. These are unique concepts and the item could be improved if split into multiple ones. Further, dealing with issues could be divided into academic, social, family, and other concerns.

For the item I support my friends regardless of their academic performance (Q8), which loaded on three components, a socially desirable response cannot be discounted. Dropping the linkage between support and academic performance might eliminate the problem. The reliability coefficient (.391) for the responsibility to family/friends component is less than desirable (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000) and is likely the result of both the small number of items and the very low intercorrelations of Q5 with Q1 and Q4. By adding more items for this construct, the alpha value would tend to increase. In addition, the overall instrument would benefit from having more items for each component. The revised instrument should aim for four or more survey items with loadings on components greater than .60 or at a minimum of three greater than .80 (Stevens, 2002).

The range of values for the factor loadings presented in Table 5 (.711-.881), fall well within the criteria stated by Stevens (2002). Eight questions in the preliminary form worked well and should be fine-tuned, not discarded. Instead, a new and expanded scale should be constructed using these items as a foundation from which more could be developed.

The study was less conclusive in detecting differences based on ethnic affiliation. This may relate to the size of the sample and small number of Hispanic and Native Americans. A more conclusive examination will require a larger sample of more students majoring in STEM from multiple groups.

Closing Thoughts The cultural items were far from comprehensive. Aside from more and better items, other things might be done. With regard to different groups, filter questions and perhaps qualitative techniques could be helpful in assigning membership to a particular subgroup such as urban or suburban African American students or Hispanic and Native Americans? Beside the filters, personal interviews may be necessary to determine subtle features of a student’s socialization and/or affiliation, such as a Native American student’s experiences with extended family on a reservation. It would be beneficial to


55 have experts in the dynamics of various cultures to assist in designing how to capture group membership.

There are other indicators that might be useful for retention research. Can indicators like zip code of residence, socioeconomic status, and secondary school district be employed? Some students graduate from suburban districts yet may reside in low income neighborhoods. At the same time, is income a true indicator? What’s important here is that multiple methods and sources of data will be needed before researchers can meaningfully classify students into different groups and socialization patterns as these might affect participation in the STEM fields.

A more comprehensive study of student cultural background as a factor related to entering and staying in STEM is indicated. The number of items should be increased and the quality improved for testing with a more diverse sample from other regions of the country. Knowing more about culture as a factor in STEM persistence, might help counselors and program administrators enhance their retention services.

***

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Ohio Science and Engineering Alliance and the technical assistance provided by Jing Zhu at Ohio State University in this project.

References

Altschuld, J. W., Lee, Y. F., & White, J. L. (2005, September). Aspects of minority student retention in STEM: Evaluation of a major retention pro-gram. Paper presented at the Evaluation Summit: Evidence-Based Find-ings for Math and Science Partnerships (MSP). Minneapolis.

Armstrong, E., & Thompson, K. (2003). Strategies for increasing minori-ties in the sciences: A University of Maryland, College Park, model. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9(2), 40-50.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


56Astin, A. W., Parrott, S. A., Korn, W. S., & Sax, L. J. (1997). The Ameri-

can freshman: Thirty-year trends. Higher Education Research Institution, University of California at Los Angeles: Los Angeles.

Attinasi, Jr., L. (1994, April). Is going to college a rite of passage? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.

Braxton, J. M., Sullivan, A. V. S., & Johnson, R. M. (1997). Appraising Tinto’s theory of college student departure. In J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: A Handbook of Theory and Research, 12, 107-164. New York: Agathon Press.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

Dillman, D. (2004). Internet surveys: Back to the future. The Evaluation Exchange, 3, 6-7.

Dunteman, G. H. (1989). Principal components analysis. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, (07-069). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

George, Y. S., Neale, D. S., Van Horne, V., & Malcom, S. M. (2001). In pursuit of a diverse science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce: Recommended research priorities to enhance participation by underrepresented minorities. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Gregory, S. T., & Hill, O. O. (2000). Improving learning outcomes for at-risk multicultural community college students. In S.T. Gregory (Ed.), The academic achievement of minority students: Perspectives, practices, and prescriptions. 491-513. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Guttman, L. (1977). What is not what in statistics. The Statistician, 26, 81-107.

Hair, Jr., J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Mul-tivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Harris, R. (1985). A primer of multivariate statistics. Orlando, FL: Aca-demic Press.


57 Hayes, R. Q. (2002, June). 2001-02 CSRDE Report: The retention and

graduation rates in 360 colleges and universities. Center for Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.

Hurtado, A. (1997). Understanding multiple group identities: Inserting women into cultural transformations. Journal of Social Issues, 53(2), 299-328.

Ibarra, R. A. (1999, October). Multicontextuality: A new perspective on minority underrepresentation in SEM academic fields. Making Strides (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 1(3), 1-9.

Ibarra, R. A. (in press). Academia at a cultural crossroads: Reframing the context of higher education. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Jonides, J. (1995). Evaluation and dissemination of an undergraduate pro-gram to improve retention of at-risk students. (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. ED414841).

Kerlinger, F., & Lee, H. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Publishers.

Kraemer, B. A. (1997). The academic and social integration of Hispanic students into college. Review of Higher Education, 20, 163-179.

Kuh, G. D. (2001). Organizational culture and student persistence: Pros-pects and puzzles. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theo-ry & Practice, 3(1), 23-39.

Kuh, G. D., & Love, P. G. (2000). A cultural perspective on student depar-ture. In J.M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle, 196-212. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. S., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (1991). Involving col-leges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and personal development outside the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84-99.

Marguerite, B. H. (2000). Pathways to success: Affirming opportunities for science, mathematics, and engineering majors. Journal of Negro Educa-tion, 69(1-2), 92-111.


58Mashburn, A. J. (2000). A psychological process of student dropout. Jour-

nal of College Student Retention, 2, 173-190.Mertens, D. M., & Hopson, R. K. (2006). Advancing evaluation of STEM

efforts through attention to diversity and culture. New Directions for Evaluation, 109, 35-51.

Morrison, C. (1995). Retention of minority students in engineering: Institu-tional variability and success. NACME Research Letter, 5, 3-23. National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering: New York.

Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicul-tural education (2nd ed.), New York: Longman.

Ohio Science and Engineering Alliance. (2003) LSAMP: The Ohio Sci-ence and Engineering Alliance. (NSF Cooperative Agreement No. HRD-0331560). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

Prenzel, M. (1992). The selective persistence of interest. In K. A. Ren-ninger, S. Hidi & A. Krapp (Eds.), Interest in learning and development (pp. 71-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Rendón, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (1996). Theoretical considerations in the study of minority student retention in higher education. In C.S. Turner, A.L. Antonio, M. Garcia, B.V. Landen, A. Nora, & C.L. Presley (Eds.) Racial and ethnic diversity in higher education (2nd ed.), (pp. 584-600). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Seymour, E. (1992). The problem iceberg in science, mathematics, and en-gineering education: Student explanations for high attrition rates. Journal of College Science Teaching, 21, 230-238.

Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1994, April). Talking about leaving: Fac-tors contributing to high attrition rates among science, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate majors. Bolder, CO: Bureau of Sociological Research, University of Colorado.

Seymour, E. & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why under-graduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Swail, W. S., Redd, K. E., & Perna, L. W. (2003). Retaining minority stu-dents in higher education: A framework for success. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series.


59 Tierney, W. G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation

in college. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 604-618.Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of

recent research. Review of Education Research, 45, 89-125.Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of stu-

dent attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of stu-

dent attrition. (2nd ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Velásquez, P. M. (1996, April). The integration and persistence of Chicano

students in higher education: Student and institutional characteristics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Re-search Association. New York.

Velleman, P. F., & Wilkinson, L. (1993). Nominal, ordinal, interval and ra-tio typologies are misleading. The American Statistician, 47(1), 65-72.

White, J. L., Altschuld, J.W., & Lee, Y.F. (2006). Persistence of interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: A minority reten-tion study. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 12(1), 47-65.

Wyer, M. (2003). The importance of field in understanding persistence among science and engineering majors. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9(3-4), 76-90.

Zambrana, R. E. (1988). Toward understanding the educational trajectory and socialization of Latina women. In T. McKenna & F.I. Ortiz (Eds.), The broken web: The educational experience of Hispanic American wom-en, (pp. 61-77). Claremont, CA: Tomás Rivera Center.

60

El Escalafón y el Doble Turno: An International Perspective on School Director Preparation

Charles L. SlaterCalifornia State University - Long Beach

Mike Boone, Sarah Nelson and Maria De La Colina Texas State University - San Marcos

Elizabeth GarciaSchool Improvement Resource Center in Texas

Leticia GrimaldoUniversity of Texas - Austin

Grace RicoHutto Independent School District

Sonia Rodríguez and Cheryl Sirios Texas State University - San Marcos

Damaris WomackLanier High School

Jose Maria Garcia GardunoUniversidad Estatal de Hidalgo en Mexico

Ruth ArriagaUniversidad del Noroeste en Mexico


61 AbstractEl Escalafón is the process for appointing school directors and el Doble Turno is the double shift of morning and afternoon sessions in Mexican schools. These two concepts open the door to examine more general issues in the appointment of school directors and the structure of the school day. Director appointment and school time are rooted in local culture but can have implications across national borders. This study reports interviews of six first-year school directors in the state of Sonora, Mexico and six principals in Texas, USA. It is part of a larger international study that includes Australia, Canada, England, Jamaica, Scotland, South Africa, and Turkey. The purpose is to look at the appointment, preparation, and challenges of first-year school directors. School directors in both countries wrestled with parent expectations and relations with teachers. The systems for appointing school directors and the structure of the school day were different. These differences were based in cultural orientations and suggested contradictions and shortcomings in each educational system. These issues are important to consider in planning programs of educational administration preparation.

Introduction

In recent decades the economic, technical and socio-cultural forces that drive globalization have pushed education into the forefront of international interest. “Education,” write Dimmock and Walker, “is increasingly viewed as a key lever for national economic competitiveness and development” (2005, viii). Yet for all its prominence in the eyes of governmental policy makers, education remains a culturally embedded enterprise, and the values that drive educational practices remain tied to the cultural values of a particular society.

For a considerable period of time the study of educational leadership has been undertaken from a largely Western perspective, making it ethnocentric and mono-cultural (Dimmock & Walker, 2000, 2005; Diaz-Loving, 1999; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996; Heck, 1998; Leithwood & Duke, 1998). This limited view is both inward looking and dismissive of the nature of leadership in non-Western societies. Such an approach also ignores the benefits of examining the phenomenon of educational leadership across cultures, among which is the ability to recognize other values and other ways of doing things (Hallinger & Leithwood, 1998). Cross-cultural study can lead us away from


62a one dimensional, universalistic conceptualization of leadership and into a deeper understanding of the complexities of leadership in all societies (Fidler, 1997).

The call to broaden the study of educational leadership has not gone unheeded. For example, Slater, Boone, Price, Martinez, Alvarez, Topete and Olea (2002) reported on the differences in educational leadership preparation programs in Mexico and the United States. Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, Dorfman, and Javidan (1999) looked at the issue of culture-specific leadership theories. Oplatka’s (2004) study of principals in developing countries revealed a number of common features of the role. These included limited autonomy for principals, predominance of an autocratic leadership style, a low-degree of change initiation on the part of principals, and a lack of instructional leadership functions.

Clarke and Wildy (2004) delved into the complex pressures confronting principal/teachers in remote Australian schools. Huber (2004) and his colleagues produced an extensive study of school leader preparation programs in Europe, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, and North America (excluding Mexico). This study resulted in a series of nineteen recommendations for designing and conducting training and development programs for school leaders. The recommendations provide “stimuli for school leader development programs” in the countries examined (Huber et. al., 2004, p. xiii), but might also serve as quality standards for preparation programs or even as certification/licensure standards.

This study extends the international work with a specific examination of the school director appointment process and the structure of time in schools in Mexico and the US. It is part of a larger international study of the challenges of first-year principals that includes Australia, Canada, England, Jamaica, Scotland, South Africa, and Turkey. The purpose is to improve educational administration preparation.

Educational Administration Preparation Programs: The United States Each state in the U.S. establishes requirements for certification of school leaders; thus preparation programs vary widely in admission standards, program content, and innovativeness (Hale & Moorman, 2003). Browne-Ferrigno and Shoho (2002) note that two-thirds of the states require that principals have a minimum number of years of teaching experience, hold an administrative certificate, and complete a state-approved preparation program. Admission


63 criteria for entry into principal preparation programs may include Graduate Record Examination scores, undergraduate grade point average, in-depth interviews with candidates, and assessment-center activities (Creighton & Jones, 2001). Practices such as school district nominations, cohort formation, and individual assessment of leadership potential are also widely employed (Jackson & Kelley, 2002). In addition to setting standards for principal certification, many states have also established standards for preparation programs. At least thirty-five states have adopted or adapted the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards for Principal Preparation (Hale & Moorman, 2003) to shape principal preparation programs. The original ISLLC standards have been embedded in the accreditation standards of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). NCATE has delegated the review of principal preparation programs to a consortium of the four professional school administrator groups, The Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC). About one third of US principal preparation programs currently hold ELCC accreditation (Orr, 2006.) Many states also use a mandatory state-level licensing examination to assess the quality of principal preparation programs.

Criticisms of Educational Administration Preparation: The U.S. Principal preparation programs in university schools of education have come under increasingly hostile criticism in the past few years. The most recent of these critiques comes from Arthur Levine, President of Teacher’s College, Columbia University. Levine’s Educating School Leaders takes a critical look at the state of principal preparation programs in the U.S. schools of education and concludes that, with few exceptions, these programs “range from inadequate to appalling” (Levine, 2005, p. 24). Levine measured the quality of principal preparation programs against nine indicators: clarity of purpose, coherence of purpose and curriculum, curricular balance between theory and practice, a faculty composed of academics and practitioners, rigorous admissions criteria, requirements for degrees, the utility of the faculty’s research to practice, adequate financial support from the university, and continuing efforts of the program to assess itself. Levine concluded: “Collectively, school leadership programs are not successful on any of the nine criteria” (p. 23). Levine’s ideal for leadership preparation in the U.S. is Britain’s National College for School Leadership, established in 1998 by Prime Minister Tony


64Blair (Levine, 2005). The characteristics of this program that particularly appeal to Levine were an approach to leadership preparation that was geared to the stages of the leader’s career from aspiration to mastery; a multi-disciplinary faculty drawn from across the university; the use of “active modes of pedagogy” (p. 55) such as case studies, problem-based instruction, and field-based experiences; and program success measured by the achievement of students in schools led by the program’s graduates. Levine urged adoption of these practices as a way to redeem educational leadership preparation programs, and perhaps schools of education themselves. Jerome T. Murphy (2006) is in general agreement with Levine and other critics of leadership preparation. While Murphy noted that criticisms of education schools in general and leadership preparation in particular were nothing new, the current political climate may provide “the external pressure needed to spur schools of education to embrace widespread reform” (p. 490). In particular, the widespread recognition that principal leadership is central to school improvement, the loosening of the university’s control of administrator preparation, and the heightened attention being paid to the relevance of higher education may compel schools of education to place their houses in order. Young, Crow, Orr, Ogawa, and Creighton (2005) responded to Educating School Leaders with a more positive report of educational administration preparation. They argued that Levine did not acknowledge ongoing reforms, failed to point out programs that were doing well and did not distinguish between certification and degree programs. Other researchers similarly argued that the structure of principal preparation in the U.S. had undergone significant attention in recent years, as have efforts to evaluate the impact of preparation programs on the effectiveness of new school leaders (Barnett, 2003; Bloom, Barnett, & Strong, 2003; Daresh & Male, 2000; Hall, Berg, & Barnett, 2003; Whitaker & Barnett, 1999).

Educational Administration Preparation Programs: MexicoPrincipal preparation in Mexico had its beginnings in the early 1900s

when the School of Higher Education of the National University (La Escuela de Altos Estudios de la Universidad Nacional) started a principal preparation program. However, by the 1920s the program had disappeared and another university-based program would not emerge until decades later.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, institutions of higher education began to offer courses in organization and educational management,


65 supervision and evaluation. In 1975, a Master’s degree in Administration and Development Programs in Human Resources at the School of Higher Education in Management and Administration (Escuela Superior de Comercio y Administración, ESCA) was established to train administrators for educational systems in Latin America and the Caribbean (Alvarez, 2003). The first modern-day undergraduate program in educational administration was implemented in 1979 at National Pedagogical University (Universidad Pedagogica Nacional, UPN).

During the 1980s, the availability of principal preparation courses expanded considerably. For example, in 1984, the National Poly-Technical Institute (Instituto Politécnico Nacional, IPN) established the Master’s program in Administration of Institutions of Higher Education. In 1989, ESCA founded the Master’s in Administration and Development of Education (MADE, 1989), aimed at the formation of leaders in educational institutions and coordinators of research projects (Alvarez, 2003). At the same time, workshops and Bachelor’s and Master’s programs in educational administration were implemented in private schools across the country. In 1998 the Secretariat of Public Education (Secretaria Educación Pública) established the first national curriculum for the preparation of school administrators (Alvarez, 2003).

In 1992 and 1993, the National Agreement for Modernization of Elementary Education (Acuerdo Nacional para la Modernización de la Educación Básica) and the General Education Law (La Ley General de Educación) established standards for the decentralization of the operation of schools, promotion of social participation from all stakeholders, redefinition of basic education, a re-examination of the value placed on the teacher’s role, and redesign of preparation programs for primary and secondary school directors. These standards led to the Education Development Program (Programa de Desarrollo Educativo 1995-2000, PDE) that created the first national courses for elementary and secondary school principals (Alvarez, 2003).

The Schools of Quality Project (Programa de Escuelas de Calidad, PEC) had two fundamental ideals: participation of the school with the community and consensus on the way the project should be implemented. Part of the funding was allocated to teacher development and more than 15,000 school directors had access to staff development courses in public and private universities. The International Institute for Educational Planning (IIPE-UNESCO, Buenos Aires) has had considerable influence in promoting nine inter-related


66competencies for educational administrators throughout Latin America including Mexico. The standards specified competencies for educational administrators in strategic planning, leadership, communication, delegation, conflict negotiation, problem solving, teamwork, anticipation, and participation of diverse communities (Pozner, 2000).

Criticisms of Educational Administration Preparation: MexicoPrograms for the preparation of educational administrators in Mexico and

Latin America have been given special attention in the last decade (Braslavky & Acosta, 2001). Despite plans for decentralization and advancement of educational administration, decision-making is still concentrated within the Secretariat of Public Education (Secretaría de Educación Pública, SEP). Alvarez (2003) characterized educational management in Mexico as centralized, bureaucratic, and authoritarian, with short-term goals and significant isolation between government sectors and society. The system is characterized by centralized changes rather than initiatives emerging from educators at the local level. Legislation, rules and regulations are rigid with little flexibility for creativity and innovation. Furthermore, Garcia (2004) reported that less than thirty percent of the courses taught at the National Pedagogical University (University Pedagógica Nacional, UPN) were related to the basic knowledge of educational management, but teachers were often not trained in their field, and future administrators did not participate in a field experience prior to beginning their principalship. This lack of relevancy in course content and absence of field based practice is particularly problematic given the systemic challenges school leaders in Mexico face, including lack of adequate school funding, the influence of the teacher’s union, and over-centralization of management.

Unlike other Latin American countries, Mexico has a strong teacher’s union. The National Teachers Union plays such a dominant role in education that it tops the list of issues that confront public education in Mexico. Education authorities, including the teacher’s union, are seen as rife with cronyism and unable or unwilling to react to the nation’s educational problems in creative ways (Martin & Solorzano, 2003).

Garcia (1999) added the issue of school hours as one of the hardest to resolve. The excessive load that is given to school administrators and the shortened school day are not sufficient to achieve educational goals. There are


67 two sessions of four and half hours each day. School directors and teachers usually serve in two schools. The length of the school day may not allow adequate time for student learning.

Lack of adequate funding hinders the effectiveness of the system. Increasing numbers of middle and upper class parents opt for private education, particularly at the primary and university levels. The nation continues to struggle with school failure and high drop-out numbers, especially among rural and indigenous populations. Further, the exodus of young people crossing the Mexico-United States border for better educational opportunities and jobs represents a loss of valuable human resources (Martin & Solórzano, 2003).

First-year principals Barnett and Shoho (2003) note that beginning principals face a number of challenges for which their preparation programs have adequately prepared them. Among these challenges are the high number of tasks and volume of paperwork to be completed on a daily basis, the lack of time to devote to curricular and instructional concerns, conflict with staff members, the intractability of school culture, the need to establish a trust relationship with staff members, inability to control their own time, problems in dealing with difficult parents, and the need to foster change in the school.

At the same time, novice principals reported finding unexpected challenges in defining their role, managing their time, socialization into the profession, isolation from peers, and negative interaction with parents and community members (Barnett & Shoho, 2003; Begley, 2000; Chapko & Buchko, 2001; Normore, 2004). These unexpected challenges are evidence that effective leader preparation programs must equip new principals for rapid and dramatic adjustment to the demands of the job. Moreover, these challenges lend support to the notion that a principal’s career can be conceptualized as unfolding in a series of developmental stages (Hart, 1993; Louis, 1980). In their review of the research on the challenges facing novice school leaders, Barnett and Shoho (2003) noted that new principals spend a great deal of time attempting to understand the peculiar dynamics of their school organization, assessing staff member’s strengths and weaknesses, and determining areas of need. By their second year, principals were ready to begin to initiate changes and take actions to shore up areas of need. It is during this critical two-year period when new principals either develop the confidence and competence to become effective school leaders or burn out.


68 The school principal’s role is more demanding today than it has perhaps ever been (Ferrandino, 2001; Flanary & Terehoff, 2000), and the challenges of the position seem to come from every direction. But Nathan (2004) reminds us that the toughest challenge is “to remain focused on what teachers and students need most when the daily routine of running a school and its innumerable minor crises become overwhelming” (p. 82). This focus can clarify the principal’s job remarkably.

Methods

Our research looked at how new-to-profession principals were appointed and what challenges they faced. The especially challenging research task was to take a cross-cultural perspective to look at educational administration in both the U.S. and Mexico. Educational leadership is an artifact of the cultural traditions and values of the society in which it is exercised (Dimmock & Walker, 2005). Cultural influences in educational leadership are multifaceted and often subtle. They are often difficult to discern by those outside the culture. Within a culture, people take habits for granted at an unconscious level. The task for the researcher is to describe the regularities and listen to the voices of those native to the culture. Coming from outside gives the vantage of another culture and leads to the question as to what appears unfamiliar or unusual. The exploration of this question is the heart of cross-cultural work.

We start with these additional questions: How will the responses vary between the Mexico and the U.S.? Are some of the differences cultural? What insights can we garner from these differences? What implications should be addressed in educational administration preparation?

Because this was a cross-cultural study, we paid careful attention to cultural perspectives both in the data collection and analysis. Researchers from La Universidad del Noroeste, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico and from Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, United States worked collaboratively to recruit participants, conduct interviews, and analyze the data.

Participants The research team, consisting of professors and doctoral students from the two universities, identified potential participants in each of the geographic regions surrounding the universities. For purposes of consistency


69 and comparison across settings, only principals of elementary or basica schools who were in their first year of principalship or directorship were considered. Six school directors of education basica from Mexico (two males and four females) agreed to participate and were interviewed in fall 2005. Six participants in the U.S. (three males and three females) were identified and interviewed in spring 2006. The participants were relatively similar in age with a range from 32-48 years. The participants were also similar in level of education; the majority of participants held a Master’s degree, including all of the U.S. participants and half of the participants from Mexico. In terms of educational experience, however, the participants were much more diverse. The participant with the fewest years of experience had six years, while the most experienced participant had worked in the field for 26 years. Interestingly, the Mexico participants were significantly more experienced than their U.S. counterparts. The average number of years of experience of Mexico participants was 19.8 years, whereas the average for the U.S. participants was 14.7 years. Although all of the participants were in their first year as principal or director, the number of months they had been in the position varied due in part to when they were interviewed, but also due to when they were appointed, as not all were appointed at the beginning of the school year.

Interviews We chose the interview as the qualitative method most appropriate for our inquiry as interviews answer questions that “stress how social experience is created and given meaning” (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998, p. 8). In an attempt to gain understanding of multiple aspects of the novice principal experience, the interview focused on five themes: 1) initial appointment; 2) preparation; 3) reasons for becoming a school director; 4) challenges; and 5) recommendations. These themes guided the development of the interview guide. Participants completed a Background Data form to descriptive statistical data that aided in the analysis. Following the completion of the form, individual interviews were conducted by teams consisting of one professor and one Ph.D. student. One team member served as the interviewer while the other monitored the recording device and took notes. The interviewers utilized a semi-structured interview guide that contained primary and follow-up questions concerning the five themes. To provide consistency across interviews, the primary question


70for each theme was read exactly as written. Interviewers asked follow-up questions from a suggested list on the interview guide to probe for more information or clarification as needed. A final, open-ended question was posed at the conclusion of each interview to allow the participant to report additional information or ask questions at his or her discretion. Each interview lasted 60 to 80 minutes.

AnalysisThe work of Patton (2002), Lincoln and Guba (1985), and Strauss and

Corbin (1998) helped to guide this qualitative work. Such inquiry is open ended with few preconceived notions about the views of the participants. The goal was to understand their stories and report thick descriptions with less emphasis on causality. This type of study exerts less control than a quantitative approach, but still must meet standards of verifiability. These data were subject to a method of constant comparison, a process of continual discovery, questioning and confirmation. Results may not generalize to other settings, but they can meet the standard of transferability as determined by those who would apply the results. Throughout the analysis, there was an attempt to be faithful to the voices of the participants. To facilitate analysis, the interviews were summarized in three steps. First, immediately following the interview, each interview team wrote an initial summary of the session based on the session notes and their recollections of what occurred during the interview. Second, the U.S. researchers read the initial summaries, listened to the tapes of the interviews, and wrote a more detailed summary for each participant. Third, the U.S. researchers summarized the responses by question. That is, the responses from all the participants to a particular question were grouped so that the responses could be easily compared. The U.S. researchers worked as a team to read each summary and identify themes, first for the Mexican school directors and then for the U.S. participants. The team strove for precision and conscientiousness and to review constantly the data with open questioning for true understanding. To encourage varying points of view to emerge, the research team designated time in each analysis session during which objections and critiques were raised and considered. Through this process of “selecting, focusing simplifying, abstracting, and transforming (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 10), the team reduced the data


71 so that its meaning could be succinctly conveyed. We attempted to uncover and categorize patterns and examine convergences and divergences (Patton, 2002).

Limitations The sample size was small and caution was taken not to generalize to the rest of Mexico or the U.S. Logistical and technical constraints restricted opportunities to verify some interpretations of the data with participants. Mexico participant interviews were conducted in Spanish and translated to English, and the participation of the Mexican researchers was limited to reviewing the summaries written by the U.S. researchers. Given these limitations, according to Merriam and Simpson (2000) we must stop and ask ourselves, is our data trustworthy? Do we believe it? Do we have confidence in it? After careful consideration, we concur that our data and our interpretation are, in fact, trustworthy. Our data tell a particular story, set in a particular time, of a particular group of novice school leaders. And though it is a particular story, it is a story that adds to our understanding of the novice principal experience and the role preparation programs play in creating successful school leaders.

Results

Two interview questions can serve to highlight differences between the U.S. and Mexico and suggest important issues for administrator preparation: How were the principals appointed? What challenges did they report?

Appointment Mexico. In Mexico, all six participants were appointed as principal of their school through a process called escalafón, which awards points to educators for years of experience, professional courses, and teaching evaluations. Applications for director (principal) are reviewed by a commission of state-level administrators and representatives of the teacher union. The commission selects directors based on the applicants with the highest total scores. Interestingly, the coursework which is considered in this process does not have to be directly related to educational administration because there are few educational administration programs available in most regions of the country.


72 One of the participants cautioned that there is little trust in the escalafón because no one really knows if the people hired are the most qualified or really have the greatest number of points. One participant said that people know of many incidents of malpractice when positions are directed away from the person with the most points. Others made informal comments after the interviews about their mistrust of the system. U.S. In Texas, five out of the six participants were appointed as principals of a campus after having been an assistant principal. Their experience as an assistant principal varied from three to eight years. One of the participants had no prior experience as an assistant principal before being named principal of a campus but worked in central office as an assistant to an associate superintendent. This position allowed him to meet several principals in the district, which inspired him to apply for a principal position the following year. All of the Texas participants with the exception of one had to go through an interview process to be selected as principal of their schools. An interview committee is made up of teachers, administrators, and community members in the school. The size of the committees varies and can be made up of all or some of the above stakeholders. The applicant is asked a series of questions by the committee or is asked to respond to scenarios. The committee members make a collaborative decision on who they feel is the best fit for the school based on the applicant interviews. There is also a considerable body of law that governs these interviews. Committee members must use a uniform procedure with all candidates and refrain from asking questions that would discriminate by race, gender, age, sexual orientation, or handicapping condition.

Most Significant Challenge Each participant was asked to describe the greatest challenge that he or she faced in the first year of the principalship. Not surprisingly, most of the participants had difficulty limiting their responses to a single challenge and instead named several. While there were commonalities in their responses, each participant also described at least one unique challenge.

Mexico. When asked what had been most challenging to her as a first year director, Cecilia replied simply, “Time.” Cecilia was frustrated that she had responsibilities without the time to complete them. She shared her frustration of how her superiors require a lot of documentation and give her little time to


73 complete it. She received notices of documentation several days after the due date and had to explain why she had not submitted the paperwork on time.

She stated time affects everything: the quality of education, the projects she is expected to carry through, and her work with teachers. She teaches a doble turno or second shift. Teachers and directors work two shifts, most often at different schools to earn a full-time salary and retirement benefits.

Cecilia spoke about projects she is expected to implement, but does not because she cannot implement them in the manner in which they are intended, due to limited time. She shared her frustration in not being able to work with teachers, knowing the teachers are in need of assistance, but instead she is busy filling out paperwork.

Cecilia wished that she had more time to teach teachers how to identify students in need of assistance. They were not able to identify students in need of extra help or students who may need evaluation. Teachers said that not a single student on campus was in need of assistance even though students were working below their level according school examinations.

Samuel shared several problems that he faced during his first year. The administration did not allow him to dedicate his labors to what he considered most important, such as orienting teachers, attending student events, and communication. He felt limited in his ability to do what he felt was necessary. Samuel’s biggest frustrations came from the limits placed on him by others.

Samuel also mentioned the roles and responsibilities of school employees. Teachers used him to resolve discipline cases with students. Teachers sent students to him so that he could keep them, which Samuel felt was taking away from what he should be doing as a school director. He pointed out that many of the teachers lacked the vision and commitment necessary to work with him.

He also mentioned lack of educational equipment at his school. He struggled to provide the resources that teachers and students need in the classroom. They had a copy machine, but it was not used as often as they would like because of the cost to maintain and operate it.

As part of his initiative to improve the school, Samuel implemented a series of strategies for resolving problems. He designated what was expected of teachers by creating a list of duties that pointed out responsibilities for each teacher. He designed tools to evaluate and measure the quality of teacher


74work. Also, he met with parents to get them involved with the school and established a system of motivation for good student behavior.

Maria said that she had the benefit of coming from a large school. The previous director had quit due to ongoing conflicts with parents who had complained about certain teachers. These complaints originated with their unhappiness with teachers’ work styles and this fueled their mistrust for the school. Due to this ongoing turmoil the director and teachers involved left the campus. This history of conflict affected how the parents accepted Maria as the new director and they were reluctant to trust her judgment. She mentioned how this was no longer a problem and said, “Those complaints are now out of the jurisdiction of the school.”

Maria went on to mention that some of the children have family and economic problems. She said, “They are on the edge.” At the beginning of her appointment she felt insecure in her ability to deal with the school population and said, “Sometimes I am not prepared for this type of situation or these physical aggressions.”

Her main challenge was assessing the pedagogy of the school. She explained that she has experience in technical and pedagogical assessment that has improved her expertise in curriculum and proclaimed, “I know how it should be done. I want the opportunity to work on the methodology aspect, to develop reading and to propose the reforms of the Elementary Study Plan of 1993.” She emphasized the need for curriculum improvement and felt that teacher trainers were not capable of preparing good teachers. Her goal as director was to be able to help her teachers improve instruction. She believes this type of support is possible with direct interaction with teachers through “informal staff development, frequent classroom visits, and suggestions for improvement without imposition on the teachers.”

Although Sandra recognized her lack of experience for this job, she felt capable as a leader. She mentioned that her 22 years of expertise in the field of education helped her to accomplish her objectives as a school principal. Nevertheless, Sandra experienced several challenges regarding teachers and staff who resisted the change in administration. Her administrative style was much more strict than the previous administrator who had served for ten years. She imposed deadlines and expected things to get done:

I went ahead to get my work done and the teachers asked me why I was not helping them with their work. I was helping them, but not the way


75 they were expecting. I was very frank with them and told them that I had to fulfill my responsibilities including meeting the deadlines, which was my first priority at the moment….This is a process of adaptation as much for them as for me, and I tell them that we must be open to the challenges of change and respect each other because I also have supervisors that request things from me, and I must accept those requests whether I like it or not.

Since Sandra started this position, she has had conflict with the teachers and staff. She had the most trouble with a teacher and the office manager who both had been working in the school for ten years. She transferred the office manager to another campus. She concluded, “I can’t predict what will happen in the future but I am sure that communication and hard work in both ends of the organization (principal/staff) are essential in order to succeed in my job as a principal.”

Pilar’s school is in need of money for building maintenance, equipment, materials and supplies. She expressed concern because the system did not adequately pay teachers or administrators. Everyone in the school worked long hours. She used herself as an example when she mentioned that she did not get home until 8:00 P.M. Teachers and administrators usually work two shifts in different schools or one shift and another job to make ends meet.

Pilar reported that her relationship with parents was improving, but still needed work. At first they saw her as someone “superior, even though I repeatedly told them my office was open to help.” Opportunity came in the form of a problem.

The bathrooms in the school were in terrible disrepair and unusable. Students could not wash their hands after going to the bathroom or before meals. “I really care if the students go to dirty restrooms,” Pilar exclaimed. She took it upon herself to organize the renovation and cleaning of the restrooms. She gave visitors tours through the restrooms as well as the fountain on the playground where children can cool off and play on hot days.

She added that another challenge is to make people, including her supervisor, conscious of their responsibilities. “We are here to do a job and people need to be aware of their job functions,” she reminded. She stressed that it is important to motivate teachers to work collaboratively in groups. She believed it was her responsibility to have them share ideas and become more proficient.


76 Gabriela reported that the biggest challenge she faced was the condition of the community in which the families live. The area was extremely poor and was afflicted by prostitution and alcoholism. Mothers often left their children alone. Gabriela described the community as an invasión, a piece of land that is invaded by people without any other home. The government eventually placed a school there, but there was no electricity or running water. Gabriela painted a picture of houses made of cardboard boxes and tin roofs. Windows and doors are holes cut in the cardboard. Inside mothers are cooking, visiting with neighbors or sweeping the dirt floor. Some children run freely around the neighborhood and others do not go to school so that they can work to help support the family. By contrast she described a school where children were smiling and happy. She said that they were excited to share and loved coming to school everyday.

U.S: Adam’s major challenge since taking the helm as principal at Patton Elementary has been adjusting to the change from middle school to elementary. He had not had any elementary experience except a few months as an assistant principal at an elementary school five years ago. He talked about not knowing the curriculum, but how fortunate he was to have a staff to guide him in this area.

Adam stated he has a very experienced staff, with the least experienced teacher having five years of experience on the campus. He stated the teachers do not leave and that he has an over-abundance of interest from experienced teachers who want to join his campus.

He stated that he created leadership teams and that he does not make any major decisions without their input. He continued by stating that other than not knowing the elementary curriculum or having experience on an elementary campus, he found himself in a good position, and concluded, “I feel like I inherited a Cadillac and am just enjoying the ride.” Jose had previous experience at the junior and senior high levels, but this was Jose’s first year at the elementary level. He felt that the problems that he faced were “not as big as problems at the secondary level” where he had to deal with issues of drugs and weapons. At the elementary level, his biggest problem was dealing with parents, but on the secondary level they were not as involved. He speculated that older students were not as dependent as the children at the elementary level. One of the critical issues Jose faced during his first year as principal was having to let a teacher’s aid go. She was well


77 liked but was not doing her job. He said he put some pressure on her by giving her a list of duties. She later resigned because she did not want to follow the growth plan.

His best experience as a first-year principal was the ability to have some control of money and being able to manage and move it around, something he says principals should be very cautious in doing. A suggestion he has to improve the financial situation in his district is for the campus rather than the central office to manage money for substitute teachers.

Daniel laughed when asked about the challenges that he has faced during his first year as principal. He said that his “challenges have been unique…. I have been on TV a lot more than I had expected.” His challenges stem from two major events that affected his campus experience. His first major challenge was a natural disaster caused by the devastation of Hurricane Katrina along the Louisiana coastline. Daniel’s campus received 50 unexpected students who were evacuated from New Orleans.

Daniel’s campus is located near the local Convention Center where several of the evacuees were temporarily housed. His campus was not prepared to receive a large number of traumatized students. He had to, “handle the triage and meet the needs of the new kids.” This meant making changes in professional development and changing faculty meetings. He concluded, “These teachers rose to the challenges.”

However, this was not the only major challenge that this new principal encountered during his first year. The superintendent informed Daniel that the district would be closing the campus the following school year. This decision by the district upset the community, parents, and staff. This presented Daniel with some challenges and caused him to reconsider his vision and his focus became the “reconstruction” of the school.

According to Sarah, her greatest challenge this first year was personnel. She felt it was important for teachers on her campus to do what was best for children. She put it this way:

There is a saying that you want the right people on the bus. When people are on the bus who should not be on the bus you need to gently persuade them to get off the bus. This year our main concern is to have the best teachers on the bus.


78 During her first year as principal, she had to persuade people to get off the bus. She spoke of a teacher who was a very nice person, but who just was not teaching and she had to remove her. “They are hurting the kids. They are not teaching anything and I can’t have them here.” She wanted people in their area of strength and if she needed to move people around she was willing to make those changes. “From last year to this year, we made some changes with some people. Now that they are the right people, we need to get them in the right seat.” She mentioned the need for more explicit instruction about documentation. She wanted a class on “how to write directives, how to follow through with directives, how to establish insubordination, how to put a teacher in a growth plan.” She wanted teachers to seek professional development that would help them grow as professionals.

I told the staff at the very beginning of the school year that my expectations for you as a teacher is for you to be the best teacher here, and if you feel that you cannot fill my expectations then you are not in the right school then you need to go somewhere else. And my expectations are that we will be an exemplary school and that is our goal.

Barbara found that among her greatest challenges was working around the politics involved with the being a principal. Her school is old and has several needs. She said:

I have been compared to the old principal, he was more laid back. I had a difficult time with the PTA president who was a very good friend of the previous principal, the transition was hard, and I am now in a good place with him.

She had to make changes in the staff and around campus. I feel it’s better up front to deal with some problems; teachers have been supportive with some of the changes. I find it stressful having to deal with staff issues. I dislike having to deal with staff that is not working out for the best of the children or campus. It is critical to deal with parents, but the hardest part is the paperwork involved with problematic staff, writing a plan, following up, and hoping they will grow, but it does not work out. I have been able to set boundaries with teachers and have a professional relationship with staff.

She tried to build trust with the staff and parents.


79 I made mistakes this year with hiring; you never know what you are

going to get. We hired a teacher that we had to get rid of midyear and it was stressful dealing with problematic staff. However, it lifted staff morale, when they see that someone that was not seen as good for kids is finally gone and something was finally done. Every campus is going to need to have some of the staff move along when it is time for them to move forward.

She concluded:It is also difficult to manage people that are negative. I try to be consistent, upfront and honest by making them realize it’s not personal but professional.

During the interview, when Vivian was asked to discuss her biggest challenge, she quickly stated, “Parents.” Vivian felt that parents could eat you alive. The clientele expected the school to be perfect 100% of the time. The school received an exemplary rating; the families were upper middle class. Vivian stated that the families were great, but there were 650 families and out of those, five took up 50% of the time. “You are not revered at this campus. They are quick to say, ‘My lawyer will be here in an hour.’” Parents were known to write three-page letters to the superintendent, and Vivian explained that was important never to lose your cool with parents and not to let their threats scare you. In order to deal with this challenge, Vivian believed in a program called Raving Fans. The philosophy is customer service. Everyone on the campus was trained and listened to a tape of the program. The key points are to treat parents with respect, control anger, repeat what parents say when they are talking, and be extremely proactive in communicating with families. She concluded, “We go out of our way to accommodate parents. We want them to have ten positive experiences so that when there is a run in, parents are much more likely to be forgiving.”

Discussion

In this section, we first discuss the challenges that are common to directors in both countries: parental expectations and teacher relationships. Then we look at the differences that point to cultural issues: the system for appointment of directors and the structure of the school day.


80Parental Expectations

Parental expectations and conflicts with teachers were issues mentioned in both Sonora and Texas. These deserve attention in educational administration preparation programs and should be investigated more thoroughly to look at cultural differences in the nature of the expectations and conflicts. The problems with parents stemmed from poverty in the Mexican communities and paradoxically, from wealth in the Texas communities. Wealthy parents had high expectations of the school and advocated so stridently for their children that it became hard for principals and teachers to handle.

In Texas, parental expectations were strong. One school director said, “Parents can eat you alive.” The expectations ranged from the school needing to be “perfect 100% of the time” to having to live up to the standards of the previous principal, who was well liked by parents and teachers. One principal spoke of the pressure she felt from the expectation she had that the school would become a highly-rated school within the state accountability system.

Relationships with TeachersRelationships with teachers were a frequently mentioned challenge

for both groups of participants. A Texas principal indicated that much of her time was spent “dealing with the politics” of parent and teacher relationships. Mexican school directors expressed concern for relationships in terms of roles or time. One director did not have the time to show teachers how she wanted them to identify students in need. Another complained that teachers expected him to carry out too much discipline.

The participants used language more characteristic of managing relationships rather than developing relationships. Each of the participants who discussed this challenge suggested that a primary approach to relationships was to employ management strategies such as clearly defining boundaries, documenting poor performance, and implementing standardized customer service programs. Only one participant in each group alluded to the importance of developing relationships.

The approach to relationships has important implications for preparation programs. Principals may not be aware of alternative ways of interacting with teachers, or there may be a gap between abstract understanding and the reality of facing people in conflict situations under stress. In both countries, school directors had problems with teachers. They encountered resistance from seasoned teachers and in some cases, teachers

81who were not fulfilling the minimum expectations of their positions. In both Mexico and the U.S., school directors struggled with the challenges of supervising and occasionally having to fire employees. In Mexico, one school director was stricter than the previous director and imposed deadlines that were not popular with the teachers. She had to transfer an office manager to another school. In Texas, a school director followed a more lenient principal and met resistance from teachers. She had to evaluate and dismiss one teacher.

The Escalafón The process in which principals are appointed in Mexico and Texas is vastly different. In Mexico, a principal is appointed to a campus through the escalafón, a point system based on years of experience, courses, and evaluation of teaching. Applicants do not trust the system and suspect favoritism. Teachers have a right to see their own files, but not the files of others. Some of the participants complained that the performance evaluations given by school directors were all uniformly positive.

Parents and teachers have no input as to who is appointed to the campus. The principal does not meet parents, teachers and students until the first day of work. In Texas, applicants are interviewed on the campus by school staff and community members, who decide which applicant is the best fit for the campus.

The differences between Sonora and Texas served to highlight cultural differences. The escalafón seems to be a perfectly rational system for selecting the best school directors, but participants said that no one trusts the system. What is going on here? The process for appointment may not engender trust in the applicants and may raise questions of credibility in the constituents. More fundamentally, is the school director selecting the one who is most likely to succeed in a particular school, and does the process give directors the necessary authority to lead?

Principals can gain legitimacy in a variety of ways. They can be blessed by a higher authority, chosen by the people, recognized for special talent or lineage, or some combination of all of these. The Catholic Church appoints its pastors; the Baptists elect them. Kings claimed their authority from God; presidents are chosen by the people.

In theory, the escalafón may be consistent with Mexican views of authority. Hofstede (1980) reported a higher level of power distance in


82Mexico than the U.S. In other words, Mexicans are more likely to acquiesce to the decisions of authorities. In the case of the escalafón, a commission of authorities outside of the school appoints the school director and lends the credibility needed to lead. In the U.S., teachers would want more control and would be less likely to accept the imposition of an outside authority.

The escalafón is consistent with a hierarchical system of power and could confer legitimacy if people had faith in the process. Instead, they suspect corruption and become cynical. Instead of entering a school with special authority, the new director must win over the teachers and parents.

In the U.S., the appointment process is more consistent with democratic traditions. However, expectations are often high for one person to turn around a school. The culture may be ambivalent and look for an all powerful leader, but not convey the symbols to allow the exercise of authority. The audience may be programmed to want a savior on the one hand, but also a person who is equal to everyone else.

The Doble Turno The context of a teacher’s first appointment to become a school director is often to a poor, rural school. When directors gain more seniority, they become eligible to move to a wealthier school in a more central location. The state or federal government pays salaries, but any supplies come from a cuota or fee that is established at each school for families to pay. The school director is often faced with an inadequate facility and must seek community help to help to improve it. In one school the director took the lead in repairing and replacing an unusable bathroom. She felt it was a high priority for the immediate well-being of students and for what it taught them about health habits in the long run. The directors say that they are overwhelmed with paperwork and prevented from doing what they think is important. Paperwork may get in the way, but more fundamentally, directors have little time because most work a doble turno, two shifts, the first in morning at one school and the second in the afternoon at another. There are, of course, issues with parents and teachers that are similar to those in Texas, but the escalafon and the doble turno are unique to Mexico. To become a school director, a teacher must play the game of earning points and let time pass to gain seniority. The new director has to be creative to find


83 resources to make a safe and healthy physical plant. They have to somehow manage time to work in two schools each day, and they have to manage teachers who are doing the same. A cultural traveler would be amazed by the doble turno. How do teachers get any work done? Do they feel lost and without a home base? One might have thought that Mexicans would be more relaxed about time, but they seem to have adopted an industrial model of schooling. The school day can be divided in half for efficiency with one group of students in the morning and another in the afternoon. Teachers and directors are interchangeable from one school to the other. I visited one of these schools as a cultural traveler and share this report to offer some detail:

We drove over a hill back up behind the Holiday Inn by a Yaqui ceremonial area through a very poor neighborhood (The Yaqui are indigenous people who trace their ancestry to pre-Columbian times). The school was just on the other side. We went through the gates. There was a booth with food for sale. Two long buildings made up the main part of the campus. There was a covered area in between. The campus extended beyond the buildings across open recreational areas with trees. We were directed to an office and found the director seated behind her desk with a coat on over her dress and wearing high platform shoes. The room was sparsely furnished with few personal affects. A man was seated at a desk in the corner. He worked the morning shift, but in the afternoon he went home so that his wife could work an afternoon shift. The director works the morning in this school and in the afternoon, she is a teacher at another school…During our visit, a student entered and spoke with the director. She handed him a piece of chalk and he left… The school is rated “standard.” I asked the director what her plans were. She said that she would like to make application to become a Quality School. Now there is no longer money attached, but it still provides direction…I mentioned that I would like to stay in touch, but she does not have an email address. She has a Master’s degree and is interested in pursuing her doctorate. We said good-bye and headed to the next school.

Reflecting about this school director, I realized that she did not meet us outside her office, did not explain music or other activities that were going on,


84did not offer to give us a tour, and did not volunteer her plans for the school. It was as though she were just a visitor to school as we were. She did not exhibit what we might call the characteristics of ownership. This was not true of other school directors, but it illustrates a degree of alienation that might exist is some schools. I wondered if conceptions of time might be related to the structure of the school day. Our conceptions of time have developed over history. Initially they were based on natural phenomena such as day and night, the recurring seasons, the cycle of the moon, and the human life span. In the middle ages, the clock tower bell called farmers and villagers to prayer or to dinner. The nineteenth century factory made time a commodity and regulated life in measured units (Boorstin, 1985). These conceptions of time are formed and passed on through culture. Different cultures have inscribed different time orientations: synchronic or polychronic time (Trompenaars, 1993); on time or late; past, present or future time orientation; hopeful or pessimistic (Paz, 1960); active or passive.

Conclusion

The foregoing discussion suggests two cultural issues in Mexico. The appointment of school directors is consistent with a hierarchical culture, but the system has broken down for lack of trust. Directors have difficulty leading if they do not begin with credible authority. The other cultural issue is the factory model of school imposed on people with more of an agrarian sense of time. The question for Mexico may be whether there is a way to modernize to meet the demands of globalization without depersonalizing time and space? The U.S. system of appointment appears to more consistent with democratic traditions. However, the demands of a high stakes accountability system revolve around the director who is expected to make the critical leadership difference. This may not be realistic if no symbols of authority are conveyed and the audience is not predisposed to accept authority. The U.S. school day could also be characterized as industrial with prescribed units of time and required daily attendance. Until recently, this model may have matched the needs of the economy for compliant workers. The questions for the U.S. are whether something has been lost in moving


85 from agrarian to industrial schedules and whether, in any event, the industrial model will serve the economy in an era of globalization.

Stevenson (1994) was another cultural traveler who compared U.S. schools with those in Japan. Japanese teachers were incredulous that U.S. teachers spent five to six hours a day with students. They asked: when do they plan, when do they work with other teachers, when to they tutor students?

Time is a structural issue that is played out in different ways in schools across the globe, and it is also part of mental processes. School directors and teachers take for granted an internal sense of time that comes from culture.

Taken together, school appointment and sense of time are important issues to consider in the preparation of school leaders. They need to be conscious of the authority they will need to enter a school and the challenges of managing under the pressure of a confining school day. They need to be aware of the shortcomings and contradictions in the culture.

Future research could use culture as a tool to extend understanding of school director appointment, the structure of the school day and how these issues relate to the challenges of that school directors face in working with parents and teachers.

References

Alvarez Garcia, I., De Los Santos, R., Trejo Cazares, C., Cutberto, J., Vasquez, E., De Luna, J., et al., (2003). Experiencias, logros y desafíos en la formación de directivos para la educación básica: Informe Técnico Resumido. Subsecretaría de Educación Básica y Normal.

Begley, P. T. (2000). Values and leadership: Theory development, new re-search and an agenda for the future. Alberta Journal of Educational Re-search, 46(3), 233-249.

Barnett, B. G. (2003). Catching the tiger by the tail: The illusive nature of principal preparation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Barnett, B. G., & Shoho, A. R., (2005). The challenge of novice school administrator preparation: Implications for preparation, induction, and professional support. Paper presented at the annual convention of the University Council for Educational Administration, Nashville, TN.


86Bloom, B. G. Barnett, A., & Strong, M. (2003). Supporting the new prin-

cipal: Managerial and instructional leadership in a principal induction program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educa-tional Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Boorstin, D. J. (1985). The discoverers. New York: Vintage Books.Braslavsky, C., y Acosta, F. (2001). (Eds.). El estado de la enseñanza de la

formación en gestión y política educativa en América Latina. Buenos Ai-res: UNESCO: Instituto Internacional de Planeamiento de la Educación, disponible en http://www.iipe-buenosaires.org.ar/

Browne-Ferrigno, P., & Shoho, A. R. (2002). An exploratory analysis of leadership preparation selection criteria. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Pitts-burgh, PA (ERIC Reporduction Service No. ED472145)

Chapko, M. A., & Buchko, M. (2002). What Principals should know and be able to do: Some serious (and not so serious) suggestions. Principal, 82(1) 42-44.

Clark, S., & Wildy, H. (2004). Context counts: Viewing small school lead-ership from the inside out. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(5), 555-572.

Daresch, J. C. (2002). What it means to be a principal: Your guide to lead-ership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Daresch, J., & Male, T. (2000). Crossing the border into school leadership. Educational Management and Administration, 28(1), 89-101.

Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P. W. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generaliz-able implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transfor-mational leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219-256.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (1998). Strategies of qualitative in-quiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Diaz Loving, R. (1999). The indigenization of psychology: Birth of a new science or rekindling of an old one? Applied Psychology: An Internation-al Review, 48(4), 433-449.

Dimmock, C., & Walter, A. (2005). Educational leadership: Culture and diversity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.


87 Dimmock C., & Walker A. (2000). Developing comparative and interna-

tional educational leadership and management: A cross-cultural model. School Leadership and Management, 20, 143-160.

Ferrandino, V. L. (2001). Challenges for 21st-century elementary school principals. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 440-442.

Fidler, B. (1997). School leadership: Some key ideas. School Leadership & Management,17(1), 23-37.

Flanary, R. A., & Terehoff, I. I. (2000). The power of leadership in a global environment. NASSP Bulletin, 84(617), 44-50.

Garcia, J. M. (1999)¿Cuáles son las Características del Liderazgo del Di-rector y del Supervisor de Educación Básica Efectivo? Una Revisión de la Literatura Internacional y la Investigación Generada en México. What are the leadership characteristics of the director and supervisor in effec-tive basic education? A Review of the international literature and an in-vestigation generated in Mexico. In A. Rivera, C. Aramburu, M.C. Ortega & C. Pérez (Eds.), Psicología educativa: programas y desafíos en edu-cación básica (pp. 109-124). México: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.

Garcia, J. M. (2004). Educational Administration and Management: Some lessons in the U.S. and Mexico. Revista Interamericana de Educación de Adultos, 26(1), 11-52.

Getzels, J. W., & Guba, E. G. (Winter, 1957). Social behavior and the ad-ministrative process, The School Review, 65, 423-441.

Hale, E., & Moorman, H. (2003). Preparing school principals: A national perspective on policy and program innovations. Washington, DC: Insti-tute for Educational Leadership.

Hall, G. E., Berg, J. H., & Barnett, B. (2003). Beginning principal studies in America: What have we studied and what have we learned? Paper

Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1996). Culture and educational administra-

tion: A case of finding out what you don’t know you don’t know. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 98-116.

Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1998). Unseen forces: The impact of social culture on school leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(2), 126-151.


88Hart, A. W. (1993). Principal succession: Establishing leadership in

schools. New York: State University of New York Press.Heck, R. H. (1998). Conceptual and methodological issues in investigat-

ing principal leadership across cultures. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(2), 51-80.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work - related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Huber, S. G. (2004). Preparing leaders for the 21st century: An internation-al comparison of development programs in 15 countries. London: Rout-ledge/Farmer.

Jackson, B. L., & Kelley, C. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 192-212.

Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. L. (1998). Mapping the conceptual terrain of leadership: A critical point of departure for cross-cultural studies. Pea-body Journal of Education, 73(2), 31-50.

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, D.C.: The Edu-cation Schools Project. Accessed March 12, 2006 from http://www.ed-schools.org/Pdf/Final313pdf

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making. What newcomers experi-ence in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 25(2), 226-251.

Martin, C., & Solórzano, C. (2003). Mass education, privatization, com-pensation and diversification: Issues on the future of public education in Mexico. Compare, 33(1), 15-30.

Merriam, S. B., & Simpson, E. L. (2000). A guide to research for educators and trainers of adults (2nd ed.). Malabar, FL: Krieger.

Miles, B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Murphy, J. T. (2006). Dancing lessons for elephants: Reforming ed school leadership programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(7) 489-491.Nathan, L. (2004). A day in the life of a school leader. Educational Leader-

ship, 6(1), 82-85.


89 New Leaders for New Schools. (2005). Accessed March 9, 2006 from

http://www.Nlns?NLWeb?Index.jspNormore, A. H. (2004). Socializing school administrators to meet leader-

ship challenges that doom all but the most heroic and talented leaders to failure. International Journal of Leadership in Education, Theory and Practice, 7(2), 107-125.

Oplatka, I. (2004). The principalship in developing countries: Context, characteristics, and reality. Comparative Education, 40(3) 427-448.

Orr, M. T. (2006). Mapping innovation in leadership preparation in our nation’s Schools of Education. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(7) 492-499.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Paz, O. (1961). The labyrinth of solitude: Life and thought in Mexico. (L Kemp, Trans.). New York: Grove Press.

Ramírez, R. (1963). Supervisión de la escuela rural, México,SEP, Instituto Federal de Capacitación del Magisterio,(Biblioteca Pedagógica de Perfec-cionamiento Profesional), 1.

Ramirez, R. (1963). Organización y administración de las escuelas rurales, México, SEP, Instituto Federal de Capacitación del Magisterio, (Biblio-teca Pedagógica de Perfeccionamiento Profesional), 5.

Slater, C. L., Boone, M., De La Colina, M. G., Nelson, S., Esparza, E., Peña, R. M. et al. (2005). The future of educational administration in México: What path will it take? Revista de Educación y Ciencia de Yuca-tán, 9(18), 81-95.

Slater, C. L., Boone, M., Alvarez, I., Topete, C., Iturbe, E., Munoz, L. et al. (2005). School leadership Preparation in Mexico: Metacultural consider-ations. Journal of School Leadership, 15(2), 196-214.

Slater ,C. L. Esparza, E., Peña, R. M., Topete, C., Álvarez, I., Cerecedo, T. et al. (2005). School Administrator Preparation in Baja California. Re-vista Electrónica Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 3(1). Retrieved May 21, 2005 from http://www.ice.deU.S.to.es/rinace/reice/vol3n1_e/Slateretal.pdf

Slater, C. L., McGhee, M. W., Capt, R. L., Alvarez, I., Topete, C., & Iturbe, E. (2003). A comparison of the views of educational administration stu-dents in the United States and Mexico. International Journal of Leader-ship in Education, 6(1), 35-56.


90Stevenson, H. (1994). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and

what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. Simon and Schuster.

Strauss A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Trompenaars, A. (1994). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diver-sity in global business. Burr Ridge, Ill.: Irwin Professional Pub.

Whitaker, K. S., & Barnett, B. G. (1999). A partnership model linking K-12 school districts and leadership preparation programs. Planning and Change, 30(3/4), 126-143.

Young, M. D., Crow, G., Orr, M. T., Ogawa, R., & Creighton, T. (2005). An Educative look at “Educating School Leaders.” Retrieved March 19,

2006, from http://www.ucea.org

91

Why Parents Choose Charter Schools for Their Children with Disabilities

Jane Finn, Katherine Caldwell, and Tara RaubHope College

AbstractThis study used an open-ended structured interview to investigate seven parents’ of students with disabilities perceptions of charter schools and why they chose this type of school to educate their child. Findings showed a general theme of parents believing that the traditional area public school did not meet their child’s needs in terms of size, academics, and addressing the student’s unique educational needs. When commenting on the positive aspects of charter schools, parents indicated the charter school’s willingness to address the disability and strong communication with families. Reported negative aspects of charter schools included high staff turnover and academic changes in short periods of time. When comparing the special education services provided by the charter school and the child’s previous public school, the participants noted differences in staff flexibility, teacher accessibility and attentiveness, and school size favoring the charter school program.

Introduction

Schoolchoice,orallowingparentstochooseaschoolfortheirchild,hasbeenanincreasinglypopulareducationreformsincethe1980s.Schoolchoiceallowsstudentstoenrollinanotherpublicschoolordistrictoutsidetheir traditional public school attendance area without justification or special approval.Between1993and2002,thenumberofstudentsattendingaschoolof choice has increased nationwide (Wirt, Choy, Rooney, Provasnik, Sen,&Tobin,2004).Intheearlyyearsofthecharterschoolmovement,charterschoolsweregenerallyverysmallwithnumberswellunder100children(U.S.DepartmentofEducation,2004);but,charter schoolsarebecoming largerandthemedianstudentenrollmenthassteadilyincreased(U.S.DepartmentofEducation,2004).


92AcrosstheUnitedStates,charterschoolshavebecomeoneofthemost

frequentlyusedalternativechoicesforparentstosendtheirchildren(Schneider&Buckley,2003).CharterschoolsarepublicschoolsthatmayincludegradesK-12 or any combination of those grades as specified in its contract or charter, andcannotbeselectiveintermsofrace,religion,sex,ortestscores(U.S.DepartmentofEducation,2004;Zollers&Ramanathan,1998).

Nationalstudiesindicatethatstudentswithdisabilitiesattendcharterschoolsatthesamerate,orinsomecasesinhigherproportions,thanstudentswithdisabilitiesattendingthetraditionalareaschool(Finn,Manno,&Bierlein,1996;RPPInternationalandUniversityofMinnesota,1997).EventhoughcharterschoolsaresubjecttoallmandatesoftheIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationImprovementAct(IDEIA),lawyersandadvocatesforstudentswithdisabilitiesareconcernedthatcharterschoolsmaybeunpreparedtomeettherequirementsforeducatingstudentswithdisabilities,citingapotentialfordiscrimination,alackofexpertiseinservicedelivery,andlimitedfunding(McLaughlin&Henderson,1998).Further,researchshowsthatsomecharterschoolsarestrugglingwithspecialeducationmandatesandproceduressuchas student referrals, placement in special education, and fulfilling the goals oftheindividualizededucationprogramorIEP(EducationCommissionoftheStates,1995;McKinney,1996).

Evenwiththeseconcerns,someparentschoosetosendtheirchildwitha disability to a charter school and few studies have been completed to find thereasonswhyparentschoosethistypeofschool.FindingsfromColoradoshow that some charter schools may be able to offer specific instructional approaches and more individualized training, which may attract parents(McLaughlin&Henderson,1998;McLaughlin,Henderson,&Ullah,1996).Studiesindicatethatamajorityofparentsbelievethatthecharterschoolsinwhichtheirchildrenwereenrolledwerebetterthanthetraditionalareapublicschooltheyhadpreviouslyattendedwithrespecttoclasssize,schoolsize,teacherattentiveness,andthequalityofinstructionandcurriculum(Estes,2004;Finnetal.,1996;Lange&Lehr,2000;Lange&Ysseldyke,1998).Further, Bomotti (1996) found that parents believed that charter schoolsprovidehigheracademicstandardsandgreateraccountabilityforstudents’learningwhileexpectingahigherlevelofparentalinvolvement.

Becauseoftherelativelylimitedstudies,moreinformationstillneedstobegatheredontheperceptionsofparentsofchildrenwithdisabilitiesabout


93charterschoolsandabouttheirdecisiontoleavethetraditionalareapublicschool.Thepresentstudywasdesignedtoidentifyanddescribetheperceptionsofparentswhohavestudentswithdisabilitiesinacollegepreparatorycharterschoolinthemidwestandwhytheychosethisparticularcharterschoolfortheir child. Specifically, we sought to explore the following lines of inquiry:

1. Identifythereasonswhyyou(asparents)decidedtotransferyourchildtothischarterschool.

2. Identifywhatyou(parents)appreciatedaboutthespecialeducationservicesprovidedatthecharterschool.

3.Comparethespecialeducationservicesprovidedatthecharterschooltothetraditionalareapublicschoolyoursonordaughterpreviouslyattended.

Methods

ParticipantsStudyparticipantswere sevenparentswhoplaced their childwitha

disabilityinacharterschoolinthemidwest.Eachparenthadonechildwhoattendedthecharterschool;oneparenthadtwochildrenwhowerereceivingspecialeducationservicesatthecharterschool.Thecharterschoolislocatedin a rural area that contains five public schools and four parochial schools. Thefocusofthecharterschoolisoncollegepreparation.

Thechildrenofthesevenparentswhowereinterviewedrangedinagefromsevenyears to14years.Parentsreportedavarietyofdisabilitiesfortheirchildren,includingthreestudentswithspeechimpairments,onestudentdiagnosedwithAspergerSyndrome,onestudentwithabehaviordisorder,twostudentswithlearningdisabilities,andonestudentwithbothalearningdisability and an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Of these children a majoritywereboys(n =7).

InstrumentationTheresearchwasconductedusingopen-endedstructuredinterviews(see

Appendix).Theexactwordingandsequenceofquestionsweredeterminedinadvanceandusedconsistentlythroughouttheinterviews.Thus,alloftheintervieweeswereaskedthesamequestionsinthesameorderbythesameinterviewertoeliminateasmuchbiasaspossible.


94Two pilot interviews were completed before the actual study with

personnelwhohadknowledgeaboutcharterschoolsandtheuseofeffectiveopen-ended interviews. Based on their feedback, a revised interview wascreated,whichwassubsequentlyusedinthepresentstudy.

ProceduresInvitationstobecomeinvolvedinthestudyweree-mailedbythecharter

school’sspecialeducationteachertoallparentsofchildrenwithdisabilitiesattheelementarylevel.Inordertoyieldbroadrepresentationintermsofage,otherparentgroupsfromthecharterschoolwereapproachedbytheresearchersandalsoaskedtoparticipateinthisstudy.Atotalofsevenparentsagreedtobecontactedforthisstudy.Thecharterschoolspecialeducationteacherprovidedtheresearcherswiththetelephonenumbersofparentswhoagreedtoparticipateinthestudy.

A packet consisting of a formal invitation to participate, a consentform,andaself-addressed,stampedreturnenvelopewasmailedtoeachoftheparentswhoagreedtoparticipate.Participantswereaskedtoindicateaconvenienttimewhentheresearchercouldcallandconducttheinterviewandtoreturntheformalongwiththeirsignedconsentusingthepre-paidenvelope.Upon receiving theconsent form, the interviewercalled theparticipantatthedesignatedtimeandconductedthe30minutetelephoneinterview.Theinterviewwasaudiotaped,andnoteswerealsotakenbytheinterviewertoprovidereliability(Seidman,1998).Theaudiotapecontainedtherawdata,andoncetheinterviewsessionhadbeentranscribed,theaudiotapewasdestroyedtoprotectparticipantanonymity.

Data AnalysisAfter transcribing the audiotapes, the researchers identified and wrote

downinitialcodecategories.Acopyofthetranscriptswasmadeandcutordividedintotopicalunitsthatindicatedpatternsacrossthequestions.Theseunits were placed in file folders. The result was a set of folders that contained excerpts from the interviews divided into specific categories. The cutting and sorting into file folders is the traditional approach used in qualitative analysis to organize categories, themes, and patterns (Berg, 2004).The categoriesalongwithresponsesfromtheparentsofchildrenwithdisabilitiesarereportedbelow.


95Results

Analysisofthetranscriptsrevealedthereasonswhytheparticipatingparentshadtransferredtheirchildtoacharterschool,whattheyperceivedasthestrengthsandlimitationsofthecharterschool’sspecialeducationservices,andcomparisonsoftheservicesofthepreviouslyattendedschoolandcharterschool.Thefollowingresultsarepresentedbylineofinquiry(seeTableforsummaryofresults).

TableInquires and Themes

____________________________________________________________

Themes________________________________________InquiryPositiveNegative____________________________________________________________

#1-Reasonsfortransferperceivedacademicexcellence

previousschoolnotableto addressdisability

unwantedchangesinpreviousschool

#2-Perceptionsofthewillingnesstoaddressstaffturnoverspecialeducationdisabilityservicesatthecharterschooleffectivecommunication unwantedchanges inphilosophy

#3-Comparingcharterschoolstaffs’ services flexibility and accessibilitysmallschoolsize


96Inquiry #1 Thisquestionasked interviewees to reportwhy theyhaddecided totransfertheirchildtoacharterschool.Theresearchersfoundageneralthemeofthestudents’traditionalareapublicschoolnotmeetingthechild’sneeds.Within this general theme, three specific themes were as follows: a) changes viewedasnegativeinthetraditionalareapublicschooldistrict,b)theperceivedacademicexcellenceofthecharterschool,andc)thetraditionalareapublicschool’s inability to address the student’s specific and special needs.

Unwanted changes in former traditional area public school. Parentsreportedthattheywereconcernedwiththetraditionalareapublicschool’snewteachingandrestructuringpolicies.Forexample,onetraditionalareapublicschooldistricthadswitchedtoafocusschoolsystem.Withthisfocusschoolsystem,aclumpingofgradesoccurredforthewholedistrict(forexample,one elementary school contained this district’s entire K-2 grades whileanotherschoolhadgrades3-5).ThisrestructuringledtotheeliminationofthetraditionalneighborhoodK-5elementaryschoolandforcedsomeparentstosendtheirchildrenofdifferentagestovariousschoolswithinthedistrict.One parent commented:

We[myhusbandandI] liketheideaofhavingourkids inthesameschoolratherthanhavingthemintwodifferentschoolsacrosstown.

Perceived academic excellence of charter school.Intervieweesreportedthattheybelievedthatthecharterschoolhadhigheracademicstandardsthanthelocaltraditionalareapublicschools.Itappearsthatthecharterschool’sstudentsthemselvesstriveforacademicexcellence,ratherthantheparentsand teachers emphasizing academic growth. One parent stated:

Thestudentspushforacademicexcellence…theyaretheoneswhohave set the standards to do the work. They [students] define what is acceptedandexpected[atthisschool].

Thecurriculumitselfalsopushesstudentstodowell.Thecurriculumandclasssequencewerereportedasbeingrigorouswhilealsofocusingonthe individual needs of each student. One parent remarked:

Their[charterschool]overallcurriculumwasmuchmoreindividualized…he [mychild]couldworkathisownpace in theareaswhereheexcelledsohewasn’tbeingboredsilly,yetintheareashereallyneededextrahelphecouldgetthathelpintheresourceclassroom.


97Traditional area public school’s failure to address special needs. Another

commonthemethatwasreportedwasthatthetraditionalareapublicschoolwasnotaddressingthespecialneedsofthestudentswithdisabilities.Inaddition,oftenthetraditionalareapublicschooldidnotoffertestingtodetermineapossibledisability—evenwhenparentsbrought theirconcernsabout theirchild’sneedstothedistrict.Whentestingdidoccur,theparentsreportedthatoftenthetraditionalareapublicschooldidnotqualifythestudentforspecialeducationservices.One parent noted:

Ihadaskedeveryyear[atthetraditionalareapublicschool]iftheywouldevaluatehim[herchild]forspeechservicesandeveryyeartheysaidthathedidnotneedit[thespeechservices].Whenwewenttocharterschoolthey[thecharterschool’steachers]askedtoevaluatehim[myson]andmydaughterbeforewebroughtit[possibilityoftestingforadisability]up.They[charterschoolspecialeducationevaluators]suggestedspeechforbothofthem[sonanddaughter].We[parents]werequitehappywiththiswillingnesstotest.

Manyparentscommentedextensivelyabouttheadversarialpositionthattheyfelttheyhadtotakewiththetraditionalareapublicschoolbecauseoftheschool’s unwillingness to test a child for special education. One participant commented:

At[thetraditionalareapublicschool],IalmostfeltlikeIwasaskingtoomuchtogetallthenecessarytestingandservicesformyson.IfeltlikeI was a bad guy and had to fight for our rights and get the services [at thetraditionalareapublicschool].They[traditionalareapublicschool]werenotwillingtojumpintohelp.

Bycontrast,thecharterschool’steachersandadministrationwillinglyprovided testing and, if the student qualified, the necessary services. This opennessandwillingnesstoprovideimmediatetestingandservicespromptedparentstomaketheswitch.Inaddition,thecharterschoolacceptedprivatetesting without question compared to the traditional area public school’sreluctance to accept and act upon the results of private testing. One parent responded:

He [my child] wasn’t getting any special services at [the traditionalareapublicschool],andalthoughthey[traditionalareapublicschool]


98testedhimrepeatedly,theykeptsayingtheycouldn’tqualifyhimandhewasfailinghisclasseseventhoughhe’saverybrightkid.Wehadhimtestedoutsideoftheschoolbyaprivatepsychologistandhe[privatepsychologist]saidthathe[child]shouldqualify[forspecialeducationservices].

Other parents indicated that testing was suggested by the charter school teachers when the child demonstrated deficit areas in the classroom. That is, parentsfeltthatthecharterschoolwasproactivewithregardtotheirchild’sneedsanddidnottakeanadversarialrolewiththeparentsconcerningtesting.As one parent noted:

I guess it was within the first two months of my son being in the classroomthatthey[theteachersatthecharterschool]suggestedthetesting[forspecialeducation],gotthetestingcompletedandgothimonaspecialeducationprogramandmadeaccommodationsinthe[generaleducation]classroom.

Inquiry #2 Inthisquestion,theintervieweescommentedonthespecialeducationservicesatthecharterschool.Bothpositiveandnegativeobservationswerereported.Thethemessurroundingthepositiveaspectsofthecharterschool’sprogramincludeda)willingnesstoaddressthechild’sdisabilityareas,andb)effectivecommunicationandrelationshipsbetweenfacultyandstudent’sfamily.Thethemessurroundingthenegativeaspectsoftheprogramincludeda)highstaffturnover,andb)recentunwantedchangesintheschool’sphilosophy.Eachofthesethemeswillbeexploredinmoredetailbelow.

Addressing disability areas. Parentsheldpositiveviewsofthecharterschool’swillingnesstotestforapossibledisabilityalongwithconcentratingontheindividualneedsofthestudent.Thecharterschoolanalyzedthestudent’sweaknesses and wrote out a plan to help solve the deficit areas. At times, this plan involved many different specialists. One parent noted:

I’m happy with it [special education services]. He [son] saw anoccupationaltherapistforatleastayear.She[occupationaltherapist]helpedhimwiththemechanicsofwriting,thesittingpositionandwaystoanglethepapertomakeit[writing]easier.He[son]seesthespecialeducationteacherforhisreadingspeedandorganizationalskills.He[son]alsoseesatherapist[counselor]becausehehaslowself-esteem.


99 Inaddition,thecharterschoolwasagreeabletoprovidespecialeducationtestingandservicesforstudentswhodidnotqualityorwerenottestedfortheseservicesatthetraditionalareapublicschool.Parents,frustratedwiththetraditionalareapublicschool’sreluctancetoqualifytheirsonordaughterforspecialeducation,werehappyaboutthischangeinattitude.

Communication and responsiveness. Anotherpositiveobservationbytheparentsrelatedtotheeffectivecommunicationandresponsivenessofthecharterschoolstaff.Inparticular,theycommentedontheteachers’willingnesstobuildrelationshipswiththestudentsandtheirfamilies.Parentsappreciatedthis extra effort. A parent reported:

MysonworkswithaspeechteacherandIreallylikethatshe[speechteacher] not only works with him on speech, but she has built arelationshipwithhim[studentwithadisability].

Parentsreportedthattheywantedtoknowwhattheirchildwasdoinginclass,andoftentheirchildrenandpreviouslyattendedschoolpersonnelwerereluctanttogiveinformation.However,clearcommunicationdidexistinthecharterschool.Inparticular,progressreportswereanimportantpieceintheeffectivecommunicationbetweenschoolandhome.Throughtheseextensiveandthoroughprogressreports,theteacherscommunicatedtoparentsthattheschool personnel understood the children and their individual needs. One parent remarked:

Theprogressreportsthatthey[charterschoolteachers]sentoutaresothoroughandsodetailed.It’s[progressreports]verynice,anditjustseemsliketheteachersreallygettoknoweachstudent.This[typeofcommunication]makesforanicecommunity.

Not only were the special education teachers very accessible, butparticipantsalsoremarkedonthewillingnessofthegeneraleducationteacherstoworkwiththeirsonordaughterwithadisability.Theseteachersseemedprepared to go the extra mile to help their child. One participant said:

It just seems like they [charter school’s general education teachers]reallygettoknowthestudentsindividuallyanddoalotoftaperingtowhattheir[studentswithdisabilities]needsare.They[charterschool’sgeneraleducation teachers]haveallbeenverypleasant,helpful,andwilling. Itseemslike therearequiteafewof them[charterschool’sgeneraleducationteachers]thatgoaboveandbeyond.


100Frequent staff turnover. Anegativeperceptionoftheparticipantswasthe

themeofconstantchangeswithinthecharterschoolfacultyandadministrationdue to staff leaving to take positions in other schools. Specifically, the changeswithinthespecialeducationteachingstaffwereviewedasnegative.A participant reported:

We[mychildandourfamily]areonourfourthspecialeducationteacher,now.Infouryears!That’sanewteachereachyear.

Thislackofcontinuity,especiallywhenrapportwasbuiltbetweenaspecialeducationteacherandstudent,wasdishearteningtotheparticipants. School’s change in focus.Anothernegativethemewasthefrustrationwiththenewadministration’schangeindirectioninrecentyears.Itseemsthatthecharterschoolstartedoutcommittedtoverysmallclassroomsizes;however,theschoolhasbeengrowingthuseachclasshasaddedmorestudents.Participantswerenegativeaboutthisnewgrowth.

Withthischangefromasmallschooltoalargerschool,thestructureoftheclassesalsoseemedtochangeitsfocus.Currently,thestudentsinspecialeducationreceivesupportonlyinacademicsubjectareas,whileothernon-academic areas such as studyandorganizational skills arebeing ignored.Becauseof this change in the school’sacademic focus,parentsexpressedconcernthatstudentswithdisabilitieswerenotreceivingtheindividualizedattention that was a key component to their student’s previous academicsuccess. During an interview, one parent stated:

Idon’tfeellikehe[studentwithadisability]isgettingtheindividualattentionthathegotbefore[thisacademicchangeandgrowthperiod]andthey[charterschoolstaff]arenothelpinghim[studentwithadisability]liketheydidbefore[thischange]togetthroughthestrugglesthatheishavingnow.

Inquiry #3This question asked interviewees to compare the special education

servicesprovidedatthecharterschooltothoseofferedatthetraditionalareapublicschoolpreviouslyattendedbytheirchild.Someparentswereunabletocommentbecausespecialeducationserviceswerenotprovidedfortheirchild at the traditional area public school. Other participants noted differences in, a) the flexibility and accessibility of the staff at the charter school, and b) schoolsize.


101Flexibility and accessibility of school staff.Parentsnotedthattherewas

afeelingofpartnershipwiththecharterschool’steachersandthehome.Theyreportedfeelingcomfortablediscussingtheirchildwithstaffatthecharterschool and that the staff was flexible and willing to make changes in the classroom that would benefit the student with a disability. While discussing the flexibility of the staff, a parent stated:

The charter school staff is much more flexible [than former traditional areapublicschool]…anditseemsmoreofanopendoorpolicyatthisschool[thecharterschool].

In addition, the charter school teachers were willing to listen andcollaborate with the parents. Parents reported that teachers at the charterschoolwerenotintimidatedbytheparents,ortreatedtheparentsasiftheyhadlimitedknowledgeabouteducation.Instead,thecharterschoolteacher’swerewillingtolistenandencourageparentstobeapartoftheeducationteam.One parent commented:

IfIcomeupwithideas,ifIreadanarticle,orifImadesuggestions,she[thespecialeducationteacheratthecharterschool]reallylistenedtome.

Size of school. Even though the school was growing, the parentsrepeatedlycommentedthatthesmallerclasssizehadapositiveeffectontheirchildrenwithdisabilities.Itseemsthateventhoughtheschoolwasgettingbigger,theclassroomnumbersandoverallnumberofpupilsattendingthischarterschoolwerestillsmallerthanthetraditionalareapublicschoolsetting.A participant said:

Idon’tthinkhe[childwithadisability]wouldbebetteroffgoingto[thetraditionalareapublicschool]becausethebiggerschoolsareabigpieceinhisemotionalissueandhisanxiety.Hewouldfallapart.Hewouldn’thandleit.He’sgotasocialpositionatthecharterschool.Heissomebody.It’sasmallschool.He’swelllikedandwellreceived.Ifhewenttoalargeschool,like[histraditionalareapublicschool],hewouldbesolost.

Manyparentsnotedthat thecharterschool’ssmallerclasssizes leadtoabettersenseofcommunity.Thesmallerclassesseemedtohelpstudents


102be comfortable in the environment and reduced anxiety when changesormovementsaremadebetweenschoolbuildings,gradelevels,anddifferentteachers. One parent reported:

My kids are known. Once they have been there for a couple of years, they[thestudents]areprettywellknownbythemajorityofthestaff.Idon’tknowexactlyhowthatworks,butpeople[staffatthecharterschool]get toknowthestudents’names likewhen they[elementarystudents]goovertothebig[highschoolandmiddleschool]buildingfor lunch. Because of this, the transition from fifth grade to the middle schoolwasseamlessformyson[withadisability].

Discussion

Interviewswere conductedwithparentsof childrenwithdisabilitiesabouttheirperceptionsofcharterschoolsandwhytheychoseacharterschooltoeducatetheirchild.Severalthemesemerged.Positivethemesincludedtherelativelysmallsizeoftheschool,perceivedacademicexcellence,willingnessto provide services and addressing disability areas, responsiveness of thestaff,andclearcommunicationbetweenschoolandhome.Negativethemesinvolvedfacultyturnoverandchangeoffocusintheschool.Eachofthesethemeswillbediscussedbelow.

Size of School Basedonparticipants’responses,schoolsizeplayedamajorroleintheparents’decisiontochangefromatraditionalareapublicschooltothecharterschool.Itseemsthatsmallerschoolsizewasviewedpositively.

Parentsbelievedthatthesmallersizeallowedstudentstoreceivemoreindividualattention than in the larger traditionalareapublicschoolwhereclasssizesaredeterminedbythenumberofstudentsresidingwithintheschoolboundaries.Thisbeliefissupportedbyresearch.Cushman(2000)foundthatthesmallsizeandtight-knitstructureofschoolcommunitiesallowteacherstogiveincreasedindividualizedattentiontostudentsandaffordthemtheabilitytodealfasterwithproblemsorconcerns.This,inturn,enablesstafftostartworkearlytolookatachild’sspecialneedsandallpossibleinterventions.Tobeacontributingandproductivestudent,ayoungpersonmustfeelpartoftheschool;thisbelongingbringsallegiance,willingnesstocontributeandwork


103towardsimprovement,andtodefendtheregulationsof theschool(Meier,1992;Sommers,1997).

Becausetheintervieweesreportedthattheylikedthesmallerschoolatmosphere,itisnotsurprisingtolearnabouttheirdissatisfactionandconcernto the reportednew, rapidgrowthof the school.Thisgrowthwasviewedasdestroyingtheschool’sspecialatmospherecreatedbytheschool’ssmallsize.

Perceived Academic ExcellenceParentsreportedthat theybelievedthat thecharterschoolhadbetter

academics and higher standards than the traditional area public schools.Further,thecurriculumatthecharterschoolwasperceivedtoberigorousandchallenging.Thehighexpectationswereperceivedtoencouragestudentstostrivefortheirbest.Thus,parentsreportedthattheirchildrenthrivedinthisatmosphereandthatattainingacademicexcellencebecamestudents’personalgoals.

Bomotti (1996) similarly found that parents believed that charterschoolsprovidehigheracademicstandardsandgreateraccountabilityforastudent’slearning.Sudetic(2001)reportedsimilarresultswhenexaminingcharterschoolsinthreedifferentstates.However,parents’enthusiasmforthecurriculumatthecharterschoolsdidnotnecessarilymeanimprovedstudentperformancewhencomparedtotraditionalareapublicschools(Sudetic,2001).Choyandcolleagues(1997)reportedthatparentsofstudentswhowereverysatisfied with the academic standards of their child’s school were more satisfied in chosen schools than in traditional area public schools. One might wonder ifthisperceptionofacademicexcellenceistiedtotherightfortheparenttochoose a school instead of being mandated to a specific local school.

Addressing Disability AreaParentswerepleasedwiththecharterschool’simmediacyinresponding

totheirchild’sneeds.Whilethetraditionalareapublicschoolsseemedslowtorespond,thecharterschoolwaswillingtostartaddressingperceivedneedsbefore these needs became larger problems. In general, finding a school that meetsachild’sspecialeducationalneedsisanimportantfactorwhenchoosinga school (Jenkinson, 1998). One might wonder whether, if the traditional area publicschoolhadrespondedquicklyandappropriatelytotheimmediateneeds


104ofthestudents,theswitchtothecharterschoolwouldhavetakenplaceorbeenneeded.

Staff ResponsivenessIntervieweescommentedabouttheextraeffortofthecharterschool’s

staff in building relationships with students, emphasizing that this extraeffort improvedtheirchild’seducation.Participantsbelieved thatbecauseof the small school size, thecharter school’s facultywasmorewilling tomakepersonalrelationshipswiththestudentsandtheirfamilies.Participantsreportedthatthispersonalattentionwasnotfoundinthelargertraditionalareapublic school system. This is an important finding. Rogers (1992) pointed outthatforoptimumlearningtotakeplace,studentsmustbeknownbytheirteachers.Toinstructproperly,ateachermustknowhisorherstudentswell,beawareofeachstudent’sabilitiesandcircumstances,andbeabletoclearlycommunicatewithparentswhile treatingthechildfairlyandwithrespect(Rich,1998;Rogers,1992).Nomatterwhattheadvantagesofsmallschoolsareoverlargeonesinprovidingqualityeducationforchildren,alltypesofschools must be staffed by caring competent teachers and administrators(Sommers,1997).

CommunicationThecommunicationbetweenparentsandteachersseemedtobemore

prevalent and ongoing at the charter school. Specifically, parents reported that thecharterschool’steacherstooktimetocommunicatewiththemregularlyand listen to their concerns. This is an important finding since keeping parents involved in their child’s education is of primary importance (Lucyshyn,Dunlap,&Albin,2002;Shonkoff&Phillips,2000;Webster-Stratton,1998)and can be effectively accomplished through thoughtful and meaningfulcommunicationbetweenschoolandhome.Jenkinson(1998)reportedthatparentsbelievethatstrongparent-teachercommunicationisthenumberonereasonforchoosingaschool.Thepracticeofgoodcommunicationbetweenhomeandschoolisalsoimportantbecausehelpingchildrenlearnmoreathomeisimportanttoimprovingtheirschoolperformance(Walberg,1984;U.S. Department of Education, 1994).Also, IDEIA requires schools tocollaborateandcommunicatewithparentsandstudentswithdisabilitiesinthedesignandimplementationofspecialeducationservices(IDEIA,2004;Patterson,2005).


105Faculty Turnover

Thechangeswithin the faculty raisedconcernsamong intervieweesthattheirchildrenwerenotreceivingthebesteducationpossiblebecauseofthehighteacherturnoverrateatthecharterschool.Theperceptionwasthatassoonasacharterschoolteacherseemedtogettoknowastudentwell,thisteachermovedontoadifferentpositionatanotherschoolandtheprocesshadtostartalloveragain.

Teacherturnoverhaslongbeenaconcerninbothspecialeducationandgeneraleducationbecauseitrepresentsinstabilityintheteachingforceandraises the prospect of shortages of qualified replacement teachers (Boe, Bottitt, Cook,Whitener,&Weber,1997).Teacherturnovercanalsobeassociatedwithfactorssuchasteacherjobdissatisfactionandteacherspursuingbetterjobsorothercareers(Han&Rossmiller,2004;Ingersoll,2001).

Change of FocusTheparticipantsalsonoteddissatisfactionwiththechangewithinthe

charterschool’sadministration,whichtheybelievedcausedashiftinfocusfromtheschool’soriginalintent.Atthetimeoftheinterviews,moreemphasiswasplacedonincreasingthecharterschool’ssizeandparentsfeltthishadimpactedtheirchildren’seducation.Inparticular,changestothecharterschoolhadcausedtensionamongparentswhosestudentsreceivespecialservices.Thefocusofthecharterschoolhasshiftedclosertothatofthetraditionalareapublicschool,afocusthatparentshadintendedtoleavebehind. Also, changes in the charter school’s course offerings left parentsdisgruntled,feelingthatasaresultoftherestructuringoftheprogram,theneedsofstudentswithdisabilitieswerenolongerbeingmettotheirfullestcapacity.Althoughstudentsstillreceivedservicesincoreacademicsubjects,peripheralclasses(suchasstudyskills)werenolongeroffered.Itwasthesetypesofclassesthatparentsappreciatedbecausetheyfelttheirchildrenweregainingskillsnecessaryforsuccessinthecoreclasses.

Limitations of the Study

Thisstudyincorporatedqualitativeresearchtostudywhyparentsofchildrenwithdisabilitiesdecidetosendtheirsonordaughtertocharterschools.Despite some important findings, some limitations deserve mention.


106First, the generalizability of the findings is limited because of the nature

oftheparticipantsample.Thatis,theparentswhoseperceptionsweresoughtconstitutealimitedgroupandmaynotberepresentativeofalltheindividualswhochoosecharterschoolsfortheirstudentswithdisabilities.Further,socialdesirability isaconcernwhenusing interviews in research.That is, someparticipantsmayrespondtoquestionsbasedonwhattheyperceiveisexpectedofthemorwhattheydeemtobethesociallyorpoliticallycorrectresponse(Patton,1990).Thus,althoughparticipationwasvoluntary,thevalidityofthefindings may be limited by the bias inherent in the data-collection methods used. Third, the study only focused on one specific charter school located in the midwest. Therefore, is not possible to conclude what influenced parents ofchildrenwithdisabilitiestoswitchtoacharterschoolinadifferentarea.Inaddition,theparticipatingcharterschoolwassmallinsize;henceresultsmighthavebeendifferentinlargercharterschools.

Conclusions and Implications for Future Research

Thestudyprovidesnewinformationwithregardtotheperceptionsofparentsofchildrenwithdisabilitiesandwhytheychooseaparticulartypeofschoolfortheirsonordaughter.Parentsappreciatedasmallsizedschool,highacademicstandards,rigorouscurriculum,staffwillingtoprovideserviceswhileaddressingthestudent’sdisabilities,andimmediatecommunication.Concernsofparentsincludehighfacultyturnoverratesinspecialeducationas well as change in specific educational focus.

Many unanswered questions remain. Future research is needed toinvestigatetheperceptionsofvariousotherindividualswhochosedifferenttypes(private,charter,traditionalareapublic)ofschoolsfortheirchildren.Comparisonsofattitudesandreasonscouldprovideimportantinformationrelative towhatparentsdeemimportant inschools for theirchildrenwithdisabilities.Inaddition,itwouldbeinterestingtoquestionparentswhomovedtheirsonordaughterfromacharterschoolbacktoatraditionalareapublicschool.Researchcanalsobegatheredonwhytheteacherturnoverrateishighat thecharterschoolandifothercharterschoolsortraditionalareapublicschoolshavesimilarturnoverrates.Reasonsfortheteachersleavingcouldshednewinformationconcerningthecharterschools.

Furthermore,itwouldbeinterestingtosurveyparentsfromlargercharterschoolstodetermineifsimilaroutcomesoccur.Moreinformationcouldbe


107gleanedbyinterviewingparentsfromasmallertraditionalareapublicschool.Bycombiningthesetwotypesofinterviews,theresearcherscandeterminewhether parents like the philosophy of the charter schools or the specific small sizeofaschool--whetherthisschoolwasacharterortraditionalareapublicschool.

References

Berg,B.L.(2004).Qualitative research methods for the social sciences(5thed.). Boston: Pearson.

Boe,E.,Bottitt,S.,Cook,L.,Whitener,S.,&Weber,A.(1997).Whydidstthougo?Predictorsofretention,transfer,andattritionofspecialandgen-eraleducationteachersfromanationalperspective.The Journal of Spe-cial Education, 30,390-411.

Bomotti,S.(1996).Whydoparentschoosealternativeschools?Education-al Leadership, 54, 303-322.

Choy,S.,Riley,R.W.,Cortinues,R.C.,&Forgione,P.(1997).Public and private schools: How do they differ? U.S.DepartmentofEducation,Na-tional Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Cushman,K.(2000).Shrinkbigschoolsforbetterlearning.The Education Digest, 65(6),36-39.

EducationCommissionoftheStates.(1995).Charter schools: What are they up to? A 1995 survey. Denver, CO: Author. Retrieved July 11, 2006, from http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/school-change/chschool.htm

Estes,M.B.(2004).Choiceforall?Charterschoolsandstudentswithspe-cialneeds,The Journal Of Special Education, 37(4),257-267.

Finn,C.,Jr.,Manno,B.,&Bierlein,L.(1996).Charter schools in action: What have we learned? Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.

Han,Y.,&Rossmiller,R.(2004).Howdoesmoneyaffectteachers’careerchoices?Journal of Education Finance, 30,79-100.

IndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationImprovementActof2004,20U.S.C.δ1400et seq.Ingersol,R.M.(2001).Teacherturnoverandteachershortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38,499-534.


108Jenkinson,J.C.(1998).Parentchoiceintheeducationofstudentswithdis-

abilities.International Journal of Disability, Development, and Educa-tion, 45(2),189-202.

Lange,C.,&Lehr,C.(2000).Charter schools and students with disabili-Charterschoolsandstudentswithdisabili-ties: Parents perceptions and reasons for transfer and satisfaction with services.Remedial and Special Education, 21(3),141-153.

Lange,C.,&Ysseldyke,J.(1998).Schoolchoicepoliciesandpracticesforstudentswithdisabilities.Exceptional Children, 64(2),225-270.

Lucyshyn, J., Dunlap, G., & Albin, R. (Eds.). (2002). Families, family life, and positive behavior support: Addressing the challenge of problem be-haviorsinfamilycontexts. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.

McKinney, J. R. (1996). Charter schools: A new barrier for children with disabilities.Educational Leadership, 54,22-25.McLaughlin,M.J.,&Henderson,K.(1998).CharterschoolsinColorado

andtheirresponsestotheeducationofstudentswithdisabilities.The Journal of Special Education, 32(2),99-107.

McLaughlin,M.,Henderson,K.,&Ullah,A.(1996).Charter schools: A hopeful response to the education of students with disabilities in Colo-rado.PaperpresentedatameetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,NewYork.

Meier,D.(1992).Reinventingteaching.Teacher’s College Record, 93,4-6.Patterson,K.(2005).WhatclassroomteachersneedtoknowaboutIDEA

1997.Kappa Delta Pi Record, 41(2),62-67.Patton,M.Q.(1990).Qualitative evaluation and research methods.New-

bury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Rich,D.(1998).Whatparentswantfromteachers.Educational Leadership,

55(8),37-39.Rogers,B.(1992).Small is beautiful. Source book on school district size,

cost and quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education.RPPInternationalandUniversityofMinnesota.(1997).A study of charter

schools: First-year reports, 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Schneider, M., & Buckley, J. (2003). Making the grade: Comparing DC charterschoolstootherDCpublicschools.Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2),203-215.


109Seidman,I.(1998).Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for re-

searchers in education and the social sciences(2nd ed.). New York: Teachers’CollegePress.

Shonkoff,J.,&Phillips,D.(Eds.).(2000).From neurons to neighbor-hoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: NationalAcademyPress.

Sommers, N. (1997). Smaller schools: An ambiance for learning. American Secondary Education, 26,9-14.

Sudetic,C.(2001).Reading,writing,andrevenue.Mother Jones, 26(3),14-19.

U.S.DepartmentofEducation.(1994,September). Strong families, strong schools: Building community partnership for learning. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S.DepartmentofEducation.(2004).Evaluation of public charter school programs: Final report. Washington, DC: Author.

Walberg,H.J.(1984).Familiesaspartnersineducationalproductivity.Phi Delta Kappan, 65,395-400.

Webster-Stratton,C.(1998).PreventingconductproblemsinHeadStartchildren: Strengthening parenting competencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 715-730.

Wirt,J.,Choy,S.,Rooney,P.,Provasnik,S.,Sen,A.,&Tobin,R.(2004).The condition of education 2004(NCES2004-077).U.S.DepartmentofEducation, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Zollers, N. J., & Ramanathan, A. K. (1998). For-profit charter schools and studentswithdisabilities,Phi Delta Kappan, 80(4),297-304.


110Appendix

1.Howoldisyoursonordaughter?Whatisyoursonordaughter’sprimarydisability?

2.Youchosetogotothischarterschoolinsteadofanareapublicschoolorprivateschool.

3.Whichschooldidyoursonordaughterpreviouslyattend?Howlongdidhe/she attend this former school?

4.There aremany important reasonswhyparentsdecide to transfer theirchildtoacharterschool.Whatarethereasonsthatyoudecidedtomakethisswitch?

5.Whatdoyouappreciateor like about this charter school’s services forspecialeducation?

6. How do the special education services provided at the charter schoolcompare to the school your son/daughter previously attended?

7.Anyothercomments?

111

“It Wasn’t Fair!” Educators’ Recollections of Their Experiences as Students with Grading

Thomas R. GuskeyUniversity of Kentucky - Lexington

Abstract Few educators receive any formal training in effective strategies for assigning marks to students’ work or grading students’ performance and achievement. In deciding what grading policies and practices to use, therefore, most reflect back on what was done to them. Based on these experiences, they try to develop fair, equitable, defensible, and educationally sound grading strategies. Educators’ personal experiences as students, therefore, can have significant influence on the policies and practices they employ. This study explored educators’ recollections of their personal experiences as students with grading. Data were gathered through questionnaires administered to 320 elementary, middle, and secondary school educators. Questionnaire items asked respondents to describe their most positive and most negative experiences with grading when they were students and to explain the reasons for their feelings. Nearly 70% of educators at all levels reported that their most negative experiences occurred in college or university level classes. Content analyses of responses revealed that these negative experiences most often related to perceptions of unfair treatment or personal bias on the part of their professors or instructors. No differences were identified based on respondents’ years of experience, gender, or current assignment. Positive experiences were more evenly distributed across elementary, secondary, and college level classes, showing that the high proportion of negative experiences in college or university classes was not be explained simply because they occurred more recently. Respondents’ descriptions of positive experiences most frequently related to complex and challenging assignments that required hard work and exceptional effort. The teacher or professor offered encouragement and personalized guidance for successful completion of these assignments, resulting in high levels of performance and achievement.


112 Although the specific influence of these experiences on educators’ current grading and reporting practices remains unknown, these results offer clear insights into the factors that contribute to educators’ personal perspectives on grading and reporting. In addition, they provide specific implications for reform efforts in grading policies and practices.

Introduction

Measurement experts in education have long identified the gradesteachersandprofessorsassigntostudents’workandperformanceasprimeexamplesofunreliablemeasurement(Brookhart,1993;Stiggins,Frisbie,&Griswold,1989).Whatoneteacherconsidersindeterminingstudents’gradesmaydiffergreatlyfromthecriteriausedbyanotherteacher(Cizek,Fitzgerald,&Rachor,1996;McMillan,Workman,&Myran,1999).Eveninschoolsandcolleges where established grading policies offer guidelines for assigninggrades,significantvariationremains in thegradingpracticesof individualteachersandprofessors(Brookhart,1994,McMillan,2001). Onereasonforthisvariationisthatfewteachersorprofessorsreceiveanyformaltrainingingradingandreporting.Mosthavescantknowledgeofthevariousgradingmethods,theadvantagesanddisadvantagesofeach,ortheeffectsofdifferentgradingpolicies(Stiggins,1993,1999).Asaresult,themajorityofteachersandprofessorsrelyontraditionalgradingpractices,oftenreplicatingwhattheyexperiencedasstudents(Frary,Cross,&Weber,1993;Guskey&Bailey,2001;Truog&Friedman,1996).Becausepersonalrecollectionsoftheseexperiencesvaryamongteachersandprofessors,sotoodothepracticesandpoliciestheyemploy. Despitetheirquestionablepsychometricproperties(seeBrookhart,1991;Cross&Frary,1996),gradeshaveapowerfulinfluenceonstudents.Gradesreflecttheteacherorprofessors’judgmentofstudents’levelofachievementand,ideally,providestudentswithinformationtheycanusetoimprovetheirperformance(Guskey,1994).Gradesalsohavebeenshowntohavestrongandlastingeffectsonstudents’attitudes,behaviors,andmotivationtolearn(Brookhart,2004,Haladyna,1999). Thepurposeof this studywas to investigate these lasting effects asviewedthroughtheeyesofteachersandschooladministrators.Specifically,itsoughttodeterminethenatureofelementaryandsecondaryeducators’most


113positiveandmostnegativeexperienceswithgrades,recalledfromtheirdaysasstudents,andwhytheseexperiencesaresoperceived.Becauseeducators’personal experiences as studentswith gradingmay influence the gradingpracticesandpoliciestheyadvocateoruse,abetterunderstandingofthoseexperiencesisessentialtoourknowledgeofthenatureofthatrelationship.Furthermore,suchknowledgemaybevitalineffortsdesignedtoimprovethegradingpracticesandpoliciesofeducators.

Methods

Thedataforthisinvestigationweregatheredfrom325publicschooleducators from three U.S. states who took part in summer professionaldevelopmentinstitutes.Eachoftheseinstituteswassponsoredbyaregionaleducationservicecenterandenrolledcomparablenumbersofadministratorsandteacherswhogenerallyattendedinschoolorschooldistrictteams.Eachinstitutelastedonedayandinvolvedparticipantsinaseriesofactivitiesonthetopicof“ImprovingClassroomAssessment,Grading,andReportingPractices.”Institutemorningpresentationsanddiscussionsdescribedhowschoolleadersandteacherscanusetheresultsfrombothlarge-scaleassessmentsandregularclassroomassessmentstoidentifystudentlearningproblemsandthenplanspecific strategies for improvement. In the afternoon, school leaders andteachersengagedindiscussionsandotheractivitiesdesignedtoillustratetheconsequencesofvariousgradingandreportingtechniques,andproceduresfordevelopingmoreeffectivegradingandreportingpoliciesandpractices. Theschoolsandschooldistrictsfromwhichtheseeducatorscamevariedwidelyinsizeandinthesocial,demographic,andeconomiccharacteristicsoftheirstudentpopulations.Twenty-sevenpercentreportedcomingfromlargeschooldistrictsinurbancenters,51%camefromsuburbanschooldistricts,and22%camefromschooldistrictsservingprimarilyruralcommunities.Forreasonsofconfidentiality,participantswerenotaskedtoidentifytheirraceorethnicity,northelevelofaffluenceorpovertyamongthestudentsintheschooldistricts inwhich theyworked.This information,coupledwith theotherdemographic informationparticipantswereasked toprovide,wouldhaveenabletheidentificationofspecificindividuals. Thetotalsampleincluded29districtleveladministratorsandprogramdirectors,45principalsandassistantprincipals,23counselorsandspecial


114educators, 114 elementary teachers, 42 middle school teachers, and 67secondary school teachers.Theaverageyearsof teachingexperiencewasapproximately12.5years,withadministratorshavingslightlymoreexperiencethanteachers.Maleandfemaleswereevenlyrepresentedinallgroups,withtheexceptionofelementaryteachers,whowerepredominatelyfemale(91versus23).Fiveeducators(lessthan2%)failedtoprovidecompleteinformationandcouldnotbeincludedintheanalysis. Alloftheeducatorsattendingtheinstituteswereaskedtocompletethesame,one-page“GradingExperienceQuestionnaire”(seeAppendix)beforetheinstitutebegan.Thiswasdonetoinsuretheinformationpresentedaspartoftheseminardidnottainttheirperceptions.Althoughinstituteparticipantsweretoldthatcompletionofthequestionnairewasvoluntaryandnotarequirementof the institute, all 325 attendees chose to complete it.The questionnaireaskedrespondentstorecordtheirname(optional),theiryearsofexperienceineducation,andtheircurrentposition(DistrictLevelAdministrator,ProgramDirector/Coordinator, Principal orAssistant Principal, Counselor, SpecialEducator,orTeacher[PrimaryGradesK-2,ElementaryGrades3-5,MiddleGrades6-8,SecondaryGrades9-12]).Next,respondentswereaskedtoanswerfourquestionsbasedontheirexperiences“as a student.”Thefourquestionsincluded:

1.Whatwasyourmostnegativeexperiencewithgradesorgrading? 2.Whywasitsonegative? 3.Whatwasyourmostpositiveexperiencewithgradesorgrading? 4.Whywasitsopositive?

Respondentsalsowereaskedtoindicatethegradelevelandthesubjectareainwhichtheseexperiencesoccurred. Questionnaireresponseswereanalyzedintwostages.First,tallieswerecomputedandtestedthroughchi-squareprocedurestodetermineifdifferencesexisted among educators in various positions and with varying levels ofexperience(1-5years,6-10years,10-20years,and21+years).Specifically,tests were conducted for differences in the education level (elementary,secondary,orcollege),andsubjectarea(languagearts,mathematics,science,socialstudies,orother)oftheseeducatorsmostnegativeandmostpositivegradingexperiences.Thisallowedforexplorationofdifferencesthatmightbe


115relatedtotypeofschoolordistrict(e.g.,Aretheexperiencesofeducatorsfromurbanschoolsdifferentfromthoseofeducatorsfromruralschools?),educators’positions (e.g.,Are the reported experiences of administrators differentfrom thoseof teachers?),yearsofexperience (e.g.,Aremoreexperiencededucators’experiencesdifferentfromthoseoflessexperiencededucators?),andtheir interaction(e.g.,Aretheexperiencesofmoreexperiencedurbanschooladministratorsdifferentfromthoseoflessexperiencedruralschoolteachers?) Second,responsesoftheseeducatorstothefouropen-endedquestionswereanalyzedusingstandardcontent-analysisprocedures.Threedifferentratersreadeachanswerandthengroupedresponsesintobroad,content-specificcategoriesusingkeywords,expressions,orexperiences.Thesecategoricalgroupingswerethenreviewedandsummarizedtoestablishoverallcontentthemesforeachofthecategoriesthatwouldmakeeachdistinguishablefromtheothers.Afterthesebroadcategorieswiththeircontentthemesweredefined,responseswere reclassifiedbyeachof the raters.Responses that includedreferences tomultiplecategorieswereclassifiedas related toa“primary”and“secondary”categorybasedoneitherwhatwasmentionedfirstorwhatwasemphasizedmostintheresponse.Whendiscrepanciesarose,thesewerediscusseduntilraterconsensuswasreached.Overallinter-rateragreementinthisfinalclassificationwas.90.

Results

Theresultsfromthechi-squareanalysesshowednostatisticaldifferencesamonganyofthecharacteristicsoftheeducatorsincludedinthesample.Inotherwords, therewere no significant differences among educators fromdifferenttypesofschooldistricts(urban,suburban,orrural),withdifferentlevelsofexperience,orwithdifferentresponsibilities(administrativeversusteaching)intermsoftheeducationlevelorsubjectareaoftheirmostnegativeormostpositiveexperiencesregardinggrades.Althoughtheseexperiencesvariedwidely,thisvariationappearednottobeattributabletoanyofthesecharacteristics. Talliesofeducators’ responsesoverall,however,yieldedunexpectedconsistency.ThesetalliesareillustratedintheTable.Approximately68%ofeducatorsinallgroupsreportedthattheirmostnegativeexperiencesoccurred


116incollegeoruniversitylevelclasses.Again,nodifferencesamongeducatorsinvariousprofessionalpositionsorwithdifferentlevelsofexperienceprovedtobestatisticallysignificant.Theremaining32%ofresponsesweredividedfairlyevenlyamongelementaryandsecondarylevelclasses.Thesenegativeexperiences also were fairly equally dispersed across subject areas withdifferences,whilestatisticallysignificantgiven the largesamplesize (n=320),quitemodestinmagnitude.

TablePercentage Tallies of Negative and Positive Grading Experiences

CategoryGrading Experience

Negative Positive

Level Elementary Secondary College / University

15%17%68%

25%38%37%

Subject Area Language Arts Mathematics Science Social Studies Other

16%22%21%18%23%

24%19%22%18%17%

Note:n= 320.

Content analyses of the open-ended questions yielded four majorcategoriesofresponse:1)Unfairtreatmentorpersonalbiasbytheteacher;2)Publicembarrassmentbroughtaboutbytheteacher;3)Embarrassment,shame,ordisappointmentathome,primarilyfromparents;and4)Other.Thevastmajorityofeducators’negativeexperiences incollegeanduniversityclassesrelatedtothefirstcategory:Aneventthattheyconsideredtobeunfairtreatmentorpersonalbiasonthepartoftheirprofessorsorinstructors.Many


117describedtestsorassessmentscoveringmaterialthathadnotbeendiscussedinclass.Oneteacher,forexample,wrote:

Inourphysicsclass,weneverknewwhattheexpectationswereonanytest.Oftenproblemswereusedthatrequiredformulasthatweneverlearnedinclassorinlabs.IreceivedthelowestgradeIgotinanyofmycollegecourses,evenwithatremendousamountofwork.

Othereducatorsdescribedarbitrarystandardsforgrades,harshcriticismoftheirworkwithoutsuggestionsforimprovement,orhighscoresreceivinglowgradesbecauseof“gradingonthecurve.”Anadministratorrecalled:

Once,inasociologyclass,Ispentalotoftimepreparingforatest,gota92%,andfeltassuredofan‘A.’Butinthenextclass,Ifoundoutthatmygradewasa‘B’becausetheprofessorgradedonthecurveandothersintheclassdidsomewhatbetterthanI.Itwasn’tfair.Iknewthematerialanddeservedan‘A.’Itshouldn’thavematteredhoweveryoneelsedid.

Still others recalled receiving low grades on group projects because ofclassmates’poorefforts.Saidoneteacher:

Iworkedfordayandnightonmypartofagroupprojectwehadinaneducationclass,butmyteammatesdidnothing.Weallgot‘Cs.’Howfairwasthat?

Some educators described their professors’ preferential treatment ofcertain “favored” students, while others told of professors’ unconcealeddisapproval of students who expressed alternative points of view.Anadministratorexplained:

Itwasclearfromthestartthatshewantedeveryonetoagreewithherpointofview.Shesmiledwhenherownwordswerefedbacktoher,butwouldgetvisiblyangryifsomeoneexpressedanotheropinion.Ishouldhaveplayedhergame,butIwasyoungandarrogant–andIpaidformyarrogancewithalowgrade.

Educators who described elementary or secondary school negativeexperiencestypicallyfocusedonfeelingsofpersonalembarrassment.Negativeexperiencesintheelementarygradesfrequentlyrelatedtopublichumiliation.Oneteacherrelated:


118Theteachercrumpledupmypictureofanelephantinanartclassbecause I hadn’t drawn it according to her model which wascomprisedofcircles.Istartedtocry.Mypicturewasgood,butshewasangrybecauseIdidn’tdrawitherway.

Anotherteacherreported:Ihadbeenillthenightbefore,wasunpreparedforaquiz,anddidverypoorly.Aftercorrectingthequiz,wehadtoannounceourscorewhentheteachercalledourname.Igotthelowestgradeintheclassandfeltembarrassedalready.Butthentheteacheraskedwhointheclasswouldliketovolunteertohelpme,because“It’sclearSusanneedsalotofhelp!”Ifeltliketheclassidiot!

Othersrelatedaparent’sovertdisappointmentorunsympatheticreactiontoapoorgrade,oftencompoundedbytheteachers’requirementtohaveparentssignthepaperorassessmenttowhichthelowgradewasassigned.Ateachersaid:

Becauseeveryonedidsopoorlyonatest,theteachermadeustakeithomeandhaveourparentssignit.MydadgotsoangryandsaidIwaslazy.Buttheteacherhadn’texplainedanyofwhatwasonthetest.Youwouldthinkthathavingsomanystudentsfailmighthavegivenheraclue.

Secondary school experiences more often described a teacher’s publicannouncementofastudent’spoorperformance.Oneteacherrelated:

Sheusedmypaperasanexampletotheentireclassofhownottowriteanessay!Ineverfeltsmallerinmylife.

Talliesofmostpositiveexperiences,alsoshownintheTable,weremuchmoreevenlydividedacrosscollegeanduniversity(37%),secondary(38%),andelementary(25%)classes.Thesedistributionsofexperiencesacrosslevelschallengedtheinterpretationthatthemajorityofnegativeexperiencesrelatedtocollegeoruniversityclassessimplybecausetheyoccurredmostrecentlyandwereeasiesttorecall.Ifthatweretrue,thenthemajorityofpositiveexperiencesalsowouldhavebeenrecalledfromcollegeanduniversityclasses–butthatwasnotthecase.Likerecollectionsofnegativeexperiences,however,therelationshipbetweentheselevelsandeducators’currentpositionsandyearsof experiencewere not statistically significant. Positive experiences also


119werefairlyequallydispersedacrossclassesindifferentsubjectareas,withdifferencesmeetingthecriterionofstatisticalsignificancebut,again,beingquitemodestinmagnitude. Content analyses of educators’ descriptions of their most positiveexperiencesshowedstrikingconsistencyaswell.Fivecategoriesofresponseswereevidentintheanalysis:1)Successonaverychallengingtask;2)Personalpraiseoracknowledgmentbytheteacher;3)Publicrecognitionbytheteacher;4)Parentalpraiseandfeelingsofpride;and5)Other.Thevastmajorityofall educators described an experience related to success on an especiallychallenginglearningtaskassignedbytheteacherthatrequiredexceptionaleffort.Oddly,feweducatorsdescribedthistaskaspersonallymeaningfulorasparticularlyinterestingorexciting.Instead,theirdescriptionsfocusedonthecleardirectionsprovidedbytheirteacherorprofessorfortheprojectortask,alongwithveryspecificexpectationsforexcellentperformance.Oneteacherwrote:

IwrotealengthyessayinanArtAppreciationclass,whichItookasanelective.Myfirstdraftwasprettypoor.Buttheteachersatdownwitheveryoneintheclass,wentthroughourpapersindetail,andtoldusspecificallyhowtomakethembetter.Shetoldmethatshelikedmypointofview.IworkedreallyhardrevisingthepaperbecauseIdidn’twanttodisappointher.Igotan‘A’–myfirsteveronamajorwritingproject–andshepraisedmywritingskillsandcreativity.Itencouragedmetocontinuewritingandtohaveconfidenceinmyabilities.

The vast majority of educators also described teachers or professors whoprovided special encouragement and assistance to ensure student success.Oneschooladministratorresponded:

Heexpectedalot,butshowedushowtomeethisexpectations.Youneverhadtoguessaboutwhathewanted.Ineverworkedharderandfeltsuchasenseofaccomplishmentintheend.

Thecombinationofhighexpectationscoupledwithspecificdirectionsforachievingexcellencewasevidentinnearlyallresponses.Anotherteacherdescribed:

Youneverhadtoguessaboutwhatsheexpected.Shemadeitclearfromthestart.Andsheneveracceptedanythingthatwasn’tdone


120accordingtoherspecifications.Timeandagainsheremindedus,“Ifit’snotdonewell,it’snotdone!”

Manyeducatorsdescribedhowthepositiveexperiencehad life-longinfluence.Severalevenindicatedthattheexperiencewasamajorfactorintheirdecisiontogointoteaching.Oneteacherexpressed:

Iwasbright,butneverreallychallengedinschool.Igotbywithoutdoingmuch.Mr.Xpulledmeasideandtoldmethatmyworkwasmediocreatbest.HesaidheknewIcoulddobetter.AtfirstIletitgo,buthekeptafterme,alwayspointingoutwhereIstartedwellbutneverfollowedthrough.ThenonetimeIthought“I’llshowhim.”Iworkedreallyhardonaclassprojectandgotthehighestgradeintheclass.Mr.XsaidonlythatheknewIcoulddoit,andwouldexpectthesamefromthenon.Itchangedmeandshowedmethepowerofteachers.IknewthenthatIwantedtobeateacher.

Theperceptionsoftheseeducators,bothpositiveandnegative,wereclearlyrelatedtospecificactionstakenbytheirteachersorprofessors.Forbetterandforworse,teachersandprofessorsobviouslyhavepowerfulinfluenceontheirstudents’perceptionsofgrading,whatgradesmean,andwhatimpacttheywillhave.Teachersatalllevelsneedtorecognizethispowerfulinfluenceand then,with knowledge of appropriate applications, use that influencewell.

Summary and Conclusions

Without specific training on grading and reporting, educators drawprimarilyfromtheirownexperiencesasstudentsindeterminingthegradingpoliciesandpracticestheyemploy(Frisbie&Waltman,1992;Stiggins,2005).Forthisreason,understandingthenatureofthoseexperiencescanprovideimportantinsightsforeffortsdesignedtoimprovegradingandreporting. Theevidencegatheredinthisstudyshowsfirsttheimportanceoffairnessandclarityinestablishinggradingpolicies,aswellasavoidanceofpracticesthatmaybeperceivedasbelittlingorembarrassingtostudents.Educators’recollections of their most negative grading experiences, some vividlyrecalledfromover20yearsago,relateprimarilytoperceptionsofunfairnessorprejudiceonthepartoftheirteachersorprofessors.Thisillustratesthe


121profound significance of fairness and equality in students’ perceptions ofgradingpoliciesandpractices.Atalllevelsofeducation,therefore,educatorsmustbestrivetoensurethattheprocedurestheyuseinassigninggradesormarkstostudents’workareeducationallydefensible,reasonable,unprejudiced,andasexplicitaspossible.Especiallyifthepurposeofgradesistoprovideanaccuratedescriptionofwhatstudentsknowandareabletodo,thenhonestyandtransparencymustbetheprincipalfoci. Educatorsalsomustworkhardtoguaranteethattheirpersonalopinionsandunwittingbiasesdonotaffecttheirgradingpractices.Theymustensurethatpersonalperceptionsofstudents’effort,attitudes,personalities,orclassbehaviorsnotinfluencethegradestheyassign.Theymustbeclearandpreciseaboutthecriteriabywhichstudents’performancewillbejudged.Aboveall,teachers andprofessors must strive to beovert in their grading practices,discussing those practices with students and allowing students to raisequestionsbeforethosepracticesareapplied.Doingsowillgreatlyenhancethelikelihoodthatstudentsjudgethosepracticestobefair,just,andequitable. In addition, educators must be sensitive to situations that could bepotentially embarrassing to students. Negative public comments aboutindividualstudent’sperformancehavenoplaceinanyclassroom.Thesameistrueofcriticismthatispersonalinnatureratherthanfocusedonspecificelements of academic performance or achievement. Grades or marks thatservetoinform,particularlywhenaccompaniedbyspecificsuggestionsforimprovement, have far greater educational value than those that diminishstudents’senseofself-worthorreducestudents’self-confidenceinlearningenvironments. Gradingpracticesoractionsbyteachersorprofessorsthatembarrassstudentsrarelypromptstudentstomakegreatereffort.Moretypically,theycausestudentstowithdrawfromlearning.Toprotecttheirself-image,manyregardalowgradeormarkasirrelevantandmeaningless.Otherstudentsmayblamethemselvesforthelowgrade,butfeelhelplesstomakeanyimprovement(Selby&Murphy,1992).Whiletheseisolatedexperiencesmayseemrelativelyminorfromtheteacherorprofessor’sperspective,theresultsofthisstudyshowthattheyoftenhavelifelonginfluenceandspecificconsequencesforstudents. Second,theseresultsalsoshowtheimportanceofengagingstudentsinchallenginglearningtasksaccompaniedbyspecificandpersonalizedguidance


122anddirectionforsuccessfromtheirteachersandprofessors.Thismeansthatlarge-scaleclassprojectsshouldbebrokendowntosmallersubtasksuponwhichteachersandprofessorscanprovidestudentswithspecificfeedbackto guide their efforts and ensure a greater probability of overall success.Thepositivebenefitsofsuchsuccess,andthecriticalroleoftheteacherorprofessor’sassistanceinattainingthatsuccess,alsoappearstohaveprofoundandlastingeffectsonstudents. Finally,theneedforspecifictrainingandprofessionaldevelopmentforeducatorsatalllevelsoneffectivegradingpracticesandpoliciesseemsclear.Itisdoubtfulthatthenegativepracticesdescribedbytheparticipantsinthisstudywerepurposefulactionsonthepartoftheirteachersandprofessors.Instead,theywerelikelynaïveorunconsciousactsbypresumablywell-meaningbutuninformededucators thathadunintendedbut clearlyprofound influence.Similarly,mosteducatorsprobablylackspecificknowledgeabouthowtotakeadvantageofthepositiveeffectsthatparticulargradingpracticescanhave.Trainingandprofessionaldevelopmentfocusedontheseissueswouldhelpeducatorsbecomemoreawareoftheconsequencesoftheiractions.Itwouldalsohelp themdevelop grading practices and implement grading policiesthatarefair,educationallysound,andbeneficialtostudents.Thesepracticesandpoliciescouldthenbesharedwithstudentsattheonsetofanycourseofinstruction,alongwiththeteacherorprofessor’sexpectationthatallstudentswilldowell.Theymightalsoprovideaframeworktowhichstudents’inputcouldbesoughtandstudents’recommendationsconsidered,furtherensuringfairnessandtransparencyinallaspectsofgrading.

References

Brookhart,S.M.(1991).Gradingpracticesandvalidity.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,10(1),35-36.

Brookhart,S.M.(1993).Teachers’gradingpractices:Meaningandvalues.Journal of Educational Measurement,30(2),123-142.

Brookhart,S.M.(1994).Teachers’grading:Practiceandtheory.Applied Measurement in Education,7(4),279-301.

Brookhart,S.M.(2004).Grading.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Pearson,Merrill,Prentice-Hall.


123Cizek,G.J.,Fitzgerald,S.M.,&Rachor,R.E.(1996).Teachers’

assessmentpractices:Preparation,isolation,andthekitchensink.Educational Assessment,3(2),159-179.

Cross,L.H.,&Frary,R.B.(1996).Hodgepodge grading: Endorsed by students and teachers alike.PaperpresentedattheannualmeetingoftheNationalCouncilonMeasurementinEducation,NewYork.

Frary,R.B.,Cross,L.H.,&Weber,L.J.(1993).Testingandgradingpracticesandopinionsofsecondaryteachersofacademicsubjects:Implicationsforinstructioninmeasurement.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,12(3),23-30.

Frisbie,D.A.,&Waltman,K.K.(1992).Developingapersonalgradingplan.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices,11(3),35-42.

Guskey,T.R.(1994).Makingthegrade:Whatbenefitsstudents. Educational Leadership, 52(2),14-20.

Guskey,T.R.,&Bailey,J.M.(2001).Developing grading and reporting systems for student learning.ThousandOaks,CA:CorwinPress.

Haladyna,T.M.(1999).A complete guide to student grading.Boston:Allyn&Bacon.

McMillan,J.H.(2001).Secondaryteachers’classroomassessmentandgradingpractices.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,20(1),20-32.

McMillan,J.H.,Workman,D.,&Myran,S.(1999).Elementary teachers’ classroom assessment and grading practices.PaperpresentedattheannualmeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,Montreal.

Selby,D.,&Murphy,S.(1992).Gradedordegraded:Perceptionsofletter-gradingformainstreamedlearning-disabledstudents.British Columbia Journal of Special Education,16(1),92-104.

Stiggins,R.J.(1993).Teachertraininginassessment:Overcomingtheneglect.InS.L.Wise(Ed.),Teacher training in measurement and as-sessment skills (pp.27-40).Lincoln,NE:BurosInstituteofMentalMea-surements.

Stiggins,R.J.(1999).Evaluatingclassroomassessmenttraininginteachereducationprograms.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,18(1),23-27.


124Stiggins,R.J.(2005).Communicatingwithreportcards.Chapter11in

Student-involved assessment for learning(4thed.)(pp.275-319).UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PearsonEducation.

Stiggins,R.J.,Frisbie,D.A.,&Griswold,P.A.(1989).Insidehighschoolgradingpractices:Buildingaresearchagenda.Educational Mea-surement: Issues and Practice,8(2),5-14.

Truog,A.L.,&Friedman,S.J.(1996).Evaluating high school teachers’ written grading policies from a measurement perspective.PaperpresentedattheannualmeetingoftheNationalCouncilonMeasurementinEducation,NewYork.


125Appendix

Grading Experience Questionnaire©T.R.Guskey

Name(Optional)______________________________YearsofExperienceinEducation_______

CurrentPosition:__Superintendent Teacher __DistrictLevelAdministrator __PrimaryGrades(K-2) __ProgramDirector/Coordinator __ElementaryGrades(3-5) __PrincipalorAsst.Principal __MiddleGrades(6-8) __Counselor __SecondaryLevel(9-12) __SpecialEducator Subjects:_________________

DistrictStudentEnrollment:______________MostlyUrban___Suburban____Rural____

DIRECTIONS:Please answer each of the following questions based on

your experiences as a student :

1.Whatwasyourmostnegativeexperiencewithgradesorgrading?

GradeLevel_____________________SubjectArea____________________________

Experience____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Whywasitsonegative?_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2.Whatwasyourmostpositiveexperiencewithgradesorgrading?

GradeLevel_____________________SubjectArea____________________________

Experience____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Whywasitsopositive?__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.Comments?____________________________________________________________________

Spring 2006 / Volume 6, Number 1

A Brief History of NORMES and JERPS

Theoffice that eventuallybecameTheNationalOffice forResearchonMeasurementandEvaluationSystems(NORMES),aresearchunitintheCollegeofEducationandHealthProfessions(COEHP)attheUniversityofArkansasinFayetteville,beganwitha$500researchincentivegrantawardedtoPrincipalInvestigatorDr.SeanMulvenonin1996.In1998,Dr.MulvenonandDr.RonnaTurner founded theOfficeofResearch,Measurement andEvaluation(ORME)forthepurposeofeducationaldatabasedevelopment,management,andanalysis;dataassessmentandanalysistraining;academicaccountabilitymodeldevelopment;andtheoreticalresearchinthefieldsofeducation,statistics,andmeasurement. Researchers atORMEworkedwith theArkansasDepartment ofEducationtocreatetheEducationalDataDeliverySystem(EDDS),whichwasatthattimetheonlydatasysteminthecountrythatprovidededucatorswithstudentleveldataonarestrictedwebsite.In2000,EDDSwasrecognizedbytheU.S.DepartmentofEducationandtheCouncilofChiefStateSchoolOfficersasamodelprogramforcollectionanddisseminationofeducationaldata.ThesuccessofEDDSservedasaspringboardforORMEtoexpandintootherarenas. Federal fundswere subsequently securedbyDr.Mulvenon throughtheFundfortheImprovementofPostsecondaryEducation(FIPSE)fortheformation of theNationalOffice forRuralMeasurement andEvaluationSystems.TheOfficewascreatedtodevelopsystemsfordatadisseminationandanalysis involving rural schools,particularly in thestateofArkansas.Thesedatawereessentialtoprovidegeographicallyisolatedschoolsthetoolstheyneededtoeffectproductivechangesintheireducationalmethodologies,primarily through improved student assessment and evaluation and theidentificationofeducationalbestpractices. ToaidinthedisseminationoftheresearchfindingsofNORMES,theArkansasDepartmentofEducationprovidedfundsfortheformationoftheArkansas Educational Research and Policy Studies Journal.TheJournal’sfirstissueappearedinthespringof2001.TheJournalwassenttoallArkansasschoolsuperintendents,aswellasstatelegislators,toprovidethemwiththelatestfindingsandimplicationsofempiricaleducationalresearch.


Asresearchprogressedandadditionalfederalfundingwasprovided,NORMESevolved from theNationalOffice forRuralMeasurement andEvaluationSystemsintotheNationalOfficeforResearchonMeasurementandEvaluationSystems.Parallelingtheevolutionoftheoffice,theArkansas Educational Research and Policy Studies Journal became theJournal of Educational Research and Policy Studies—anational,refereedforumforthecriticalgoalofimprovingthisnation’seducationsystem. NORMEScontinuallyseekstoexpanditsarenatootherstates,aswellastoextendtheacquisitionofdataintothepostsecondaryleveltoofferaholisticanalysisofstudents’entireeducationalcareers.TheOfficeisalsoexpandingresearcheffortstodevelopnew,cutting-edgemodelsfordatamanagement,analysis,anddissemination. Ofparticular interest is theutilizationof theinternettomakecriticaleducationalinformationwidelyavailable. Education is thekeystoneof thiscountry’swell-being. ThemissionofNORMES is to provide educators, policymakers, parents, and otherstakeholdersineducationwiththemostreliableeducationalachievementdatapossible,aswellasproperanalysisofthatdata,sothatinformeddecisionsarepossibleinthenever-endingefforttosupportandimprovethenation’seducationalsystem.

-MichaelJ.Martin

Spring 2006 / Volume 6, Number 1

Call for PapersAn invitation... a professional opportunity...

The Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies (formerly the Arkansas Educational Research & Policy Studies Journal), now a national, refereed scholarly publication, seeks quality manuscripts for consideration and possible inclusion in forthcoming issues. The Journal is published twice yearly at the University of Arkansas - Fayetteville. The Journal’s purpose is to furnish a national, interdisciplinary forum for the consideration of major education research initiatives and policy analyses. Topics of interest – from pre-K to collegiate levels – encompass teaching and learning, child development, charter schools, federal and state education policies, accountability measures, home schooling, student achievement assessment, and innovative school reforms. With its expansion from a state to a national medium, the Journal aspires to serve as a juried source for the latest empirical research on current issues in education, as well as significant policy developments and trends in American schooling. Of special interest are articles that are critical and interpretive in character, rather than simply descriptive. Both quantitative and qualitative research paradigms are honored, although the former tends to be emphasized over the latter.

Instructions for Contributors

A submission should consist of no less than ten (10), nor more than thirty (30) double-spaced, word-processed pages (12-point text font), including acknowledgments, references, notes, tables, figure captions, an abstract, and other ancillary material. Two-inch margins are preferred. APA guidelines (5th edition) should be followed consistently throughout for all citations. Notes and acknowledgments should appear at the end of text, preceding the References section. All section heads (plain text) should be centered, using both upper and lower cases. Sub-heads should be placed flush left and italicized. A cover page should be appended bearing the full title of the article, the name(s) of the author(s) and institutional affiliation(s), as well as the name, address, business phone, fax number and e-mail address of the person to whom inquiries regarding the manuscript should be directed. To facilitate anonymous review, the


name(s) of the author(s) should appear on the cover page only. A single paragraph abstract of 100 to 500 words should precede the main body of the text. The primary author of a manuscript is considered responsible for securing prior permission to reprint or adapt a table or figure, or to utilize a quotation of 500 words or more in accordance to “fair usage.” A cover letter to accompany the manuscript should confirm that (1) the manuscript consists of original material that has not appeared previously in print elsewhere; (2) that non-exclusive world rights for the use of non-original materials have been obtained; and (3) that the submission as a whole is not under review for possible publication by any other publisher. Submission of a manuscript for possible publication in the Journal constitutes an assigment to NORMES and to the Journal of all copyright protection governing the subsequent use or release of such material. Receipt of a manuscript submitted for possible publication will be promptly acknowledged. Each submission is sent out for independent review. Once a manuscript is accepted, the author or authors are asked to send an electronic copy of the text, preferably in Word Perfect. Placement of figures or tables should be noted within the text as follows: [Insert Table X here]. Tables should be typeset within the word processing program, and figures contained within the body of a text must be camera-ready. The primary contact author is responsible for securing co-authors’ approval of any manuscript revisions or alterations requested by the Journal staff. Submission of a manuscript is understood to authorize our Journal staff to make non-substantive or stylistic textual alterations as deemed necessary. Questions? Contact Michael J. Martin, editorial specialist, at (479)575-5593 or [email protected]. Submissions should be sent to the following address:

Editor, Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies346 North West Avenue, 302 WAAXUniversity of Arkansas-Fayetteville

Fayetteville, AR 72701

lectura 4

Documents

science teachers

school directors

school size

type of school

school day

quality of teachers

science program patricia

national mathematics