The rules for everyone in the class are the same.

d 3.52 .981 3.10 1.334

4. My teacher makes it easy to read in reading class

-- 3.24 1.300 2.70 1.418

Students' Perceptions of School Climate 1. My school is quiet and

peaceful.

a, b, 1.67 1.197 1.50 1.000

2. Most of the students at my school get along.

a, 2.00 1.183 1.95 1.234

3. The principal knows my name. d 3.52 1.030 3.40 .995

4. I feel safe at my school. b 2.48 1.436 1.90 1.165

109

One note that should be made is that these are the students' perceptions of their teacher on one particular day. These perceptions could change based on interactions with the teacher, classmates, principal, or other individuals they come across. Based on the student perceptions of the teachers, it would seem as if the teachers are culturally responsive, with the mean for teacher 2 (M), being slightly higher than teacher 1 in the areas of communalism, movement expressiveness; verve; and orality.

Table 25 below can also be used to analyze questions one and two as it shows that the teachers had very similar perceptions of themselves as teachers, having a mean of 3.7, with a standard deviation of .424 (M, 3.7; SD, .424), with a statistical significance between the teachers perceptions of themselves; especially in the area of professional development needs and student discipline (M, 2.5; SD, 2.121).

Table 25

Descriptive Statistics Teacher Survey Data

n Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Teacher 1 _{1 3 4 3.87 .707}

Teacher 2 _{1 1 4 3.53 2.121}

Research Question 2

Question 2. How were the perceptions of African American students of their teachers being culturally responsive related to their reading achievement as measured by district approved assessment tests? To answer question two, an review of the district approved student assessment was used. Students at School One had an MOY assessment score of 233.8914 and an EOY assessment score of 233.1805. These

110

students had not attained the Tier 1 level that they should have earned by the MOY timeframe. The students at School One did not take the BOY so it is difficult to

determine the level they started; however, the mean EOY scores show that there was no growth from MOY to EOY, the students were not at the expected Tier 1 level, and the students actually showed a negative growth in that the mean score for the EOY was less than the MOY for School One. On the contrary, at School Two the mean MOY

assessment showed that the students were above the 3rd grade Tier 1 level at 243.8327. Additionally, the mean score for the EOY assessment showed that there was growth with a score of 247.7993, which is higher than is expected in Tier 1 for that grade level.

Table 26

Paired Samples Statistics IStation Mean

IStation results for growth n Mean Std.

Deviation Std. Error Mean Final_ISIPER_MOY_Score School One 22 233.8914 15.63734 3.33389 Final_ISIPER_EOY_Score School One 22 233.1805 15.09595 3.21847 Final_ISIPER_MOY_Score School Two 15 243.8327 12.24681 3.16211 Final_ISIPER_EOY_Score School Two 15 247.7993 10.78102 2.78365

Table 27 below provides a detailed assessment of the IStation results for growth between the schools. Additionally, student scores on the district approved assessment test were used to answer research questions one and two.

111 Table 27

Paired Samples Test for IStation - Significance

IStation results for growth n t df Sig. Mean Diff.

Final_ISIPER_MOY_Score School One Final_ISIPER_EOY_Score School One 22 .515 21 .306 .71091 Final_ISIPER_MOY_Score School Two Final_ISIPER_EOY_Score School Two 15 1.947 14 0.036 3.967

Using a paired samples test for the IStation assessment, with p being less than .05, it was found that with School One, there was no significant difference between the score for the MOY and the EOY for the students, t (21) = .515, p = .306. Student scores at School Two, using the same analysis for the IStation assessment, with p being less than .05, it was found that there was a significant difference between the score for the MOY and the EOY for the students, t (14) = 1.947, p = 0.036. The teacher at School Two was able to move the students from one level to another, improving student achievement.

Research Question 3

Question 3. What was the relationship between a teacher being culturally responsive to students' needs and being identified as effective or highly effective? In order to answer this question, all preceding surveys were used to make this

determination as well as a review of the teachers' previous year's teacher evaluation appraisal. Table 28 below shows that Teacher 1 was considered Effective, with a rating of 2.6 out of a 4.0 score (see appendix F for details regarding teacher effective. The

112

teacher at School Two was new to the district and had no summative rating from the district, but did provide, through self-report, the rating received from the previous district, which was Exceeds Expectations/Distinguished.

Table 28

Teacher Assessment Rating 2014 - 2015

Teacher Score Rating

School One 2.6 Effective

School Two* * Exceeds Expectations/Distinguished

School District data; * Self-report - new teacher data were not available

Additional Analyses

I was very interested in whether or not the Tier 1 cultural dimensions would have a strong bearing in determining how the students perceived their teachers. In order to further answer questions 1, 2, and 3, I did an analysis on the cultural dimensions from surveys 2 and 3 that were closely tied to Tier 1 dimensions of culture. Tier 1 dimensions are: expressive movement. communalism, orality, and verve. Verve, especially, has been tied to success in African American student achievement and classroom

management (Carter, et. al, 2008; Larke, et. al. 1996). From the analysis below, it was determined that the teacher at School Two had a higher mean from students who perceived the teacher to be culturally responsive than the teacher at School One, but there was no significant difference between the two scores. As Table 29 below shows, the mean for School Two was higher at 3.18, while the mean for School One was 3.05. Using the t-test, it was determined that p >.05.

113 Table 29

Analysis of Students Using Tier 1 Metrics Group Assignment n Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 2.0 19 3.18421 .398278 .091371 1.0 21 3.05357 .638077 .139240 Table 30

Tier 1 Metrics Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality of

Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Overal l Mean Equal variances assumed 5.27 .027 .767 38 .448 .131 .1703 -.214 .475 Equal variances not assumed .784 33. 94 .438 .131 .1665 -.208 .469

Additionally, as previously stated, the school climate was low at both schools. In addition to the answers regarding how the students felt about the schools, both schools were located in financially challenged, schools and communities. Crime was extremely high in these communities. One of the schools was located in a neighborhood that had been identified as number four on the list of the 25 “most dangerous neighborhoods in

114

America.” The other school was within the community holding number fifteen on the list of most dangerous neighborhoods the next year. These factors could greatly influence the students' perceptions of safety and school environment, as evidenced by their responses to the survey regarding not feeling safe at the school. Although out of the teachers' control, this information was used to find out how students felt about their environment.

Also, it cannot be stated enough that although there are characteristics of African American culture that can be readily identified, each student is an individual and should be treated as such. During the observations, it was clear that the teachers had an

understanding of students as individuals, as well as students in a cultural environment. Summary

The quantitative results chapter began with an introduction of the statistical test that would be analyzed and used. It also provided the order that the data would be presented. It began with demographic data on the students so that the reader would have a clear understanding of the types of students who would be participating. The

demographic data were followed by an analysis of the surveys that were taken by both the students and the teachers. This chapter reintroduced the research questions and tied them to the results. Individual t-test of items, as well as mean assessments were completed to understand the students’ perception of teacher cultural responsiveness and student achievement.

Results from the student surveys revealed that there was only a slight statistical difference between student perceptions of Teacher 1 and Teacher 2. The students rated

115

the teacher at School One slightly higher than they rated the teacher at School 2. These results were not necessarily surprising. An analysis of the qualitative data allowed me to gain insight into why students scored their teachers they way they did on the surveys and how what I observed could be interpreted based on the students' academic achievement (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2004). Addressed in the nine dimensions of African American culture as harmony and communalism, the students may have scored their teacher high so that I, as the researcher, would have a good impression of her or the female teacher may have been seen as a mother figure. A deeper dive into the Tiers of cultural

dimensions was used to determine which teacher had a better understanding and grasp of the correct culturally responsive pedagogy needed to reach each student. A review of the student assessment data revealed that students at School Two outperformed the students at School One and had significant growth with the teacher. Results of the qualitative data analysis are presented in the following chapter (Hernandez, 2004, p. 122 as referenced in Lunenburg & Irby, 2008).

116 CHAPTER V

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA: QUALITATIVE