Chapter V. Conclusions, Discussion, and Suggestions for Future Research

Introduction

In conducting this collaborative, mixed-methods, multi-site comparative case study with the Center for Practice Engaged Education Research (C-PEER), I wanted to understand aspects of systems that impact schools operating as effective learning communities, specifically with regards to systemic STEM inequities. In the following sections, I summarize my findings based on qualitative archival data coding and quantitative survey analysis. I revisit my original research questions and draw conclusions based on the data I received. My discussion of the data leads into two recommendations: (a) recommendations for future/continued research; and (b) recommendations for supporting teachers’ practice. It is my hope that these recommendations further the conversation around adult professional development and the pedagogical practices necessary for moving teachers to make meaningful changes current pedagogy, which perpetuates inequitable systems of learning.

Summary of Findings

This study intends to answer: (a) What elementary school structures support students in STEM curricular areas? (b) Do these supports differ for sub-groups of students, i.e. students of color, students in poverty, and English language learners? (c) What are the components of elementary STEM opportunities to learn foster interest, participation, and academic success in STEM content areas, especially for marginalized students of color? Researchers examined a combination of quantitative and qualitative data sources, which included the Effective Learning Teacher Survey (ELTS), the Effective Learning Leader Survey (ELLS), extant student perception survey data provided by the partner district, de-identified teacher evaluation data under the professionalism domain on the teacher evaluation rubric, extant district data, like school UIP’s and SPF’s, and archival documents provided by participating schools, including any professional learning plans and calendars for each school. Key findings from the participating schools in this focus-study include: (a) no evidence of integrated STEM-foundational thinking and STEM instructional activities into content areas; (b) a lack of an explicit STEM agenda for each elementary school; (c) no explicit structures in place for underperforming subgroups of students to access STEM-foundational thinking; (d) the alignment of student perceptions about a teacher’s ability to facilitate STEM-foundational thinking with reported teacher perceptions about current instructional practices and the schools’ identified performance level (as determined by the Colorado Department of Education); and (e) the misalignment between school’s perceptions about STEM-foundational thinking and instructional practices and teacher perceptions about the effectiveness of using STEM to in improving their pedagogy.

Conclusions (Organized by Research Questions)

Based on obtained qualitative and quantitative data, there are no elementary school structures present that support students in STEM curricular areas. Since there are no structures in place, students of color, students in poverty, English language learners, and other underperforming sub-groups, do not have access to STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities. Based on current research, there are specific components that elementary schools can put in place to foster student interest, participation, and academic success in STEM content areas. These include (a) Culturally Responsive Education professional development; (b) collaborative, distributive leadership toward STEM-foundational thinking; (c) attention to rigor; (d) attention to and validation of students’’ everyday experiences; (e) focus on creating STEM communities; and (f) out-of-school and in-school content-area connections (Cokley, 2003; Litowitz 1997; Seashore-Louis, et al., 2010; Knapp, et al., 2010; Anderson-Butcher, Lawson, Bean, Boone, Kwiatkowski, et al., 2004; Hess, et al., 2009; Stembridge, 2015; Walker, 2012; Basham, et al., 2010; Bybee, 2013; Drew, 2011; Myers & Berkowicz, 2015; Berkowicz & Myers, 2016).

Conclusion

This study investigated STEM-foundational thinking and structures in place for teacher practices in relation to STEM instructional activities. Some overarching findings for the participating schools in this study indicate a relationship between isolated STEM-foundational thinking teacher practices. For example, researchers found that in participating schools, there were no statistically significant teacher perceptions of STEM-foundational thinking, and these did not align with administrator perceptions of STEM-foundational thinking. Participating schools do not indicate that they explicitly participate in STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities. Professional. Researchers also discovered that student perceptions of teachers facilitating STEM-foundational thinking aligned with teacher perceptions about the lack of STEM instructional practices. Researchers also ascertained the evidence of relationships and patterns between teacher survey responses (STEM-related sub-scales), student perceptions about their teachers’ abilities to facilitate STEM-foundational thinking also aligned with a school’s performance level. Generally speaking, in lower performing schools, teacher and student perceptions were lower than teacher and student perceptions in higher performing schools. Finally, researchers were also able to uncover evidence of relationships among the variables in responses on the ELLS and the ELTS (see Table 8). 

In terms of my original research question: What elementary school structures support students in STEM curricular areas? and based on the quantitative data analysis, there are pockets of STEM-foundational thinking present throughout the seven surveyed elementary schools. There does not seem to a pattern among schools with regards to STEM-foundational thinking and instructional activities, especially with respect to how STEM supports may or may not differ for sub-groups of students. However, as no individual school cases are meant to be generalized, I focused my efforts on exploring several sources of data. For example, when one examines the qualitative data (i.e.: curriculum documents, school improvement plans, and mission and vision statements), what stands out is the lack of a deliberate focus on STEM-foundational thinking. No school surveyed has a full agenda for how to implement or integrate STEM-foundational thinking into their curricula. No school (as indicated by the STEM survey clusters) has an entire cluster correlated to STEM-foundational thinking. Nonetheless, one school, Richard Spikes Elementary, does stand out slightly from the other schools. There appears to be a school-wide effort on student reflection in all content areas. This give students multiple opportunities throughout their school day to reflect on their thinking and academic work, a characteristic found in STEM-foundational thinking and STEM instructional activities. In terms of specific components of elementary STEM opportunities to learn that foster interest, participation, and academic success in STEM content areas, especially for marginalized students of color, I believe that consistency in pedagogical practices is important for integration of any educational philosophy. When a building embeds a certain value in multiple aspects of their organization (e.g.: mission and vision statement, professional development, curriculum guides), then that value becomes more widely adopted by staff, students, and the parent community.

Findings

After organizing the survey questions by STEM subscales (see Table 3), I was able to determine relationships between certain questions. For example, the Corrected Item-Total Correlation column shows the relationship between the responses on individual questions and the overall total score on the questionnaire. I would expect a reliable question to have a positive relationship with the overall total, ideal being above 0.3. For section subscale (PCA1), questions 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 have low correlation values, which means that the items are displaying a weak positive relationship to the total and may be poor on reliability. These items, though do not affect the findings from the whole scale except for question 14 whose contribution to the Cronbach’s alpha is zero if deleted (i.e. if we delete question 14), the Cronbach’s alpha for the overall scale will remain the 0.859 that it was we had left it. The remaining questions, namely, questions 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 15 have moderate correlation values which means that they are displaying a moderate positive relationship to the total and they have a good reliability. These items do have a significant contribution to the whole scale. Overall, the Cronbach’s alpha score for all the items (0.859) is satisfactory and confirms the reliability of the research instrument.

Cronbach's Alpha:  .859   --   17 items	Scale Mean if Item Deleted	Scale Variance if Item Deleted	Corrected Item-Total Correlation	Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted
How much students-Compare information from different sources before completing a task or assignment?	38.17	96.245	.467	.851
How much students-Evaluate the credibility and relevance of online resources?	38.76	96.432	.539	.848
How much students-Analyze competing arguments, perspectives or solutions to a problem?	38.11	96.054	.468	.851
How much students-Hold a debate and argue for a particular point of view which may not be their own?	38.77	96.401	.510	.850
How much students-Use technology to analyze information (e.g., databases, spreadsheets, graphic programs, etc.)?	38.47	95.582	.458	.852
How much students-Invent a solution to a complex, open-ended question or problem?	38.25	92.962	.603	.845
How much students-Try to solve complex problems or answer questions that have no single correct solution or answer?	38.13	94.550	.571	.847
How much students-Structure data for use in written products or oral presentations (e.g., creating charts, tables or graphs)?	38.41	97.556	.430	.853
How much students-Make a product that will be used by someone else?	38.81	96.731	.510	.850
How much students-Decide how they will present their work or demonstrate their learning?	38.58	98.015	.408	.854
How much students -Work with other students to set goals and create a plan for their team?	38.34	97.754	.436	.853
How much students-Work as a team to incorporate feedback on group tasks or products?	37.95	100.082	.304	.859
How much students-Monitor their own progress towards completion of a complex task and modify their work accordingly?	37.91	96.338	.457	.852
How much students-Analyze how different stakeholder groups or community members view an issue?	38.81	99.233	.400	.854
How much students-Investigate topics or issues that are relevant to their family or community?	38.22	94.718	.567	.847
How much students-Apply what they are learning to local situations, issues or problems?	38.24	96.237	.463	.852
How much students?-Choose for themselves what examples to study or resources to use?	38.29	96.363	.478	.851

Table 3. STEM subscales list (PCA 1)

For section 2 (PCA2) (see Table 4), except for questions 2 and 10 that have moderate correlation values which means that these items display a moderate positive relationship to the total and have a good reliability, the remaining items have low correlation values and may be poor in reliability. Though, these items all together do have a significant contribution to the whole scale. This is evident from the fact that none of the “Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted” column has a value higher than the Cronbach’s alpha of 0.779 for the whole scale. Overall, the Cronbach’s alpha score for all the items (0.779) is satisfactory and confirms the reliability of the research instrument.

Cronbach's Alpha:  .779   --  12 items	Scale Mean if Item Deleted	Scale Variance if Item Deleted	Corrected Item-Total Correlation	Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted
How much do students - Draw their own conclusions based on analysis of numbers, facts, or relevant information?	32.57	45.253	.349	.771
How much do students - Test out different ideas and work to improve them?	33.02	43.332	.520	.753
How much do students - Use idea creation techniques such as brainstorming or concept mapping?	32.81	44.013	.429	.763
How much do students - Take initiative when confronted with a difficult problem or question?	32.84	44.966	.441	.762
How much do students - Summarize or create their own interpretation of what they have read or been taught?	32.38	44.781	.447	.761
How much do students - Create an original product or performance to express their ideas?	33.22	45.559	.365	.769
How much do students - Create joint products using contributions from each student?	32.92	44.632	.379	.768
How much do students - Plan the steps they will take to accomplish a complex task?	33.16	45.277	.379	.768
How much do students - Use peer, teacher or expert feedback to revise their work?	32.55	45.578	.361	.770
How much do students - Talk to one or more members of the community about a class project or activity?	33.53	42.066	.504	.754
How much do students - Choose their own topics of learning or questions to pursue?	33.27	44.409	.406	.765
How much do students - Respond to a question or task in a way that weighs the concerns of different community members or groups?	33.17	44.065	.431	.762

Table 4. STEM subscales list (PCA 2)

For section 3 (PCA3) (see Table 5), except for question 5 that have a moderate correlation value which means that this item display a moderate positive relationship to the total and have a good reliability, the remaining items have low correlation values and may be poor in reliability. Though, these items all together do have a significant contribution to the whole scale. This is evident from the fact that none of the “Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted” column has a value higher than the Cronbach’s alpha of 0.728 for the whole scale. Overall, the Cronbach’s alpha score for all the items (0.728) is satisfactory and confirms the reliability of the research instrument.

Cronbach's Alpha:  .728   -- 7 items	Scale Mean if Item Deleted	Scale Variance if Item Deleted	Corrected Item-Total Correlation	Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted
Teachers ask students to explain how they get their answers.	17.87	6.808	.445	.697
Teachers can provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused.	17.77	6.813	.366	.714
Teachers see their main role as being a facilitator of students’ own inquiry.	18.20	6.193	.467	.690
Teachers are comfortable being a "co-inquirer" with their students.	18.32	6.323	.418	.704
Teachers create lessons/activities that tie their content with other things students are learning	18.07	6.201	.511	.679
Most teachers are able to adjust lessons to the proper level for individual students.	17.92	6.600	.433	.698
Teachers know how to include activities to foster student creativity.	18.18	6.629	.452	.694

Table 5. STEM subscales list (PCA 3)

For section 4 (PCA4) (see Table 6), all the items under this section have low correlation values and may be poor in reliability. Though, these items all together do have a significant contribution to the whole scale. This is evident from the fact that none of the “Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted” column has a value higher than the Cronbach’s alpha of 0.728 for the whole scale. Overall, the Cronbach’s alpha score for all the items (0.728) is satisfactory and confirms the reliability of the research instrument.

Cronbach's Alpha:  .626   -- 6 items	Scale Mean if Item Deleted	Scale Variance if Item Deleted	Corrected Item-Total Correlation	Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted
Teachers and staff provide parents/guardians with useful information about student learning.	15.49	4.593	.362	.581
Teachers and staff are able to assist families in helping their children do well in school.	15.51	4.637	.307	.603
Teachers anticipate students' likely misperceptions or misunderstandings	15.43	4.730	.355	.584
Teachers can provide appropriate challenges for very capable students.	15.54	4.351	.394	.568
Teachers construct student-centered activities.	15.51	4.291	.368	.580
Teachers locate resources for preparing lessons/activities that address/incorporate real-world examples.	15.33	4.780	.370	.580

Table 6. STEM subscales list (PCA 4)

Next, I identified where most schools answered the Effective Learning Teacher Survey and the Effective Learning Leader Survey “Almost never” or “Almost daily.” The table below shows the items with responses “Almost never” or “Almost daily” cross-tabulated with their responses. Questions are on the Columns and the two targeted responses are on the Rows.

Table 7. Survey items with responses of “Almost Daily” and “Almost Never”

Whereas certain questions received “Almost never” responses (e.g.: Q52_4, Q52_7, Q52_15), only Elijah McCoy stood out in terms of variability (see Table 8). The table above was obtained after sorting the Teacher survey data by Schools in which a teacher is teaching. Standard deviation was used as a measure of variability for questions Q13_1 to Q66_14 with respect to each school.

It is therefore evident from the above table that Elijah McCoy school teachers have the highest variability in responses to the teacher survey questionnaire, closely followed by Annie Easley and Mae Jemisson.

School	Number of Teachers	Standard deviation of Responses (Q13_1 to Q66_14)
Elijah McCoy	14	3.684
Mae Jemisson	9	3.625
Benjamin Banneker	27	3.389
Shirley Jackson	7	2.957
Aprille Ericsson	17	3.365
Annie Easley	21	3.635
Richard Spikes	10	3.617
Total	105

Table 8. Variability among teachers

The following interpretations can be made from the correlation matrix in the Effective Learning Leader Survey, with respect to the correlation between the questions asked (see Technical report for full correlation matrix):

·         The item “My school receives instructional resources commensurate with other schools in the district” is moderately positively correlated (r=0.665) with the item “My school has a sufficient number of non-licensed staff to operate efficiently and effectively.” The correlation is significant (p=0.026<0.05).

·         The item “My school receives instructional resources commensurate with student needs” is highly positively correlated (r=0.724) with the item “My school receives instructional resources commensurate with other schools in the district.” The correlation is significant (p=0.012<0.05).

·         The item “Communication systems promote a flow of information across the entire school community, including central office personnel, parents, and community members” is highly positively correlated (r=0.753) with the item “My district HR department provides highly qualified applicants for open faculty positions in this school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.007<0.05).

·         The item “Communication systems promote a flow of information across the entire school community, including central office personnel, parents, and community members” is highly positively correlated (r=0.742) with the item “My school is provided sufficient data and information to make informed decisions.” The correlation is significant (p=0.009<0.05).

·         The item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community” is highly positively correlated (r=0.767) with the item “My school receives instructional resources commensurate with student needs.” The correlation is significant (p=0.006<0.05).

·         The item “The district has clear and helpful policies for schools as to how to handle student conduct issues.” is highly positively correlated (r=0.881) with the item “My district HR department provides highly qualified applicants for open faculty positions in this school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.000<0.05).

·         The item “The district has clear and helpful policies for schools as to how to handle student conduct issues.” is moderately positively correlated (r=0.646) with the item “My school is provided sufficient data and information to make informed decisions.” The correlation is significant (p=0.032<0.05).

·         The item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community” is highly positively correlated (r=0.935) with the item “Communication systems promote a flow of information across the entire school community, including central office personnel, parents, and community members.” The correlation is significant (p=0.000<0.05).

·         The item “The district supports efforts to create a safe environment in this school” is highly positively correlated (r=0.821) with the item “My district HR department provides highly qualified applicants for open faculty positions in this school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.002<0.05).

·         The item “The district supports efforts to create a safe environment in this school” is highly positively correlated (r=0.711) with the item “Communication systems promote a flow of information across the entire school community, including central office personnel, parents, and community members.” The correlation is significant (p=0.014<0.05).

·         The item “The district supports efforts to create a safe environment in this school” is highly positively correlated (r=0.890) with the item “The district has clear and helpful policies for schools as to how to handle student conduct issues.” The correlation is significant (p=0.000<0.05).

·         The item “This school has explicit supports (resources, policies, processes, personnel) in place to support positive student behavior” is highly positively correlated (r=0.846) with the item “My school receives instructional resources commensurate with student needs.” The correlation is significant (p=0.001<0.05).

·         The item “This school has explicit supports (resources, policies, processes, personnel) in place to support positive student behavior” is highly positively correlated (r=0.627) with the item “Community organizations are working effectively in this school to improve learning outcomes.” The correlation is significant (p=0.039<0.05).

·         The item “This school has explicit supports (resources, policies, processes, personnel) in place to support positive student behavior” is highly positively correlated (r=0.624) with the item “Communication systems promote a flow of information across the entire school community, including central office personnel, parents, and community members.” The correlation is significant (p=0.040<0.05).

·         The item “This school has explicit supports (resources, policies, processes, personnel) in place to support positive student behavior” is highly positively correlated (r=0.807) with the item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community.” The correlation is significant (p=0.03<0.05).

·         The item “Principals are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction in this district.” is highly positively correlated (r=0.843) with the item “My school receives instructional resources commensurate with student needs.” The correlation is significant (p=0.01<0.05).

·         The item “Principals are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction in this district.” is highly positively correlated (r=0.723) with the item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community.” The correlation is significant (p=0.012<0.05).

·         The item “Principals are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction in this district.” is highly positively correlated (r=0.851) with the item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community.” The correlation is significant (p=0.001<0.05).

·         The item “The district involves principals in decisions that directly impact the operations of my school” is highly positively correlated (r=0.826) with the item “The district supports school outreach efforts to engage parents and guardians at this school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.003<0.05).

·         The item “Principals are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction in this district.” is highly positively correlated (r=0.851) with the item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community.” The correlation is significant (p=0.001<0.05).

·         The item “Principals are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction in this district.” is highly positively correlated (r=0.826) with the item “The district supports school outreach efforts to engage parents and guardians at this school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.003<0.05).

·         The item “Principals are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction in this district.” is moderately positively correlated (r=0.648) with the item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community.” The correlation is significant (p=0.031<0.05).

·         The item “Sufficient resources are available to principals to participate in professional development opportunities.” is moderately positively correlated (r=0.645) with the item “The district supports school outreach efforts to engage parents and guardians at this school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.044<0.05).

·         The item “Sufficient resources are available to principals to participate in professional development opportunities.” is moderately positively correlated (r=0.677) with the item “Leaders, teachers, and staff at this school are knowledgeable about issues that matter to the community.” The correlation is significant (p=0.022<0.05).

·         The item “Sufficient resources are available to principals to participate in professional development opportunities.” is moderately positively correlated (r=0.624) with the item “The district involves principals in decisions that directly impact the operations of my school.” The correlation is significant (p=0.040<0.05)

·         Discuss these areas NOT found in 7 elementary schools: values, Collaboration and planning, Curriculum and instruction, Professional learning, Communication.

          Interpretation of anova results. When cross-examining the survey questions, including the Student Perception Survey (SPS) with the LEAP Framework for Effective Teaching (e.g.: variables I, LE, P1-P6), there are some significant differences between schools.

           For variable (I): Instruction. Since p-value = 0.000 < 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.

          For variable (LE): Learning environment. Since p-value = 0.001< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.

          For variable (P1-P6): Indicators on teacher evaluation rubric for professionalism. Since p-value = 0.000 < 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.

          For variable (SPS): Student perception survey. Since p-value = 0.102 > 0.05, there is no significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are not significantly different from each other.

          For variable (LE1): Demonstrates knowledge of, interest in and respect for diverse students’ communities and cultures in a manner that increases equity. Since p-value = 0.003< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.

          For variable (LE2): Fosters a motivational and respectful classroom environment. Since p-value = 0.004< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.

          For variable (LE3): Implements high, clear expectations for students’ behavior and routines. Since p-value = 0.001< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.

          For variable (LE4): Classroom resources and physical environment support students and their learning. Since p-value = 0.031< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.

          For variable (I1): Clearly communicates the standards-based content-language objective(s) for the lesson, connecting to larger rationale(s). Since p-value = 0.000< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.

          For variable (I2): Provides rigorous tasks that require critical thinking with appropriate digital and other supports to ensure students’ success. Since p-value = 0.000< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.

          For variable (I3): Intentionally uses instructional methods and pacing to teach the content-language objective(s). Since p-value = 0.001< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.

          For variable (I4): Ensures all students’ active and appropriate use of academic language. Since p-value = 0.000< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.

          For variable (I5): Checks for understanding of content-language objective(s). Since p-value = 0.000< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.

          For variable (I6): Provides differentiation that addresses students’ instructional needs and supports mastery of content-language objective(s). Since p-value = 0.000< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.

          For variable (I7): Provides students with academically-focused descriptive feedback aligned to content-language objective(s). Since p-value = 0.001< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.

          For variable (I8): Promotes students’ communication and collaboration utilizing appropriate digital and other resources. Since p-value = 0.000< 0.05, there is a significant difference between the groups i.e. different school teachers` responses on the survey are significantly different from each other.

In running a Post-Hoc test for this study, I wanted to know which elementary schools are significantly different from each other after the ANOVA test declared all the schools different in their responses. For the variable (Instruction), the results of the pairwise comparison of the Tukey test, based on responses of the teachers for the different schools Aprille Ericsson, Annie Easley, Richard Spikes, Elijah McCoy, Mae Jemisson, Benjamin Banneker, Shirley Jackson indicated that Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Annie Easley, Richard Spikes, and Shirley Jackson differ since their respective p-values < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools. Richard Spikes, Annie Easley, and Benjamin Banneker differ since there p-values < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools. Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and Richard Spikes differ pair wisely since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools. Shirley Jackson differ from Annie Easley since their p-value< 0.05 but Shirley Jackson do not differ from the remaining schools. College View and Benjamin Banneker) differ since their p-values < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools.

For the “Learning Environment” (LE), the results of the pairwise comparison of the Tukey test, based on responses of the teachers for the different schools labeled Aprille Ericsson, Annie Easley, Richard Spikes, Elijah McCoy, Mae Jemisson, Benjamin Banneker, Shirley Jackson. Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Annie Easley differ from Shirley Jackson since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools. Richard Spikes and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Elijah McCoy and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Shirley Jackson differ from Annie Easley since their p-value < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools.

For the Professionalism rubric variables (P1-P6), the results of the pairwise comparison based on the responses of teachers for the different schools labeled Aprille Ericsson, Annie Easley, Richard Spikes, Elijah McCoy, Mae Jemisson, Benjamin Banneker, Shirley Jackson. Richard Spikes and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Schools Aprille Ericsson’, Annie Easley, Elijah McCoy, Benjamin Banneker, Shirley Jackson differ since there p-values < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools.

For “Positive Classroom Culture and Climate” (LE1 and 2), the results of the pairwise comparison, Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Annie Easley and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Richard Spikes and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Shirley Jackson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Based on responses of the teachers (LE2) for the different schools labeled Aprille Ericsson, Annie Easley, Richard Spikes, Elijah McCoy, Mae Jemisson, Benjamin Banneker, Shirley Jackson. Aprille Ericsson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Annie Easley differ from Shirley Jackson since their p-value < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools. Richard Spikes and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Shirley Jackson differ from Annie Easley differ since their p-value < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools.

When analyzing “Effective Classroom Management (LE3-LE4), based on the teacher responses for Aprille Ericsson, Annie Easley, Richard Spikes, Elijah McCoy, Mae Jemisson, Benjamin Banneker, Shirley Jackson, Aprille Ericsson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Annie Easley differ from Richard Spikes since their p-value < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools. Richard Spikes differ from Annie Easley since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools. Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Shirley Jackson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. When specifically looking at “Classroom resources and the physical environment” (LE4) for the different schools Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Annie Easley and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Richard Spikes and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Shirley Jackson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

When examining “Masterful Content Delivery” (I1-4) the results are as follows for “Clearly communicates the standards-based content-language objective(s) for the lesson, connecting to larger rationale(s)”:

·         Aprille Ericsson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Annie Easley and (Richard Spikes) differ since there p-values < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools.

·         Richard Spikes and (Annie Easley, Benjamin Banneker) differ since there p-values < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools.

·         Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Benjamin Banneker differ from Richard Spikes since their p-value < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools.

Analyzing “Provides rigorous tasks that require critical thinking with appropriate digital and other supports to ensure students’ success (I2) show the following results:

·         Aprille Ericsson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Annie Easley and (Richard Spikes) differ since there p-values < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools.

·         Richard Spikes differ from Annie Easley since their p-value < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools.

·         Elijah McCoy and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Benjamin Banneker and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Shirley Jackson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         School Annie Easley and Mae Jemisson differ since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools.

For teachers “Intentionally use[ing] instructional methods and pacing to teach the content-language objective(s) (I3):

·         Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Annie Easley and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Richard Spikes and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Benjamin Banneker and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Shirley Jackson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

When analyzing whether teachers ensure “all students’ active and appropriate use of academic language (I4):

·         Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Annie Easley and (Richard Spikes, Shirley Jackson) differ since their p-values < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools.

·         Richard Spikes and (Annie Easley, Mae Jemisson, Benjamin Banneker) differ since their p-values < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools.

·         Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Mae Jemisson and (Richard Spikes) differ since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools.

·         Benjamin Banneker differ from Richard Spikes since their p-value < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools.

·         Shirley Jackson differ from Annie Easley since their p-value < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools.

·         Annie Easley and Mae Jemisson differ since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools.

From the results of the pairwise comparison of the Tukey test for “High-Impact Instructional Moves” (I5-8), specifically with “Checks for understanding of content-language objective(s) (I5), based on responses of the teachers for the different schools, Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Annie Easley and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Richard Spikes differ from Benjamin Banneker differ since their p-value < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools. Elijah McCoy and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker, Richard Spikes and Shirley Jackson all differ since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools. Shirley Jackson differ from Benjamin Banneker since their p-value < 0.05, but do not differ from the remaining schools.

As teachers “Provide differentiation that addresses students’ instructional needs and supports mastery of content-language objectives” (I6), the analysis of the pairwise comparison indicate that Aprille Ericsson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Annie Easley and (Richard Spikes, Shirley Jackson) differ since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools. Richard Spikes and (Annie Easley, Mae Jemisson) differ since their p-values < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools. Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05. Benjamin Banneker and (Richard Spikes, Shirley Jackson) differ since their p-values < 0.05 but do not differ for the remaining schools. Shirley Jackson and (Annie Easley, Mae Jemisson) differ since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools. Annie Easley and Mae Jemisson differ since their p-values < 0.05, but do not differ for the remaining schools.

For “Provides students with academically-focused descriptive feedback aligned to content-language objective(s)” (I7):

·         Aprille Ericsson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Annie Easley and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Richard Spikes and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Elijah McCoy and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Mae Jemisson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Benjamin Banneker and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Shirley Jackson and other schools are not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

Finally, for “Promotes students’ communication and collaboration utilizing appropriate digital and other resources” (I8):

·         Aprille Ericsson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Annie Easley and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Richard Spikes differ from Benjamin Banneker since their p-value < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools.

·         Elijah McCoy and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Mae Jemisson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

·         Benjamin Banneker differ from Richard Spikes since their p-value < 0.05 but do not differ from the remaining schools.

·         Shirley Jackson and other schools do not differ pair wisely since all their respective p-values > 0.05.

These Post-hoc tests indicate that there is no significant difference between the responses of the teachers for the schools involved in the Effective Learning Teacher Survey, the Effective Learning Leader Survey (ELLS), and the Student Perception Survey (SPS).