The authors report on a yearlong investigation into similar schools that performed well and less well in the same district. They found that the higher-performing schools engaged in an intentional set of systemic practices that encourage Personalization for Academic and Social Learning (PASL) in one district and integrated structures of academic press and support that scaffolded the development of Student Ownership and Responsibility (SOAR) in another.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkeyT.M. (2006). School context, student attitudes and behavior, and academic achievement: An exploratory analysis. New York, NY: MDRC.
2.
AndersonS.LeithwoodK.StraussT. (2010). Leading data use in schools: Organizational conditions and practices at the school and district levels. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9 (3), 292–327.
3.
BanduraA. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44 (9), 1175–1184.
4.
BanduraA. (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
5.
BanduraA. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9 (3), 75–78.
6.
BanduraA. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.
7.
BurkeD.L. (1997). Looping: Adding time, strengthening relationships(ERIC Digest No. 12). Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED414098)
8.
CannataM.HaynesK.T.SmithT.M. (2014). Reaching for rigor by increasing student ownership and responsibility. Presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, Pa.
9.
DornbuschS.M.GlasgowK.L.LinI. (1996). The social structure of schooling. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 401–429.
10.
FarringtonC.RoderickM.AllensworthE.NagaokaJ.KeyesT.S.JohnsonD.W.BeechumN.O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners: The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, Consortium on Chicago School Research.
11.
FirestoneW.GonzálezR. (2007). Culture and processes affecting data use in school districts. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106 (1), 132–154.
12.
FredricksJ.A.BlumenfeldP.C.ParisA.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 59–109.
13.
GottfredsonD.C.PayneA.A.GottfredsonN.C. (2005). School climate predictors of school disorder: Results from a national study of delinquency prevention in schools. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42 (4), 412–444.
14.
IngersollR.M. (2003). Who controls teachers’ work? Power and accountability in America’s Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
LeeV.E.BrykA.S.SmithJ.B. (1993). The organization of effective secondary schools. Review of Research in Education, 19, 171–269.
16.
RutledgeS.A.Cohen-VogelL.Osborne-LampkinL.RobertsR. (2015) Understanding effective high schools: Evidence for personalization for academic and social emotional learning. American Educational Research Journal, 52 (6), 1060–1092.
17.
SassT. (2012). Selecting high- and low-performing high schools in Broward County, Florida, for analysis and treatment(Technical report). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, National Center for Scaling Up Effective Schools.
18.
Value-Added Research Center. (2014). Measuring school effectiveness: Technical report on the 2011 value-added model. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, National Center on Scaling Up Effective Schools.
19.
ZimmermanB. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91.
