1. Seattle
University
College of
Education
July 27, 2015
High-Value Leadership:
Principals of High-Performing,
High-Poverty Schools
By
Nancy M. Olsten, Ed.D.

2.  Chair
 Laurie Stevahn, Ph.D.
Professor, College of Education – Curriculum and Instruction, Seattle
University
 Committee
 John Chattin-McNichols, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, College of Education – Curriculum and Instruction,
Seattle University
 Tim Yeomans, Ed.D.
Superintendent, Puyallup School District
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

3. What I noticed about students:
*lost a parent
*unstable home
*neglect
*lack of problem solving skills
*inability to learn from the past
Why this topic?

4. Statement of the Problem
Purpose
Research Questions
Conceptual Frameworks
 Pierre Bourdieu
 Effects of Poverty
 ACE Resilience Research
 Nine Characteristics
OVERVIEW

5. Methods
Findings
Discussion and Conclusions
Questions
OVERVIEW

6. Statement of the Problem
 Poverty impacts brain and social
development
(Baydar, Brooks-Gunn & Furstenberg, 1993; Smith,
Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1997; Lipman, Offord, &
Boyle, 1994)
 Poverty serves as a predictor of academic
failure.
(Pagnani, Boulerice, & Tremblay, 1997)
 Poverty continues to grow with little
consensus about the cause or solution.
(Reardon, 2011)
PROBLEM

7. Purpose of the Study
 Examine the research on the effects of
poverty on academic achievement
 Why do students from lower SES homes struggle
in school?
 Use the theoretical work of Pierre
Bourdieu as the framework
 Is there a theory that frames these questions
into a coherent whole?
 Explore the practices of leaders of
successful high-poverty schools
 In spite of poverty predicting academic failure, why
do these schools succeed?
PURPOSE

8. Significance of Study
 Academic achievement gap
between low- and high-income
students is growing
 More children live in poverty now
and the rate is increasing
 What successful principals of high-
poverty schools do, is increasingly
important to understand and
replicate
SIGNIFICANCE

9. Research Questions
From the perspective of the
principal, what are the factors that
transform a low-performing, high-
poverty school into a high-
performing school?
To what extent do principals who
lead successful high-poverty
schools share a similar background
and/or personally identify with
their students?
RESEARCH
QUESTIONS

10. Pierre Bourdieu
Effects of Poverty on Learning Research
Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE)
Resilience Research
Nine Characteristics of High Performing
Schools
FRAMEWORKS

11.  Cultural and linguistic capital
 Habitus
The transmission of cultural capital
“is no doubt the best hidden form of
hereditary transmission of capital.”
(Bourdieu, 1986, p. 246)
PIERRE
BOURDIEU:
EDUCATION AS
SOCIAL
REPRODUCTION

12. Neurocognitive development differs
according to SES
Chiefly affected:
 Linguistic development
 Executive function skills
(Noble et al., 2005)
Psycho-Social Development differs
according to SES
Poor child is more than three times as
likely as a non-poor child to have:
 Psychiatric disorder
 Conduct disorder
 Emotional disorder
(Lipman, Offord, & Boyle, 1994)
RESEARCH
ON THE
EFFECTS OF
POVERTY

13. The Family Policy Council and
Community Networks study (Longhi &
Porter, 2010) cites three factors that
contribute to resilience:
mastery
a sense of belonging
and feeling part of a larger purpose
ACE
RESILIENCE
RESEARCH

14. 1. A clear and shared focus.
2. High standards and expectations for all students.
3. Effective school leadership.
4. High levels of collaboration and communication.
5. Curriculum, instruction and assessments aligned
with state standards.
6. Frequent monitoring of learning and teaching.
7. Focused professional development.
8. A supportive learning environment.
9. High levels of family and community involvement.
NINE
CHARACTERISTICS
OF
HIGH-PERFORMING
SCHOOLS
(SHANON & BYLSMA,
2007)

15.  Overview of Context
 Sample Identification
 Data Collection
 Procedures
 Instruments
METHODS

16. Overview of Context and
Methods
Principals of high-performing, high-
poverty schools in Washington
State
School poverty rate of 70% or more
Successful schools = Schools of
Distinction Award Winners
METHODS

17. Overview of Context and
Methods
Principals Surveyed for:
1. For their perspectives
2. Their socioeconomic status while
growing up
3. Their ACE score
4. If they are a first generation college
graduate
METHODS

18.  ACE Score Calculator
 Childhood SES Ladder
 Survey
INSTRUMENTS

19. Use of Center for Educational Effectiveness Schools of
Distinction rationale:
 OSPI has no definition of when a Title I Focus school is
deemed successful
 Center for Educational Effectiveness has been consistent in
its methodology and award criteria
 Results are publicly accessible
SCHOOL SELECTION

20. The Center for Educational Effectiveness (CEE) in
partnership with:
 Association of Educational Service Districts (AESD)
 Association of Washington School Principals
(AWSP)
 Washington Association of School Administrators
(WASA)
 Washington State School Directors' Association
(WSSDA)
 and Washington State Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development (WSASCD)
In top 5%
highest
improving
schools in
State of
Washington
Considers 5
years of
Reading and
Math
Achievement
CEE
SCHOOLS OF
DISTINCTION

21. 12 Schools of Distinction (SOD)
had FRL% of 70% or greater
-Poverty rates (FRL%) were accessed through
OSPI for each Elementary and Middle School of
Distinction.
55 Elementary
Schools
22 Middle/Jr
High Schools
HOW MANY
2014 SOD
AWARDS?

22.  Demographics
 Review of Interviews:
 Question 1: Factors of Transformation
 Question 2: Shared Background of Principals and Students
 Analysis of Results by Theoretical Framework
 Bourdieu
 Effects of Poverty
 ACE Resilience Research
 9 Characteristics of High-Performing Schools
FINDINGS

23. School 1 School 2 School 3
FRL (poverty) 75% 70% 83%
ELL students 38% 15% 0
Diversity (non-White students) 88% 54% 12%
SCHOOL
DEMOGRAPHICS
OSPI Data

24. School 1 School 2 School 3
Gender Female Female Male
Highest academic degree Master’s Master’s Master’s
Years in leadership 6 23 6
Years at this school 2 3 17a
PRINCIPAL
DEMOGRAPHICS
aYears as a teacher at this school = 11 of 17.
Survey Data

25. Research Question 1:
From the perspective of the principal,
what are the factors that transform a
low-performing, high-poverty school
into a high-performing school?
Trust and Teamwork
Scaffolded Behavioral and
Academic Instruction
Communities of Care
FACTORS OF
TRANSFORMATION

26. Research Question 2:
To what extent do principals who
lead successful high-poverty schools
share a similar background and/or
personally identify with their
students?
SHARED
BACKGROUND

27. School 1 School 2 School 3
ACE score 3 1 0
SE ladder E E H
First-Generation graduate No No Yes
PRINCIPAL
BACKGROUNDS
Survey Data

28. MCARTHUR
SCALE OF
SOCIO-
ECONOMIC
STATUS

29. Charlotte
Danielson
No Excuses
University
AVID
COMMON
CHARACTERISTIC:
SCHOOL-WIDE ADOPTION OF AN
ACADEMIC FRAMEWORK

30. CHARLOTTE DANIELSON’S FRAMEWORK
- Rigor
- High
Support
- Clear
behavior
standards
- Reflection
- Questioning
teaches
metacognition
& reasoning

31. NO EXCUSES UNIVERSITY

32. AVID
Advancement Via Individual Determination

33. Theoretical
Frameworks
Applied to
Instructional
Frameworks
PIERRE BOURDIEU:
Habitus
EFFECTS OF POVERTY:
Executive Function
RESILIENCE:
Positivity, Social Connectedness,
Mastery and Part of Larger
Purpose

34. Habitus Executive Function Resilience
 High rigor (1.)
 High support (2.)
 Clear standards of conduct
(2.)
 Teacher reflects on lessons/
student learning:
metacognition (4.)
 Connects current learning to
past experience
 Students create concept
maps
 Project assignments with
menus allowing choice
 Focus on reasoning (3.)
 Questioning promotes
metacognition (3.)
 Students set own learning
goals
 Differentiated instruction
 Students may adapt an
aspect of the lesson to make
it more meaningful to them
FRAMEWORK: CHARLOTTE DANIELSON
SCHOOL 1

35. Habitus Executive Function Resilience
 Culture of universal
achievement
 Teach in a way that
prepares all children for
college (beyond HS
graduation)
 Promote college through
symbolism (pennants,
posters, school songs)
 Create social capital by
partnering with local
colleges
 Teaches character
 Unified classroom
management plan
 Model behavior and
attitudes consistent with
academic success
 Teach problem solving
 Use rubrics in assessment
 Teach specific writing
technique (Six Trait)
 Create collaborative
relationships with parents
and community that
surround the students
 Students set academic goals
 Celebrate student success
FRAMEWORK: NO EXCUSES UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL 2

36. Habitus Executive Function Resilience
 High rigor with support
(scaffolding)
 Collaborative learning-
constructivist approach
 Uses peer influence to
create new ways of thinking
 Teach college ways of
thinking and organizing
Directly teaches how to:
 Manage time
 Organize materials
 Manage resources
 Plan effectively
 Set and achieve long term
goals
 Manage self through
reflection
Cornell Note- Taking System
teaches how to:
 Record notes
 Reflect on notes
 Ask questions; pursue
further inquiry
 Students taught questioning
leading to empowerment
and self-efficacy
 Focus on individual
determination
 Peer involvement in
collaboration
FRAMEWORK: AVID
SCHOOL 3

37. Question 1: Transformational Factors
a. Trust and Teamwork
b. Scaffolded Behavioral and Academic Instruction
c. Communities of Care
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND
RESEARCH

38. Question 2: Shared Background
No pattern seen on:
a. ACE scores
b. SES while growing up
c. First generation college graduate
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND
RESEARCH

39. School-wide frameworks in each school focused on key areas
addressing:
a. Habitus
b. Executive Function
c. Resilience
These factors added to the 9 Characteristics of High-Performing
Schools (Shannon & Bylsma, 2007)
could be practices that set high-achieving, high-poverty
schools apart.
SUMMARY

40.  Limitations
 Small purposeful, sample size
 Reliance on principal perceptions
 Self-reports on ACE Score and SES
 Strengths
 Connects strands from research on the social, developmental, and
the neurological effects of poverty and trauma
 Places them in a theoretical framework
 Uses them to examine the experience of principals of high-
performing, high-poverty schools
STRENGTH OF THE STUDY

41.  Survey all high-poverty schools in Washington state inquiring
about the adoption of school-wide frameworks
 Do they have a framework?
 Which framework?
 Does it cover key characteristics?
 Rate framework adoption (beginning, growing, mature)
 Compare responses based on:
 Rate of Poverty (%FRL)
 Academic achievement of students in Math and Reading as
measured by state tests
IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH:
Does a school-wide culture that promotes academic success
for any child, matter?