PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR) Successful...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Loyola Notre Dame]On: 4 November 2008Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 776117037]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR)Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653666

Successful Alternative Middle Schools for Urban Minority Children: A Study ofNativity SchoolsL. Mickey Fenzel a; Rosalind H. Monteith b

a Teacher Education Department, Loyola College in Maryland, b Psychology Department, SwinburneUniversity of Technology,

Online Publication Date: 01 October 2008

To cite this Article Fenzel, L. Mickey and Monteith, Rosalind H.(2008)'Successful Alternative Middle Schools for Urban MinorityChildren: A Study of Nativity Schools',Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR),13:4,381 — 401

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10824660802427686

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10824660802427686

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653666

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10824660802427686

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Successful Alternative Middle Schoolsfor Urban Minority Children:A Study of Nativity Schools

L. Mickey FenzelTeacher Education Department, Loyola College in Maryland

Rosalind H. MonteithPsychology Department, Swinburne University of Technology

Much continues to be written about the failure of U.S. schools to provide aquality education for at-risk urban students. Private Nativity model schoolshave been instituted in response to the need to provide quality education atthe middle school level for such students. As the number of these and otheralternative middle schools increases, a thorough examination of the strengthsand weaknesses of the model is needed. This study provides such a multi-method examination of 9 such schools. Analyses of students’ self-perceptions,perceptions of the quality of the climate at their schools, and academic per-formance, as well as classroom observations, interviews with teachers, admin-istrators, and students are provided. Results suggest that the success of theNativity model rests primarily with: (a) a strong and committed teaching staff,(b) an extended school day in which students receive homework assistanceand tutoring, (c) small class sizes and student-teacher ratios that affordconsiderable individual attention from teachers, and (d) a supportive peerenvironment.

The evidence for the failure of America’s urban middle schools to educate itschildren adequately is vast (e.g., Noguera, 2003). For example, the Alliancefor Excellent Education (Joftus, 2002) indicated in its report on secondary

Request for reprints should be sent to: L. Mickey Fenzel, Teacher Education Department,

Loyola College in Maryland, 4501N. Charles St., Baltimore MD 21210. E-mail: lfenzel@

loyola.edu

Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 13:381–401, 2008

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1082-4669 print/1532-7671 online

DOI: 10.1080/10824660802427686

381

Downloaded By: [Loyola Notre Dame] At: 16:38 4 November 2008

education that fewer than 50% of urban 8th-graders graduate from highschool in 5 years. Hale (2001) contended that the schools that most AfricanAmerican children attend—urban public schools—teach a watered-downcurriculum that fails to provide students with the knowledge and skillsneeded to pass competency exams or be competitive in the workplace. Chil-dren and adolescents with limited English proficiency may be at an evengreater disadvantage, as they are approximately 4 years behind their peersin reading levels in 8th grade and approximately 5 years behind in 12thgrade (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2003).

Much has been written about the characteristics of effective middle-levelschools that promote student learning and meet the social developmentalneeds of young adolescents (George & Alexander, 2003; Jackson & Davis,2000; Lipsitz, 1984). Still, many middle schools, particularly those foundin inner cities, fail to exemplify these characteristics. Studies have shownthat a majority of urban children and adolescents attend schools wherethe per-pupil expenditures are below the average for their state and whereteachers tend to be unqualified and inexperienced, and lack adequateinstructional support (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2003; Council ofGreat City Schools, 2003; Prince, 2002).

Research has shown that characteristics of effective middle schoolsinclude a strong curriculum in core courses, the use of learning activities thatare engaging and developmentally appropriate, a school environment thatvalues mutual respect and care and that also holds students and teachersto high behavioral expectations, small communities for learning, andteacher-led advisories (Balfanz & Mac Iver, 2000; George & Alexander,2003; Lewis, 2000; Lipsitz, 1984). The small communities function to pro-vide students with a strong social and emotional connection with teachers(Midgley & Edelin, 1998) that contributes to their motivation to engageand succeed academically (Wilson & Corbett, 2001). In addition, urban mid-dle school students placed at risk are able to accelerate their academic skilldevelopment when they are taught a curriculum that challenges and engagesthem, spend more time on task, and receive regular extra academicassistance that connects to course content (Balfanz & Mac Iver, 2000;Wenglinsky, 2004; Wilson & Corbett, 2001). As studies have shown, strategiesthat lead to greater student engagement in learning pay dividends in termsof greater academic success for minority students placed at risk (Finn &Rock, 1997; Trimble, 2004).

Recently, several researchers (Powell & Jacob Arriola, 2003; Wenglinsky,2004) have called for more attention to examining psychosocial factorsrelated to student self-perceptions and school environmental characteristicsthat contribute to the academic performance of minority students. Powelland Jacob Arriola suggested that academic achievement was related to

382 FENZEL AND MONTEITH


student motivation, positive self-regard, and a sense of internal control,particularly among African American and Hispanic students, althoughother research (Finn & Rock, 1997) has shown that such self-perceptions arenot related to academic success for at-risk minority students. With respect tothe social environment in a school, some research (Conchas, 2006), using theNational Educational Longitudinal Study data, has indicated that urbanminority students spend more time on homework when they perceive that theirteachers care and set high academic expectations of them, factors cited in otherresearch as well (Wilson & Corbett, 2001). These students also spend more timeon homework, an indicator of a greater commitment to academic achievement,when their friends place greater importance on studying and their parentsinteract more with their school (Conchas, 2006).

Some research has shown that African American students attendingCatholic schools have achieved at higher levels when compared to those att-ending public schools (Irvine, 1996; York, 1996). Among the factors account-ing for school success are high teacher expectations, encouragement, andcaring (although the quality of the instruction has been shown to be unremark-able), an emphasis on discipline and order, and an emphasis on character andspiritual development. According to York, these factors outweigh family influ-ence and student motivational factors in predicting achievement.

One type of parochial middle school appears to be particularly successfulin accelerating the academic achievement of urban children placed at risk(Fenzel & Monteith, 2005; Fenzel & Patel, 2002; Podsiadlo & Philliber,2003). The first of these Nativity1 model middle schools opened inNew York City in 1971 to provide economically disadvantaged Latino boysin the area with an educational program that would improve their academicskills and prepare them for a successful high school experience (Podsiadlo &Philliber, 2003). In brief, Nativity schools, most of which are affiliated withCatholic religious communities, have sought to provide at-risk urban youthwith the kind of educational program, free or nearly free of charge, thattypically is available only to the children of economic privilege. The modelincorporates many of the characteristics of effective middle schools, begin-ning with a competent instructional leader and a dedicated teaching staff.Among other characteristics are small classes for instruction, small advisorygroups, close monitoring of student progress, involvement of parents, highexpectations for performance and conduct, developmentally appropriateacademic challenge, and extra academic help. In addition, Nativity schools

1The networks of Nativity schools and Lasallian San Miguel (or Miguel) schools, which

adopted the Nativity school model in 1993, merged in 2005 into the NativityMiguel Network

of Schools. All of the target schools included in this study fell under the Nativity umbrella at

the time of the study and are known currently as NativityMiguel schools.

SUCCESSFUL MIDDLE SCHOOLS 383


continue to monitor and support their graduates throughout their highschool years and help guide them and their families with the process ofapplying to private high schools and four-year colleges. Previous researchinvolving two Nativity schools for boys (Fenzel & Patel, 2002; Podsiadlo &Philliber, 2003) has provided some evidence of higher levels of academicachievement and educational attainment among Nativity graduates whencompared to groups of boys from similar backgrounds.

This study adds to the scant research on the academic success of studentswho attend Nativity model schools and factors that contribute to that suc-cess. To that end, then, students’ perceptions of the learning and social cli-mate of their schools and their levels of intrinsic motivation for school workand their academic performance levels are examined and compared to thoseof middle school students attending more traditional parochial schools. Weexpected Nativity students to outperform comparison school students aca-demically and to perceive their school and classroom environments as beingmore supportive and conducive to learning. In addition, we expectedstudents’ perceptions of the quality of the social environment of theirschools to be related to their academic performance levels, regardless ofthe type of school they attended. Data are taken from school academicrecords and student survey responses at all schools, and interviews withteachers, students, and principals of the Nativity schools.

METHOD

School and Student Characteristics

During the 2003–2004 academic year, the first author conducted interviewsand classroom observations, and students completed surveys of attitudesand self-perceptions at nine Nativity schools. Among the nine schools,which were located in five states and the District of Columbia, five educatedboys only, two educated girls only, and two educated girls and boys. Eightof the schools were operated by Catholic communities of priests or nuns,and one by an Episcopal diocese. The vast majority of students in fiveschools were African American and the vast majority of the students in threeof the schools were of Latino or Hispanic decent. One school had consider-able racial diversity among its student body (BOSC, see Table 1), with 20%of its students in foster care. The mean number of students enrolled in thenine Nativity middle schools was 63.6, with a range of 52 to 96. The 572 stu-dents enrolled in these schools consisted of 383 boys (67.0%) and 189 girls(33.0%) in Grades 5 through 8 (5 schools) or 6 through 8 (4 schools). Forthis study, 59 fifth graders were omitted to facilitate comparisons with two



TA

BLE

1

Descr

iptions

of

Sch

ools

and

Stu

dents

Inclu

ded

inT

his

Stu

dy

Sch

ool

cod

eC

ity

loca

tio

n

Yea

rsc

hoo

l

op

ened

Fre

eo

rre

duc

ed-p

rice

lun

ch(%

)

Gra

de

arr

ang

emen

t,

enro

llm

ent

Pri

ma

ryra

cia

l–E

thn

icg

rou

ps

Na

tiv

ity

Sch

oo

ls

NY

CB

New

Yo

rk1

97

11

00

6–

8,

60

bo

ys

His

pa

nic

BO

SB

aB

ost

on

19

90

10

05

–8

,6

6b

oy

sA

fric

anA

mer

ica

n

BA

LB

Ba

ltim

ore

19

93

90

6–

8,

70

bo

ys

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

MIL

BM

ilw

au

kee

19

93

10

06

–8

,5

3b

oy

sH

isp

an

ic(M

exic

an

)

NY

CG

New

Yo

rk1

99

39

25

–8

,6

2g

irls

His

pa

nic

BA

LC

Ba

ltim

ore

19

93

10

06

–8

,3

4b

oy

s,3

4g

irls

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

,H

isp

an

ic,

Wh

ite

NO

RB

aN

ewO

rlea

ns

19

94

10

05

–8

,6

0b

oy

sA

fric

anA

mer

ica

n,

Cre

ole

BO

SC

Bo

sto

n1

99

71

00

5–

8,

40

bo

ys,

41

gir

lsA

fric

anA

mer

ica

n,

Ca

pe

Ver

dea

n,

His

pa

nic

,C

ari

bb

ean

WA

SG

Wa

shin

gto

n,

DC

19

97

85

5–

8,

52

gir

lsA

fric

anA

mer

ica

n

Su

mm

ary

94

38

3b

oy

s,1

89

gir

ls

Co

mp

aris

on

Sch

oo

ls

CO

M1

Ba

ltim

ore

No

tk

no

wn

90

6–

8,

26

bo

ys,

44

gir

lsA

fric

anA

mer

ica

n

CO

M2

Ba

ltim

ore

No

tk

no

wn

90

6–

8,

56

bo

ys,

58

gir

lsA

fric

anA

mer

ica

n

No

tes.

Th

efo

urt

hle

tter

inth

esc

ho

ol

cod

ein

dic

ate

sw

het

her

the

sch

oo

lis

all

bo

ys

(B),

all

gir

ls(G

),o

rco

edu

cati

on

al

(C),

wit

hth

efi

rst

thre

e

lett

ers

ind

icat

ing

the

city

inw

hic

hth

esc

ho

ol

islo

cate

d.

aN

oa

cad

emic

da

taa

va

ila

ble

.

385


parochial comparison Grades-6-through-8 middle school programs. Of theremaining 513 Nativity students, survey or academic data, or both, wereavailable from 470 (91.6%), including 317 boys and 153 girls. Among theseparticipants, 260 attended an all-boys school, 87 an all-girls school, and 123a coeducational school. The mean age of Nativity students was 12.3(SD¼ 1.0). Seven Nativity schools supplied academic data that provided 2or more years of test score data for 199 students and at least 1 year of reportcard grades for 264 students, all of whom were in Grades 7 or 8. There wereno significant differences in sixth-grade standardized test scores in math orreading between students for whom at least 2 years of test score data wereavailable and those students (mostly 6th graders) for whom these data werenot available. The two schools that did not provide test score or report carddata were both all-boys schools. Students at both of these schools experi-enced levels of success of high school graduation very similar to those stu-dents at the schools for which test score data were available. Ninety-fourpercent of Nativity school students qualified for federal free or reduced-pricemeals, 53% indicated that their mothers completed 1 of more years of col-lege, and 39% indicated that they lived with both biological parents.

At two comparison schools, both traditional Pre-K-through-Grade-8parochial schools in Baltimore city, serving students with economic andfamily backgrounds similar those attending the Nativity schools, 186 stu-dents in Grades 6 through 8 completed surveys and at least 2 years of stan-dardized test score data were collected for 119 students in Grades 7 and 8during the 2003–04 school year. (There were no significant difference insixth-grade standardized test scores in reading or math between comparisonschool students for whom 2 years of such data were available and those forwhom these data were not available.) The mean age of the students was 12.7years (SD¼ 1.0). In addition, 84% of students identified themselves asAfrican American or Black, 11% as White, and 3% as Hispanic or Latino.Ninety percent of students qualified for federal free or reduced-price meals,65% indicated that their mothers completed one of more years of college,and 28% of students indicated that they lived with both biological parents.Compared to Nativity school students, a higher percentage of comparisonschool students indicated that their mothers completed at least 1 year of col-lege, v2(1, N¼ 495)¼ 6.14, p¼ .013, and a lower percentage indicated thatthey lived with both parents, v2(1, N¼ 637)¼ 7.78, p¼ .005.

Measures

Student surveys. The Nativity Educational Centers Network officemailed packets of surveys to the nine Nativity schools and two comparisonschools for administration to students that assessed students’ self-perceptions



and perceptions of the school climate in September, 2003. At all schools,teachers administered the surveys to their students in homeroom classes inOctober, prior to the researcher’s visit. With respect to self-perceptions, stu-dents indicated the extent to which they disagreed or agreed on a 4-point scalewith items that addressed perceptions of their intrinsic motivation for schoolwork, or tendency to persist even when tasks are difficult (7 items, a¼ .80;based on Harter’s (1981) Scale of Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Orientation in theClassroom). Students also reported on a 5-point scale (from Never, coded 0,to About once a week, coded 2, to Everyday, Coded 4) the extent to which theyhad trouble since the start of the school year getting along with teachers andstudents, paying attention, following rules, and completing homework (SchoolAdjustment Difficulty; 5 items, a¼ .90). This scale was adapted from theTalent Development Student Survey developed by the Center for the SocialOrganization of Schools (CSOS, 2003). Mean scores on these scales for thestudents at the Nativity and the comparison schools are presented in Table 2.

Items for the subscales that assessed students’ perceptions of variousaspects of the school and classroom climate were taken from the ClassroomEnvironment Scale (Moos & Tricket, 1987) and the Talent DevelopmentStudent Survey (CSOS, 2003). These subscales included measures of stu-dents’ perceptions of the support and care provided by the principal atthe school (Principal support; 3 items, a¼ .71), the extent to which studentsgot along with their peers and made friends (Peer social climate, 4 items,a¼ .68), the climate of the school as enjoyable and its rules fair (5 items,

TABLE 2

Comparison of Self-Perceptions and Perceptions of Environments of Nine Nativity

and Two Traditional Parochial Schools

Student perceptions

Nativity schools

(N¼ 470)

Comparison

schools

(N¼ 186) t Effect size d ANOVA F a

Intrinsic motivation 2.98 (.56) 3.07 (.58) �1.86 �.15 4.69�

School adjustment difficulty 2.92 (1.19) 3.01 (1.16) �.85 �.07 .66

Principal support 3.40 (.53) 3.58 (.57) �3.92�� .31 21.13��

Peer social climate 3.20 (.54) 2.97 (.52) 5.13�� .40 10.85��

School is enjoyable and fair 3.12 (.60) 2.84 (.61) 5.34�� .42 4.88�

Class climate 3.08 (.41) 2.90 (.43) 5.14�� .40 9.87��

Parent involvement 3.25 (.48) 2.98 (.54) 6.33�� .50 13.33��

Composite GPAb 81.9 (7.3) 80.9 (8.4) 1.34

Notes. GPA¼ grade point average. Two-tailed values: �p� .05, ��p� .01, ��p� .001.aResults of ANOVAs for effect of type of school, controlling for school gender structure,

student sex, mother’s education, and whether student lives with both parents.bN¼ 264. Nativity and 119 comparison school students.



a¼ .78), and the climate of their math class and language arts class as beingacademically engaging, task oriented, and supportive (12 items; a¼ .86). Anadditional set of items assessed students’ perceptions of the level of theirparents’ involvement in the school and in monitoring homework completion(Parent involvement, 4 items, a¼ .78). For each of the items in these sub-scales, students selected a response on a four-point scale (scored 1 through 4)indicating the extent to which they disagreed or agreed with a particularstatement. Means and standard deviations for students at each of thetwo types of schools are presented in Table 2.

School records. The principal or another administrator at each of theschools used official school records to record data on students’ academicprogress on a form included in the packet of student surveys mailed toeach school. Administrators completed one form for each student in Grades6 through 8 that provided data on each student’s standardized test scores inreading and mathematics achievement (in either grade equivalents ornational percentiles), along with students’ report card grades in math,language arts, and science classes and number of absences for each yearof attendance at the school. Five of the Nativity schools and both of thecomparison schools used the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and two Nativityschools used the Stanford 9. A mean composite report card grade pointaverage (GPA) was computed using the three grades for the most recentschool year and recorded as a number between 0 and 100. On all formsand surveys, only ID numbers were used to identify student participantsto the researchers.

School observations and interviews. The first author spent at least 1full day, and usually part of a second day, at each Nativity school thatincluded observing between four and six classes, attending the morningassembly, taking part in lunch with students or faculty, and attending oneor more afternoon or evening activities. During class observations, he tooknotes on class size, teachers’ instructional methods, and student behaviorand engagement and completed a revised version of the Classroom Environ-ment Scale (Moos & Trickett, 1987) that assessed elements of studentengagement in learning, teacher support, and teacher task orientation. Inaddition, using previously designed protocols, the first author conductedsemistructured individual interviews with faculty and administrators andindividual or focus group interviews with students. He took notes duringall interviews and tape recorded the majority of them. Within no more thana few hours after the interviews, he typed the results of the observations andinterviews from the audio recordings and written notes. In all, he observed amean of 4.2 classes and interviewed all of the principals and a mean of 11.3



students per school. No formal observations or interviews were conductedat the comparison schools.

Network data. Additional data on Nativity students’ high school gradu-ation and college matriculation rates were obtained from the Nativity Net-work office file of data recorded from reports sent to the office by individualschools.

Analyses

Several types of analyses were conducted to examine differences betweenNativity schools and comparison parochial schools in students’ academicperformance. First, we identified each student as either being below gradelevel (GL) or at or above GL for each administration of the ITBS or Stanford9. Students were identified as at or above GL if they achieved a nationalpercentile score of 50 or higher or a grade equivalent (GE) commensuratewith the month of testing and current grade or higher (e.g., a GE of 7.1 orgreater for a test administered in October of the seventh grade). Also, consist-ent with a procedure utilized elsewhere (Balfanz & Byrnes, 2002), students’GEs were examined for the earliest and latest administration of the tests ofreading and math to determine whether their scores improved at the levelof one GE or more for each year that elapsed between the testings. For theschool that reported students’ national percentiles, improvement exceedingone GE per year was indicated if the percentile score increased one or morepercentage points per year between test administrations.

To examine differences between Nativity and comparison school students’performance and gains on standardized tests, chi-square analyses were used.In addition, we obtained effect sizes, estimated by Nagelkerke R2 change,by conducting logistic regression analyses with the criterion being: (a) whetherthe student is at or above grade level (coded 1) or below grade level (coded 0)and (b) whether the student gained one grade equivalent of more per year(coded 1) or failed to gain one grade equivalent (coded 0). These analyses wereconducted for standardized test score performance in math and in reading.

Differences between the two types of schools with respect to students’self-perceptions and perceptions of the quality of their school and classroomenvironments were examined, first, using t tests and then ANCOVAsthat controlled for factors that might explain achievement differencesbetween students in Nativity and comparison schools. These covariatesincluded the school gender arrangement (single-sex vs. coed), student sex,whether students lived with both biological parents, and whether the motherhad one of more years of college. Finally, multiple regression analyseswere used to examine which school and classroom environment factors



and self-perceptions predicted composite GPAs, controlling for school type,school gender arrangement, student sex, whether mothers attended college,and whether students lived with both parents.

RESULTS

Differences in Academic Achievement

Table 3 presents an analysis of standardized test scores and attendance ratesfor students attending the seven Nativity schools for which standardizedtest score data were provided, and the two comparison schools. Consistentwith expectations, Nativity school students out-performed comparisonschool students with 57.1% achieving at or above grade level in math and61.4% in reading in seventh grade, compared to rates of 23.2%, v2(1,N¼ 316)¼ 38.24, Nagelkerke R2 change¼ .16, p < .001, and 28.4%, v2(1,N¼ 316)¼ 34.68, Nagelkerke R2 change¼ .14, p < .001, respectively, forthe comparison schools.

Results are also presented in Table 3 with respect to the extent to whichstudents improved in their standardized test score performance during thecourse of their school attendance. With respect to math achievement, byseventh grade, 69.7% of Nativity students had shown improvement equal

TABLE 3

Standardized Test Score and Attendance Data for Members of the Class of 2004

School

7th-Grade

math

(%�GL)a

Math:

Percent

of students

improving� 1

GE=yr2

7th-Grade

reading

(%�GL)a

Reading:

Percent

of students

improving� 1

GE=yrb7th-Grade

GPA

Attendance

rate

(%)

Seven Nativity

schools (N¼ 199)

57.1 69.7 61.4 76.9 83.5 96.8

Comparison

schools (N¼ 118)

23.2 40.7 28.4 50.8 80.7 96.9

Chi-square tests 38.24�� 25.71�� 34.68�� 22.78��

Nagelkerke

R2 change

15.5%�� 10.5%�� 14.0%�� 9.5%��

aPercentage of students scoring at or above grade level (GL) at the time of test

administration.bPercent of students showing GE gains in standardized test scores equal to or greater than

the number of years they attended the school.��p� .001.



to or greater than one GE per year and 76.9% improved one or more GEsper year in reading. These rates were significantly greater than those ofcomparison school students in both math, 40.7%, v2 (1, N¼ 316)¼ 25.71,Nagelkerke R2 change¼ .10, p < .001, and reading, 50.8%, v2 (1, N¼ 316)¼22.70, Nagelkerke R2 change¼ .10, p < .001.

Additional data collected from eight of the Nativity schools by the firstauthor or provided by the Nativity Educational Centers Network (one ofthe schools did not provide these reports) show the level of success studentsdemonstrate in the years following their graduation. For the class of 2004,with 160 original members of the class, 140, or 87.5%, graduated with theirclass, four remained in the school, seven had been dismissed for behaviorproblems, and nine left voluntarily. Of the 140 graduates, 113 (81%) wereattending Catholic or other private high schools and 26 (19%) were attend-ing regional, magnet, vocational, or charter public high schools, with onegraduate unaccounted for. Six of the Nativity schools included in this studygraduated 99 students in 2000, with 86 (86.9%) graduating from high schoolin 4 years and only two dropping out prior to graduation without obtaininga GED. Of the 79 high school graduates the schools were able to identify, 62(72.1%) attended a 4-year college, 11 (12.8%) attended a 2-year college, five(5.8%) were working, and one had joined the military. (No such data for thecomparison schools were available.)

Differences in Students’ Perceptions

With respect to differences in students’ self-perceptions, t test analyses (seeTable 2) showed that Nativity students, compared to comparison schoolstudents, rated their schools as more enjoyable and fair, the peer social cli-mate of their schools as more favorable, the climate of their math and lan-guage arts classes as more task oriented and supportive, and their parents asmore involved in their education. No differences emerged in students’ rep-orts of school adjustment difficulties or levels of intrinsic motivation forschool work. On the other hand, comparison school students rated theirprincipals as more supportive and caring than did Nativity students. Whenthe between-school-type differences were examined using Analyses ofCovariance (ANCOVA) that controlled for student sex, school gender struc-ture, mother’s college attendance, and whether students lived with both par-ents, significant differences remained for peer social climate, class climate,parent involvement, and principal support, and a significant difference instudent levels of intrinsic motivation favoring comparison school studentsemerged. When Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons were con-ducted on the ANCOVA results, differences remained significant for peersocial climate, class climate, parent involvement, and principal support.



Factors Related to Student Grade Point Averages

From data provided by the seven Nativity schools and two comparisonschools, multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationbetween students’ perceptions and their composite GPAs. The variables,type of school, student sex, school gender structure, mother’s college attend-ance, and living with both parents, were entered as a group in the first step.As a group, these variables did not account for significant variation in GPA.The seven student perception variables were then tested for inclusion in astepwise fashion, with only the experience of adjustment difficulties, R2

increase¼ .069, F (1, 320)¼ 24.12, p < .001, and perceived levels of intrinsicmotivation, R2 increase¼ .023, F (1, 320)¼ 8.14, p¼ .005, accounting foradditional significant variation in GPA (see Table 4). Significant predictorsof GPA in zero-order correlation analyses are also identified in Table 4 andincluded, in addition to school adjustment difficulties and intrinsic motiv-ation, perceptions of the school as enjoyable and its rules fair, the climateof math and language arts classes as supportive and task oriented, and levelsof parents’ involvement.

TABLE 4

Results of Multiple Regression Analyses of Predictors of Students’

Composite GPAs (N¼327)

Zero-orderRegression statistics

Predictor r R2 Change Betaþ tþ

Block 1 (Covariates entered together):

Type of school � .06 � .83

Student sex � .01 � .14

School gender arrangement .05 .94

Mom attended college? .04 .72

Lives with both parents? .015 .06 1.04

Block 2 (Stepwise entry):

Adjustment difficulties � .28�� .069�� .25 � 4.46��

Block 3 (Stepwise entry):

Intrinsic motivation .18�� .023�� .15 2.85��

Variables not entered:

School enjoyable and fair .14��

Peer social climate .02

Class climate .08�

Parent involvement .10�

Principal cares .01

þBeta and t values given for last step in the regression.�p� .05, ��p� .01, ��p� .001.



Analysis of Qualitative Data

Interviews with students conducted by the first author were coded andanalyzed thematically (Maxwell, 1996) to examine factors related to studentengagement and success that were common to the Nativity schools ordifferentiated them from one another. In addition, student responses to afree-choice item on the written questionnaires were coded and compared.Interviews with administrators and school and class observations providedinformation on various aspects of the school programs and insight intothe climate of the social and learning environment of the schools. The datareported here address issues of school climate, curriculum and instruction,and graduate support functions.

School climate. A comparison of Nativity and comparison school stu-dents’ written comments to the free response item, asking students to listthe one or two most difficult things they encounter at their school, sup-ported findings of independent t tests and ANCOVAs regarding schooland classroom climate. A significantly greater percentage of comparisonschools students (23.0%) named difficulties related to teachers’ behaviorsand school rules (too many or too strict) when compared to Nativity stu-dents (13.3%), v2(1, N¼ 588)¼ 5.64, p¼ .018. Also, Nativity students weresignificantly less likely to identify concerns about peer difficulties (8.3%)than were comparison school students (16.4%), v2(1, N¼ 588)¼ 5.43,p¼ .020.

In interviews, Nativity school students consistently reported high levels ofsupport and caring from teachers, indicating that teachers respected themand were very willing to help them with academic and family problems.Clearly, this was the case at one Nativity school that educated both girlsand boys. Students in each of Grades 6 through 8 enthusiastically reportedthat teachers were ‘‘nice,’’ that their classes oftentimes were ‘‘fun,’’ and thatthey ‘‘get more attention from teachers’’ and more academic help than theydid in their public elementary schools. At the same time, although these stu-dents reported that their teachers were strict, they indicated that the tea-chers’ insistence on completing work well was preparing them for highschool. Students at this school also reported how much they enjoyed andbenefited from the mentors (local volunteer college students) with whomthey had formed relationships. Students reported that their small groupadvisories, found in all of the Nativity schools but not in the comparisonschools, enabled them to get to know their advisor–teacher and the otherchildren in their small groups well and to feel connected to the school.Summer camps were also cited by Nativity students as a valuable contextfor feeling connected to teachers and school mates. The combination of



advisories, small classes, small group activities with teachers and students,and summer camp experiences led students in several Nativity schools touse the term family in their description of the people who were a part of theirschool experience.

The following comments from eight 6th-grade girls who participated in afocus group at one of the single-sex Nativity schools provide a sample ofstudents’ climate perceptions:

. Teachers explain well to you.

. Teachers put things in a fun way; make it [school work] interesting.

. We get good independent help with reading because I was a low reader.

. Teachers are a little strict with you.

. Teachers have more time with you—the teachers at my elementary schooldid not help us.

. Here teachers care.

. ‘‘Maria’’ [social worker and counselor] helps us if we have problems athome.

. You get restricted study hall if you are bad.

. They [teachers] talk to you; they help you with work you miss.

. We’re like a family here because it is small.

. Students [in older grades] and teachers came to 5th grade and made youfeel at home.

. At camp, we learn to help each other—like a team.

These and other student comments consistently support the findings thatNativity school students experienced environments in which teachers helpedstudents feel cared for and made learning enjoyable, while they createdlearning environments that were task-oriented and in which peer relationswere close and mutually supportive, factors no doubt facilitated by smallclasses, summer programs, and advisories.

Curriculum and instruction. Students at all Nativity schools benefitedfrom small class sizes for instruction (5 to 16 per class), an extended day pro-gram, double periods for language arts (including reading and writing), con-siderable tutoring and homework assistance, and a summer program.Mathematics was another strong focus in these schools, and homeworkwas assigned at least four days per week, with help available at after-schoolstudy and tutorial periods held each week, Monday through Thursday.Classroom observations showed high levels of time spent on task in allschools, with teachers making effective transitions between learning activi-ties and students very involved in learning. In all schools, the curriculumwithin each subject area was either well developed or in the process of



redevelopment and textbooks were current. With a school day that, in mostschools, extended from 7:30 AM until at least 5 PM (9.5 hr), Nativitystudents were engaged in academic learning activities for more hours perday than in the comparison schools where the school day was 6.75 hr long.

Each of the Nativity schools employed a strong core of experienced andcertified teachers, as well as a number of volunteer or intern teachers whoseduties included direct classroom instruction and supervision of studentactivities and homework sessions. The proportion of certified teachers ran-ged from 39% to 58% at the schools and student–teacher ratios ranged from4.4 to 1 to 7.2 to 1. These ratios are significantly smaller at Nativity schoolswhen compared to the comparison schools’ ratio of 20.7 to 1. However, thecomparison schools reported a higher percentage of certified teachers ontheir staffs (89% vs. 52%). Because of the relative inexperience of manyof the Nativity teachers, these schools invested considerable resources in tea-cher training and ongoing mentoring and support (see Fenzel & Flippen,2006, for an analysis of the effectiveness of teaching staffs in Nativityschools).

The summer program, required by all Nativity schools but neither of thecomparison schools, has a strong academic component, typically lasting3 hours in the morning over a 2- to 6-week period. During that time, basicskills in reading, writing, and math are emphasized and students are expectedto complete outside reading. The summer programs also provided enrich-ment and activities designed to help students bond with one another and withtheir faculty, succeed at physical challenges, and take on leadership roles.

Graduate support. A major objective of Nativity schools is for a largepercentage of their students to attend high-quality high schools, graduate in4 years, and attend 4-year colleges. Each school in this study employed agraduate support director (GSD) to help accomplish these goals. TheGSD was active helping the students and families with the high schooland college application process and preparing students for entrance exami-nations. The GSD also maintains contact with the students throughout highschool and helps them with academic and family difficulties that arise.Graduates are also encouraged to return to their schools to tutor currentstudents or receive tutoring help if needed.

DISCUSSION

This study utilized quantitative and qualitative methods to examine theextent to which Nativity model middle schools contribute to the academicsuccess of at-risk urban children of color, as well as factors that help explain



this success. Data for the study included student standardized test scoresand academic grades, students’ self-perceptions and perceptions of aspectsof the school climate from written surveys, personal interviews, and schoolobservations.

Quantitative analyses show that students at the Nativity schools are verysuccessful academically, with the majority of students performing at orabove grade level, and having gained more than one grade equivalent peryear on standardized tests of reading and mathematics and the vast majorityof their graduates leaving middle school to attend and graduate from chal-lenging high school programs. In addition, for the seven schools that hadbeen in operation for 8 years or more at the time of the study, the majorityof their graduates have attended 4-year colleges. Also, their high schoolgraduation rates were considerably higher than those for students from pub-lic schools in the cities, which are under 50% (Swanson, 2004), and consist-ent with findings from a previous study of one Nativity school (Podsiadlo &Philliber, 2003). The differences in academic achievement favoring Nativityschools over the more traditional parochial schools, found in this study, arenoteworthy, especially considering that students in the two types of schoolscome from very similar urban social and economic conditions and are heldto the same kinds of behavioral expectations in school. Also, these differ-ences cannot be explained with respect to student attendance, which isnearly 97% in both types of schools.

This study provides some insight into which factors related to theschools, themselves, account for the impressive academic gains foundamong Nativity school students. Results suggest that three climate factorsthat favor Nativity schools over comparison schools, namely students’ per-ceptions of their schools as being enjoyable with rules that are fair, teacherswho are supportive and task-oriented, and a favorable peer social climate,contribute to higher levels of Nativity school students’ academic engage-ment and success. As research (Conchas, 2006; Powell & Jacob Arriola,2003; Wenglinsky, 2004; Wilson & Corbett, 2001) has shown, these climatefactors lead urban minority students to feel valued and respected and tend,in turn, to positively affect their levels of academic engagement and success.Interview data show that the caring and availability of Nativity teachers arehighly valued by the students and contribute to their motivation to advancetheir academic skill development. Consistent with the literature on the socio-cultural view of motivation (Hickey, 2003), the strong orientation towardlearning, support, and academic success embodied by Nativity students con-tributes to their continued academic engagement and that of new studentswho enroll in the schools.

Results from the analyses of predictors of students’ report card grades(or GPA) provide support for the effects of student self-perceptions on



academic achievement as well. The greater the extent to which studentsreported experiencing adjustment difficulties in school related to gettingalong with teachers and students, paying attention, following rules, andcompleting their school work, the more their grades suffered. This relationwas evident in both a zero-order correlation analysis and multiple regressionanalysis that controlled for factors related to the type of school and homeenvironment factors. In addition, intrinsic motivation perceptions—thatis, the extent to which students perceived themselves as accepting challengeand persisting in the face of difficult work—were related significantly toGPA in both zero-order correlation and multiple regression analyses. Thesefindings underscore the role that student self-perceptions play in their aca-demic success, although student survey results do not show that Nativityschool students demonstrate a better adjustment with respect to these self-perceptions. Still, as has been suggested in previous research with AfricanAmerican adolescents (Connell, Helpern-Felsher, Clifford, Crichlow, &Usinger, 1995), self-perceptions mediate the relation of students’ experiencesof teacher support to student academic engagement. Future research withNativity and other alternative urban schools might examine the extent towhich self-perceptions of intrinsic motivation and adjustment difficultiesmediate the relation of climate factors to academic performance.

The small size of the Nativity schools and their classes for instruction,along with practices such as small teacher-led advisories and extra timeallocated to homework and tutoring assistance, are elements that facilitatehigh-quality teacher-student relationships. An earlier study (Podsiadlo &Philliber, 2003) of one Nativity school (a school that was also included inour study) cited these factors, along with program features that facilitatedhigh-quality relationships among students themselves, as some of the ‘‘bestpractices’’ that contribute to Nativity student academic success. As otherresearch (Midgley & Edelin, 1998) has suggested, small schools make forstrong connections between students and teachers. Also, the small classesand extra time that teachers in Nativity schools are able to spend with theirstudents during the long school day are likely to be significant factors in theimpressive academic gains exhibited by the Nativity students in our study(Trimble, 2004). The extended school day that is characteristic of Nativityschools enables students to spend more time engaged in learning activities,a factor that has been shown to improve learning among African Americanstudents (Wenglinsky, 2004).

One finding that favored the comparison schools in this study—students’perceptions of the school principal as more supportive and caring—was notrelated to student academic achievement. Although the finding favoring thecomparison schools seems surprising, given the literature on the importanceof effective educational leaders (e.g., Wenglinsky, 2002), perhaps the way in



which Nativity principals affect the school climate lies in their ability toinvolve teachers as partners in decision making and establishing the socialand academic climate of the school. In other words, an effective principalmay be one whose contributions are mediated through the work of theteachers in the school (Kopetz, Lease, & Warren-Kring, 2006). Becauseof the relatively large number of teachers, including those with littleteaching experience, Nativity principals appear to spend a great deal oftheir time mentoring and supporting their teachers. As previous research(Klem & Connell, 2004) has shown, and results of our study confirm,having teachers who provide a caring and well-structured environmentfor learning leads to higher levels of academic achievement for middleschool students.

Results of this study also point to the value of having parents involved intheir children’s education at the middle school level, an involvement thatcould be facilitated by the small size of Nativity schools. Because many par-ents of color tend to become frustrated because of their limited success inunderstanding and negotiating school structural and political obstacles(Hale, 2004), having their children in schools that encourage and solicit par-ental involvement helps parents work cooperatively with the schools toensure their children’s success.

Although this study utilizes several methods of data collection and analy-sis in support of its purposes, limitations exist. Foremost among these is thefact that the data collected represent, for the most part, a snapshot of theperceptions held by students in small nonpublic urban schools. In addition,the data provided by comparison group students and the school administra-tion were not enriched by interviews or class observations, and sixth graderscould not be included in analyses involving academic achievement. Moreresearch is needed to draw more confident conclusions regarding the schoolelements that contribute most to student engagement and academic successin urban schools.

At least two factors may limit the extent to which findings presented inthis study can be applied to public middle schools. Parents or guardiansmust take steps to apply to the parochial schools and, in the case of Nativityschools, provide financial information. In addition, unlike public schools,Nativity schools are able to select students from a pool of applicants.Although the low initial test scores of Nativity students show that ‘‘cream-ing’’ does not take place, Nativity schools, with one exception, do not acceptstudents with significant behavioral, emotional, or learning challenges, inlarge part because they lack the resources to educate students with specialneeds.

These limitations notwithstanding, this study makes a strong argumentfor the value of small schools and classes for instruction for the education



of young urban minority adolescents at risk for school failure. The highlevels of academic success of Nativity school students show that such stu-dents will succeed academically if provided the proper environment in whichto do so.

The extent to which the Nativity model can be implemented on a largescale is uncertain. Costs per student in Nativity schools are bound to behigher than those for public and traditional parochial schools in the citiesthat educate students from similar backgrounds. However, the importanceof providing educational opportunities for children similar to those pro-vided by Nativity schools cannot be overlooked or dismissed on the basisof cost because of the well-documented failure of urban public schools toprovide an effective education for most of their students (Hale, 2004;Noguera, 2003).

REFERENCES

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2003). The building blocks of success for America’s middle and

high school students. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved on July 23, 2008, from http://

www.all4ed.org/publications/BuildingBlocksofSuccess.doc.

Balfanz, R., & Byrnes, V. (2002, April). Closing the mathematics achievement gap in high poverty

middle schools: Enablers and constraints. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Balfanz, R., & Mac Iver, D. (2000). Transforming high-poverty urban middle schools into

strong learning institutions: Lessons for the first five years of the Talent Development

Middle School. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5, 137–158.

Center for the Social Organization of Schools. (2003). Talent development student survey.

Baltimore, MD: Author.

Conchas, G. Q. (2006). The color of success: Race and high-achieving urban youth. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Connell, J. P., Helpern-Felsher, B. L., Clifford, E., Crichlow, W., & Usinger, P. (1995). Hanging

in there: Behavioral, psychological, and contextual factors affecting whether African

American adolescents stay in high school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10, 41–63.

Council of Great City Schools. (2003). Urban school coalition calls for federal action to address

school resource disparities. Retrieved July 23, 2008, from http://www.cgcs.org/newsroom/

press_release14.aspx.

Fenzel, L. M., & Flippen, G. (2006, April). Student engagement and the use of volunteer teachers

in alternative urban middle schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Fenzel, L. M., & Monteith, R. (2005, April). Successful middle schools for urban minority

children: A national study of Nativity schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.

Fenzel, L. M., & Patel, S. P. (2002, April). Nativity schools: Follow-up evaluation of the success

of an alternative middle school for urban minority boys. Paper presented at the annual meet-

ing of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221–234.



George, P. S., & Alexander, W. M. (2003). The exemplary middle school (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Hale, J. E. (2001). Learning while Black: Creating educational excellence for African American

children. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hale, J. E. (2004). How schools shortchange African American children. Educational Leader-

ship, 62, 34–39.

Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the

classroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology, 17,

300–312.

Hickey, D. T. (2003). Engaged participation versus marginal nonparticipation: A stridently

sociocultural approach to achievement motivation. Elementary School Journal, 108,

401–429.

Irvine, J. J. (1996). Lessons learned: Implications for the education of African Americans in

public schools. In J. J. Irvine & M. Foster (Eds.), Growing up African American in Catholic

schools (pp. 170–176). New York: Teachers College Press.

Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st

century. New York: Teachers College Press.

Joftus, S. (2002, September). Every child a graduate: A framework for an excellent education

for al middle and high school students. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent

Education.

Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student

engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262–273.

Kopetz, P. B., Lease, A. J., & Warren-Kring, B. Z. (2006). Comprehensive urban education.

Boston: Pearson.

Lewis, A. C. (2000). A tale of two reform strategies. In J. Norton & A. C. Lewis (Eds.), Middle

grades reform: A Kappan special report (Number 81, K1–K20). Retrieved March 2, 2005,

from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/klew0006.htm.

Lipsitz, J. (1984). Successful schools for young adolescents. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction

Books.

Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Midgley, C., & Edelin, K. C. (1998). Middle school reform and early adolescent well-being: The

good news and the bad. Educational Psychologist, 33, 195–206.

Moos, R. H., & Trickett, E. J. (1987). Classroom Environment Scale manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto,

CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Noguera, P. A. (2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of public

education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Podsiadlo, Rev. J. J., S. J., & Philliber, W. W. (2003). The Nativity Mission Center: A successful

approach to the education of Latino boys. Journal of Education for Students Placed at

Risk, 8, 419–428.

Powell, C. L., & Jacob Arriola, K. R. (2003). Relationship between psychosocial factors and

academic achievement among African American students. Journal of Educational

Research, 96, 175–181.

Prince, C. D. (2002). Missing: Top staff in bottom schools. School Administrator, 59(7), 6–9,

11–14.

Swanson, C. B. (2004). Projections of 2003–04 high school graduates: Supplemental

analyses based on findings from Who graduates? Who doesn’t? Washington, DC,

Urban Institute. Retrieved on July 23, 2008, from http://www.urban.org/url.

cfm?ID=411019



Trimble, S. (2004). What works to improve student achievement (NMSA Research Summary

#20). Retrieved January 29, 2004, from http://www.nmsa.org/research/summary/

studentachievement.htm

Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and

student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12). Retrieved

October 8, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/

Wenglinsky, H. (2004). The link between instructional practice and the racial gap in middle

schools. RMLE Online. Retrieved July 23, 2008, from http://www.nmsa.org/portals/0/

pdf/publications/RMLE/rmle_vol28_no1_article1.pdf

Wilson, B. L., & Corbett, H. D. (2001). Listening to urban kids: School reform and the teachers

they want. Albany: State University of New York Press.

York, D. E. (1996). The academic achievement of African Americans in Catholic schools: A

review of the literature. In J. J. Irvine & M. Foster (Eds.), Growing up African American

in Catholic schools (pp. 11–46). New York: Teachers College Press.



PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR) Successful...

Documents

Transcript of PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR) Successful...