Information Technology Services



Running head: ACHIEVEMENT GAP

Achievement Gap Perspectives and Decision Making among School Leaders

Roger S. Baskin, Sr.

George Mason University

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to clarify my research interests in preparation for the dissertation requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Education. Concerned with both the perceptions of central office administrators regarding the achievement gap and the degree to which these administrators act on their beliefs, this paper introduces a conceptual framework for understanding both perceptions and outcomes of central office administrators decision makers. The framework is informed by achievement gap literature, decision making literature, and organizational leadership literature. Further, the paper will briefly discuss potential research methodologies that will serve to answer the aforementioned research questions of beliefs and actions of central office administrators regarding the achievement gap.

Achievement Gap Perspectives and Decision Making among School Leaders

Introduction

This paper will articulate my research interests and possible methodologies best suited for my research interests. Concerned with the achievement gap and its varying perceptions among central office administrators, my research plan is to understand how central office administrators make sense of the achievement gap and the degree to which they actualize their beliefs about the achievement gap through their interpretation of data, their design of programs at the district level, and their implementation of policy.

Statement of the Problem

One of the most confounding aspects of understanding the phenomenon of the achievement gap is the variety of opinions and perspectives associated with its origins and solutions. Although some research has been done on the perceptions of teachers regarding the achievement gap (Uhlenberg & Brown, 2002), very little has been done regarding the perceptions of administrators (Evans, 2007; McMahon, 2007). Because both school-based administrators and central office administrators impact student achievement in a variety of ways (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Chhuon, Gilkey, Gonzalez, Daly & Chrispeels, 2008; Chrispeels, Burke, Johnson & Daly, 2008; Engels, Hotton, Devos, Bouckenooghe, & Aelterman, 2008; Mascall, Leithwood, Straus, &Sacks, 2008), it is important to understand their perceptions of this phenomenon and the degree to which they act on their beliefs. The purpose of this research is to learn more about the perceptions of central office administrators regarding the phenomenon of the achievement gap. Further, this research will explore the degree to which central office administrators operationalize their perceptions in decision making regarding data interpretation, program development, and policy implementation. This research will explore the following questions:

RQ1: Do central office administrators share common beliefs about the causes and solutions of the achievement gap?

RQ2: Are their beliefs operationalized in their decision making regarding data, program development, and policy implementation?

Conceptual Framework

The Achievement Gap

As demonstrated in the journal article “Racial Gap in Teachers’ Perceptions of the

Achievement Gap” (Uhlenberg & Brown, 2002), the phenomenon of the achievement gap can best be understood through the lens of four contributing factors: the child, the home, the teacher, and the school system.

The child is significant in that the understanding of the achievement gap because of the impact of such factors as culture, cognitive development, and individual motivation. Students have unique learning preferences, individual experiences that shape their interests in school subjects. All of the factors that contribute to the individual child’s personality and preferences can contribute to the child’s academic achievement. The degree to which historically marginalized students can successfully navigate both the school culture and their cultural identity is also a factor in student achievement (Carter, 2005).

The second factor is that of the home in which the child is nurtured. Socioeconomic status impacts such factors as health care availability, adequate housing, rate of mobility, and a host of other concerns that can impact students before they enter school (Lee & Burkam, 2002; Rothstein, 2004). Another factor within the sphere of home life is the degree of parental support students get while doing homework and the overall involvement of parents in the academic progress of their child (Carpenter, Ramirez & Severn, 2006). Additionally, summer options impact the degree of safety students experience while out of school. The degree to which students maintain cognitive gains from the school year is also impacted by summer opportunities (Fairchild, McLaughlin & Costigan, 2007). These opportunities are often costly and, unless offered as a concerted effort on the part of school districts or federally mandated programs, will not be experienced by many students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. The home life and the ability of parents to offer academic enrichment outside of the regular school day is a contributing factor to the achievement gap. Also, the degree to which parents are able to advocate for their children and to utilize cultural capital also impacts the ability of students to successfully navigate schools (Lee & Bowen, 2006).

The third factor is the teacher. The degree of culturally responsive teaching is considered to be a factor in the academic success of students from historically marginalized backgrounds (Gay, 2000; Howard, 2006). The degree to which teachers are willing to make meaningful connections between students’ cultural background and experiences and the lessons they learn does impact student achievement. Further, the degree of preparation of the teacher is of importance when considering the achievement gap. Teachers who are poorly prepared or who lack experience can impact student achievement, particularly if assigned to students who already have a host of other cognitive and cultural navigation concerns.

The fourth component is the school system. The culture of the school system and the decision making of the district leadership can also impact student achievement (Noguera, 2008). If, for example, the neediest students are routinely given the most inexperienced teachers, there will be an impact on achievement. Additionally, when funding is not equitably distributed to meet the needs of students who require more services and resources then there are also decisions being made that can impact student achievement (Kozol, 1991). The leadership style of the administrators in the building as well as the quality of communication in the district between central office and school administrators is equally important in impacting the quality of student achievement (Brundrett & de Cuevas, 2008; Stevenson, 2007; Honig, 2006).

In short, there are both individual factors and systemic factors that give rise to gaps in access and academic achievement of students from historically marginalized backgrounds (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Wiggan, 2007).

Decision Making

According to James March, “The instruments of meaning are myths, symbols, rituals, and stories.” (1994, p. 208). Myths (stories that appeal to the consciousness of a people) pertaining to racial and economic groups, for example, can have a very strong influence on the way individuals perceive reality. Symbols (tangible expressions that represent abstract qualities) too have the ability to influence decisions and can reinforce certain beliefs of the individual and the organization. Race, for example, still continues to be a powerful symbol and social construct (Ladson-Billings, 1998). Struggles over symbolic interpretations of reality can also develop when there is a benefit of power and influence involved in monopolizing perception (Bourdieu, 1989).

Rituals (practices that perpetuate established beliefs) can condition the individual decision makers to make sense of the world in light of certain stories and beliefs held by groups with which the individual seeks to stay in union. Stories, according to March, “are the fuel of decision making and of social life more generally.” (1994, p. 210). Repeated stories about the inability to overcome achievement gaps, for example, can lead decision makers to pursue a path that avoids what they may perceive as futile and fraught with frustration. On the other hand, stories that point to successful means of eradicating the gap can influence decisions and actions toward the ending gaps in access and equity. Certainly, these perceptions are influenced by past conversations with individuals within the organization as well as other meaning-making groups the individual may have been a part of at some point (Bruner, 1990). These four work together within the individual decision maker to create perceptions associated with the achievement gap. Perceptions of the four contributing factors of the child, home, teacher, and school system help to contribute to the decision making and actions of school administrators. As figure 1 demonstrates, these beliefs can give rise to decisions about data (Coburn, Toure & Yamashita, 2009; Honig & Coburn, 2008), programs, and policy implementation.

Marion (2002, pp. 174-193) notes that decision making is also impacted by the kind of organization individuals work in. In tightly coupled contexts, decision making is not as fluid because of the imperative of organizational oversight. Here the organizational myths and rituals dictate what will be decided. The culture of the organization has a greater determination of outcomes (Katz & Kahn, 1966). Loosely coupled organizations tend to offer more opportunity for individual agency. Central office administrators, though often encouraged to serve as the face of the organization, may find that they are afforded more flexibility and individual agency because of their degree of social capital and symbolic status in the organization.

Educational Leadership Roles

These three manifestations of beliefs have been selected in light of the work of Larry Cuban who focused on the managerial, instructional, and political roles of educators (1988). I hope to see how these roles are informed by the set of beliefs in the four areas of the achievement gap.

Just as perceptions of the causes and solutions of the achievement gap can be influenced by the individual’s social context, so too can the decisions that are made. Further, the expected roles of the central office administrator by superiors and by the central office culture can impact the manifestation of decision outcomes. The increasing importance of federal mandates like No Child Left Behind may, for example, increase the expression of managerial roles over instructional or political roles (Peterson &Young, 2004). Even one’s since of allegiance to status as a minority can be superseded by institutional expectations when attempting certain reforms that do not mirror the myths and accepted stories of the organization (Murray, Terry, Washington, & Keller, 1994).

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework.

Potential Research Methods

In regards to the potential methods of research, I plan to use both quantitative and qualitative methods. To pursue the question of perspectives, I plan to model my research after that of the Uhlenberg and Brown study (2002) which utilized surveys for approximately 53 teachers in the Raleigh-Durham area. The study attempted to have an equal number of African American and white teachers to demonstrate differences and similarities in perceptions. Although I initially planned on pursuing the question within one school district, it may be more advantageous to broaden the study to include central office administrators from several districts. This would create the likelihood of a more diverse pool of respondents in terms of race, gender, and years of experience. The Uhlenberg and Brown study was overwhelmingly female and had a majority of respondents with less than 10 years of experience. Choosing respondents from different school districts can also help to lessen the likelihood of institutional sameness. The survey will utilize very similar questions to those in the aforementioned study. There may be some adjustments to the questions to focus on the role and work of central office administrators. I plan to use SPSS to analyze the collected data.

The second research question, regarding the actualization of beliefs, will be pursued through qualitative means including document analysis of past decisions made by participants, observations of selected members at meetings (particularly those that meet the intent of the conceptual framework), and interviews with select participants. Nvivo will be used to analyze themes that occur in interviews.

Conclusions

My research interest has to do with the perceptions of central office administrators concerning four aspects of the achievement gap—the child, the home, the teacher, and the school system. Further, I wish to understand how these beliefs are actualized in the managerial, political, and instructional work of central office administrators. To answer the first research question, I plan to utilize methods similar to those used in the Uhlenberg & Brown study (2002) which focused on survey results from teachers in the Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina area. To answer the second research question, I plan to use a qualitative approach including the use of documents, observations and interviews to measure the degree to which participants actualize their beliefs.

References

Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7 (1), 14-

25.

Brundrett, M. & de Cuevas, R. A. (2008). Setting an agenda for the development of the

next generation of school leaders: A commitment to social justice or simply

making up the numbers. School Leadership and Management, 28(3), 247-260.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard

University Press.

Bryk, A. & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.

New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Carpenter, D., Ramirez, A. & Severn, L. (2006). Gap or gaps: Challenging the singular

definition of the achievement gap. Education and Urban Society, 39 (1), 113-127.

Carter, P. (2005). Keepin’ it real: School success beyond black and white.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Chhuon, V., Gilkey, E., Gonzalez, M., Daly, A. & Chrispeels, J. (2008). The little

district that could: The process of building district-school trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 227-281.

Chrispeels, J., Burke, P., Johnson, P. & Daly, A. (2008). Aligning mental models of

district and school leadership teams for reform coherence. Education and Urban Society, 40(6), 730-750.

Coburn, C., Toure, J. & Yamashita, M. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion:

Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teachers College

Record, 111 (4), 1115-1161.

Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Engels, N., Hotton, G., Devos, G., Bouckenooghe, D. & Aelterman, A. (2008).

Principals in schools with a positive school culture. Educational Studies, 34(3), 159-174.

Evans, A. E. (2007). School leaders and their sensemaking about race and demographic

change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 159-188.

Fairchild, R., McLaughlin, B. & Costigan, B. (2007). How did you spend your summer

Vacation? What public policies do (and don’t do) to support summer learning opportunities for all youth. New York: The Robert Bowne Foundation.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, &

practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Honig, M. I. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office

administrators as boundary spanners in education policy. Educational Evaluation

& Policy Analysis, 28(4), 357-383.

Honig, M. I. & Coburn, C. (2008). Evidence-based decision making in school district

central offices: Toward a policy and research agenda. Educational Policy, 22 (4),

578-608.

Howard, G. (2006). We can’t teach what we don’t know: White teachers,

multiracial schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York:

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York, NY:

HarperCollins.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice

field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7-24.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt:

Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. AERA 2006 Presidential address. Educational Researcher, 35 (7), 3-12.

Lee, J. & Bowen, N. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement

gap among elementary school children, American Educational Research Journal, 43( 2), 193-218.

Lee, V. & Burkam, D. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social

background differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington,

DC: Economic Policy Institute.

March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York:

The Free Press.

Marion, R. (2002). Leadership in education: Organizational theory for the practitioner.

Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.

Mascall, B., Leithwood, K., Straus, T., Sacks, R. (2008). The relationship between

distributed leadership and teachers’ academic optimism. Journal of Educational

Administration, 46 (2), 214-228.

McMahon, B. (2007). Educational administrator’s conceptions of whiteness, anti-

racism, and social justice. Journal of Educational Administration. 45 (6), 684-

696.

Murray, S., Terry, L., Washington, C., Keller, L. (1994). The role demands and

dilemmas of minority public administrators: The Herbert thesis revisited. Public Administration Review, 54(5), 409-417.

Noguera, P. (2008). Creating schools where race does not predict achievement: The role

and significance of race in the racial achievement gap. Journal of Negro Education, 77 (2), 90-103.

Peterson, G. & Young, M. (2004). The no child left behind act and its influences on

current and future district leaders. Journal of Law and Education, 33(3), 343-363.

Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and

educational reform to close the black-white achievement gap. Washington,

DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Stevenson, H. (2007). A case study in leading schools for social justice: when morals and

markets collide. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(6), 769-781.

Uhlenberg, J. & Brown, K. (2002). Racial gap in teachers’ perceptions of the

achievement gap. Education and Urban Society, 34 (4), 493-530.

Wiggan, G. (2007). Race, school achievement, and educational

inequality: Toward a student-based inquiry perspective. Review of Educational

Research, 77(3), 310-333.

-----------------------

Perceptions

Of the Achievement Gap

Data Interpretation

Program Development

Policy Implementation

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download