Research Design
This dissertation examines my experiences teaching an Advanced Placement U.S. Government course with “underrepresented students,” including immigrant students, in an urban neighborhood high school. In our city, neighborhood high schools are
considered “schools of last resort ” (Mezzacappa, 2014, February 21) or labeled “dropout factories” (Herold, 2013, March 5). Therefore, students enrolled in our Advanced
Placement classes may not be enrolled in the courses at more academically and socioeconomically diverse or selective high schools. Most of the students enrolled in Advanced Placement courses, especially immigrant students, find mathematics and science courses aligned with their career goals but few believe social studies courses are useful. For example, a student, Cheri, commented to a prompt on the November 2012 class questionnaire, “What skills will prepare you for college?” with “math and science.” Her response was typical. Therefore, at our school it is often difficult to recruit enough students for the AP social studies courses.13
Although my students may not believe social studies is as relevant as mathematics and science, social studies disciplines offer opportunities to prepare students for college and career, and more importantly, life. According to Eisner (2003/2004), curriculum should include opportunities for students to “critique ideas,” evaluate issues without clear
13 As the Advanced Coordinator, I organized the recruitment process for AP courses at our school. For the
2014-2015 school year, 13 students registered for AP US History and 11 for AP US Government. This required extensive outreach. In contrast, more than 30 students registered for AP Calculus. By the spring
solutions, foster “multiple literacies,” encourage collaboration and provide avenues for service. While I would like to include all of the components outlined by Eisner in my classes, it is more difficult to create the space in an Advanced Placement class especially with students who may not have the particular prior knowledge aligned with the required content for the course. Therefore, I sought a curricular strategy to both address the content of the course with opportunities for students to build on their prior knowledge, collaborate, critique ideas, exercise multiple literacies and language domains, and make connections to broader issues.
For the purpose of this study, I designed a series of deliberations (Hess, 2009; King, Newmann, & Carmichael, 2009; Ochoa-Becker, 2007; Parker, 2008; Rubin, 2012) based on the core content of the course; students were required to interpret and construct knowledge on contemporary issues. In each deliberation, students were encouraged to participate in academic discourse, including using discipline specific language and content. The deliberations focused on the institutions of the U.S. federal government – Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary – while including issues related to public policy, political beliefs and civil rights and civil liberties. I chose deliberations, versus debates, to encourage students to collaborate and seek areas of agreement rather than competition and disagreement. I also selected deliberations as a pedagogical tool because the process required students to incorporate literacy skills and language domains – critical reading, academic writing, speaking and formulating questions, and active listening - and critical thinking (Hess, 2008; Hess & Posselt, 2002; Parker, 2003; Walqui, & van Lier, 2010). For many of my students, exercising all language domains, especially in one activity, and supporting a position with multiple-perspective, academic evidence was a new
experience. Lastly, I included post deliberation blog posts to extend the in-class conversation and encourage students to demonstrate, in writing, their newly acquired academic language and content and to continue to collaborate on an issue.
According to Larson (2003) and Snyder (2008), electronic discussions on
controversial issues allow more reserved, reluctant and / or unsure students to share their ideas. The electronic discussions do not take the place of in class discussion but may enhance the discussion. Teachers play a crucial role in framing and guiding the electronic discussion to encourage evidence based dialogue and critical thinking while respecting different points of view (Hostetler, 2012; Larson, 2005). Simultaneously, the teacher also has less control over the direction of the electronic discussion than in class (Larson, 2005). Hostetler (2012) advises teachers to use questions, summarization and reframing of questions to encourage personal and community understanding of issues. Larson (2005) also found English Language Learners participated more in the electronic discussion than in class because they had more time to understand their peer’s comments and contemplate their response. Usually, electronic discussions encourage students to use disciplinary academic language and complex sentence structures and ideas compared to face-to-face discussions (Snyder, 2008).
Besides deliberations and subsequent blog posts, I included multiple data sources and methods for collecting data. Triangulation, or using varied and many data sources, is a backbone of practitioner research (Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 2011; Campbell, 2013; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1991). Maxwell (2005) reminds us the researcher is “the instrument in a qualitative study” as the eyes and ears collecting the data (p. 79). Therefore, my data included documents and artifacts such as my lesson plans,
assignments and student work, my journal, four quarterly student questionnaires, and four semi-structured interviews with small groups of students. The lesson plans and
assignments were aligned with the both the content and skills required for Advanced Placement U.S. Government but also my understandings of civic competence, literacy learning and desire to create an engaging, meaningful and communal learning
environment. I chose to keep a journal or field notes, and conduct student questionnaires and semi-structured interviews based on my understanding of qualitative research and practitioner action research.
A reflexive journal, according to Anderson, Herr, and Nihlen (2007), enables the teacher to maintain a record of data gathering with her/his reflections on the adjustments made as the class evolves (p. 153). The journal notes are similar to Marshall’s and Rossman’s (2011) description of field notes as “detailed, non-judgmental (as much as possible), concrete descriptions of what has been observed” (p. 139). The journal or field notes, including personal reflections, are integral and fundamental to teacher research (Anderson, Herr & Nihlen, 2007; Campbell, 2013; Marshall & Rossman, 2011). For these reasons, I kept a journal with reflections on the opportunities and challenges I faced including the class dynamics, curricular and pedagogical decisions, and daily happenings in the class. I wrote in the journal either during my lunch, after school or at night. Some days I scribbled a few notes on an index card during class to remember what was said or occurred. Then, I added the notes to my journal entry.
I also included semi-structured, audio-recorded small group interviews to provide another lens for students to share their understandings of and perspectives on the class (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). Originally, I intended to conduct the interviews but the
School District did not give me permission since I was the teacher of record. In
retrospect, my presence may have limited the students’ comments (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). For this reason, a member of my dissertation committee suggested another graduate student to conduct the interviews. The graduate student had experience
conducting interviews, was familiar with the school and knew a few of the students since she worked with a community based organization affiliated with the school.
Consequently, she had a vested interest in the students and the school. She graciously volunteered to come to our school four times to conduct the interviews.
I chose semi-structured interviews to ensure an ethnographic quality to the interviews. The interviews were not purely open-ended; Anderson, Herr and Nihlen (2007) recommend developing questions to solicit the students’ experiences and
perspectives. The day before each interview, I asked a group of students to participate. Then, I gave the students a copy of the interview questions. The questions sought
students’ understandings about what they expected to learn and were learning in the class, what experiences they found meaningful and engaging, and questions on their prior experiences, background and beliefs vis-à-vis civic competence and participation. Students identified themselves when they responded to questions and made comments. I stored the audio recordings of the interviews but did not transcribe the interviews until the summer after the class ended.
There were four interviews, December, February, April and June, with five to seven students. The interviews were held during the class period in another classroom. This avoided students missing another class or having to volunteer to stay after school. While a small group of students participated in the each interview, I worked with the
remaining students in our classroom. According to Menter, Elliot, et al. (2011), the selection of students for group interviews should include students who know each other, be intentional and inclusive and include between five to eight students. While I
intentionally selected students to reflect a cross section of the class based on gender, first language, and ethnicity, who participated was also influenced by student attendance and willingness to participate. Fifteen of the 17 students in the class participated in at least one semi-structured interview.
My next data source was four online student questionnaires in November, January, March and late May. The questionnaires were not to tabulate responses; they were to “hear students’ voices about their own learning” (Cobb, 1993 as cited in Anderson, Herr & Nihlen, 2007, pp. 182 - 183). I created open-ended questions to encourage students to share their identities, experiences, points of view, and new knowledge related to the course. Initially, I gave students the option of answering the questionnaire anonymously (Menter, Elliot, et al., 2011). All of the students chose to include their name. Also, I assigned the questionnaire and offered to provide computers before or after school for students to complete the questionnaire. Only two students completed the questionnaire by the initial deadline - November 21. Hence, I secured laptop computers for students to complete the questionnaire in class. For the subsequent questionnaires, I scheduled class time to increase the likelihood that students would complete them. In hindsight, lack of anonymity did not limit students’ responses; they were candid and honest. For example, students who were reluctant to speak in class and did not publicly question class activities wrote frankly in response to the questions. Jim wrote in November “honesty, I don’t think that this class suit me.” Jim’s opinion did not
change; in June he wrote “I don’t think the course would help me in college.” The questions evolved with the students’ concerns, the content of the course and the happenings in the class. I used student responses to the questionnaire to make adjustments to the course and to hear the students’ concerns.
Contextualizing the School District
Figure 2: Attributes of the School District
The School District is located in a large, northeast U.S. city. As of 2013, the city has the highest poverty rate, 28.4 percent, of any big U.S. city (Lubrano, 2013, March 20). With the end of federal stimulus funding for education in 2011 and the election of a new state governor, the District faced a financial crisis. Nevertheless, financial crises are not new to the District. Since the 1990s, state and local funding have been inconsistent
Financial crisis for more than two decades
State take-over
2001
Highest poverty rate of any big US cityand insufficient (Denvir, 2014; Travers, 2003). In February 1998, the Superintendent threatened to close schools because of insufficient state funding (Close, June 1, 1998; Denvir, 2014; Travers, 2003). In response, the Superintendent resigned in July 2000 and on December 21, 2001, the School District was taken over by the state and headed by a five member School Reform Commission (SRC) with two members appointed by the mayor and three members appointed by the governor (Steinberg, 2001, December 22; Travers, 2003). Since the announcement in 2001 through the fall of 2012, one CEO, two appointed superintendents and five interim superintendents have run the School District. Each CEO / Superintendent has announced his/her program to improve schools.
In 2004-2005, a core curriculum was introduced in high schools. While the focus was on English and mathematics because of standardized testing, social studies courses were also created. World History (9th grade), U.S. History (11th grade), and Social Science (civics and economics) (12th grade) were required courses. A required elective, African American History (10th grade), was added in 2005-2006. The courses, aligned with state standards, focused on coverage of factual information and history skills such as chronological thinking, continuity and change and historical interpretations. The state’s civics standards focused on the structure and role of government. The District’s Social Science course followed the state standards but Student Voices, a civics engagement program, and The Stock Market Game for economics, was included.14 Although the required courses did not change when we had a new leadership in 2008-2009, the
14 For six months in 2005, I was on “special assignment” in the School District’s curriculum office to work
on the social studies curriculum. In 2003-2004, a company, Kaplan, was hired to create the high school curricula. To revise the curricula, teachers were sought to work with the company’s representatives to make revisions. Because of teacher input, project-based programs were included in social studies. Nevertheless, there was no District oversight; the programs were optional. Student Voices lost funding in
Superintendent changed the academic requirements and therefore experiences for students in so-called “low performing” schools.
During the high school academic career of the students in the Advanced
Placement U.S. Government class, 2009-2013, the School District program included the rapid expansion of independent charter schools, the transfer of 17 District schools to charter management companies, and the designation of nearly 100 out of 240 schools as “empowerment schools.” Our school was an “empowerment school.” “Empowerment schools” or “underperforming schools,” received additional staffing for two years and were required to follow heavily scripted, direct instruction curricula. In 2009-2010, all incoming ninth graders were tested for placement in SRA/McGraw Hill’s Corrective Reading and Corrective Math. All teachers were required to create and follow a seven step, direct instruction lesson plan. Standardized test preparation was incorporated into all courses. Students were “pulled” out of classes, including social studies classes, to prepare for the standardized tests.
The upheaval in District leadership and the state take-over coincided with the No Child Left Behind legislation and Race to the Top federal funding. The federal
legislation and funding encouraged school districts to create curricula aligned with standardized tests, to incorporate “data driven instruction” based on benchmark objective tests, and to turn schools over to charter management companies. Federal policies have had a direct impact on the School District’s neighborhood high schools; schools were labeled based on standardized test scores and graduation rates. This led to some schools being closed or turned over to charter operators.
By the 2012-2013 school year, there were 52 School District high schools and 35 charter high schools. Of the District schools, 23 high schools are comprehensive or neighborhood high schools with no admission requirements and 29 high schools have admission requirements. The admission requirements for and procedures to gain entry to the charter high schools vary by school. During the 2012-2013 academic year, the School Reform Commission proposed closing or relocating 44 District schools, impacting over 17,000 students (Herold, 2012, December 13). Eventually, 24 District schools were closed - 22 neighborhood schools - and three new high schools with admission requirements were opened.
For the 2013-2014 academic year, there were 36 charter high schools, three new special admission schools for a total of 32 District special admission schools and 21 neighborhood high schools.15 The dismantling of neighborhood high schools began under the tenure of a nationally known CEO in the mid 2000s. Over 20 new, special admission high schools were opened from 2002-2007 while charter school expansion grew exponentially. The demise of neighborhood high schools was intentional (Herold, 2013). English Language Learners and students with an Individualized Education Plan are disproportionately concentrated in neighborhood high schools (McCorry, 2014, March 20). Neighborhood high schools continue to be “underperforming” and threatened with closure and / or take-over by a charter management company.
15 Five of the remaining 21 neighborhood high schools are part of a consortium of schools in one
Contextualizing the School
Figure 3: A Chronology of Sandler High School
Figure 4: Sandler High School Student Enrollment
The school, Sandler High School (pseudonym), is a small neighborhood high (N=600) school with no admission requirements or process. Any student may attend who lives within the geographic “catchment.” Students may also be transferred to the school from another school for disciplinary reasons. In 2000, the enrollment was 1200 (Herold,
2008-‐2009 Labeled “under- performing” school 2009-‐2010 Mandated direct instruction and scripted curriculum 2011-‐2012, 2012-‐2013
Slated for closure Budget slashed 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 2000 2012
Enrollment
Enrollment2011, October 14); in September 2012 there were about 550 students on roll and 604 students by June 2013. The dramatic decrease in enrollment during the 2000s is attributed to the growth of special admission schools, charter schools and the loss of an internal special admission academy or program.16
In 2009-2010, Sandler High School was labeled an “empowerment school” or an “underperforming” school because of low-test scores and a low graduation rates. The label brought additional staffing for two years, 2009 – 2011, but also micromanagement by the School District administration. When funds were dramatically cut in 2011, staff and programs were eliminated. Despite being labeled “underperforming,” limited resources and a relatively small size, our school offered one section each of seven Advanced Placement courses in 2012-2013: U.S. History, U.S. Government, English Language, English Literature, Calculus, Studio Art and Chinese.17 AP Biology and Physics were added in 2013-2014. In 2012-2013, AP class size ranged from eight to 26 students. There were 17 students in AP U.S. Government. Because of the variety of courses, approximately 25% of the 130 seniors had enrolled in at least one Advanced Placement class during their high school career. Nevertheless, we were not meeting the academic goals set by the School District and State.
Because of our shrinking student body and “underperformance,” during the 2011- 2012 and 2012-2013 school years, Sandler High School was slated to close. Intensive
16 The loss of special admission academies or programs in some neighborhood high schools occurred
during with the growth of small, special admission high schools between 2004 – 2008 and continued with the creation of new, special admission high schools in 2013-2014. This occurred at the same time as No Child Left Behind and ranking of schools under “Adequate Yearly Progress” based on standardized test scores. Sandler High School lost a “Law Academy” special admission program in 2005.
17 The school offered AP Physics and AP Chemistry in 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 but they were cut in
student, staff and community based organizing kept the school open. On October 13, 2012, my sons and I, along with at least 300 - 350 students, family members and staff members, attended a School District meeting about potentially closing our school. The turn out apparently shocked the School District leadership because the new
Superintendent visited our school on October 15, 2012.