Concordia University St. Paul DigitalCommons@CSP Concordia University Portland Graduate CUP Ed. Dissertations Research 2-8-2019 Schools' Mission Statements, Local Education Agencies' Strategic Plans, and School Accountability Amber Holomshek Concordia University - Portland, aniknik42@gmail.com Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.edu/cup_commons_grad_edd Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Holomshek, A. Schools' Mission Statements, Local Education Agencies' Strategic Plans, and School Accountability (Thesis, Concordia University, St.
Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.edu/cup_commons_grad_edd/274 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Concordia University Portland Graduate Research at DigitalCommons@CSP. It has been accepted for inclusion in CUP Ed. Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@CSP. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@csp.
Concordia University - Portland CU Commons Ed. Dissertations Graduate Theses & Dissertations 2-8-2019 Schools' Mission Statements, Local Education Agencies' Strategic Plans, and School Accountability Amber Holomshek Concordia University - Portland Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.edu/edudissertations Part of the Education Commons CU Commons Citation Holomshek, Amber, "Schools' Mission Statements, Local Education Agencies' Strategic Plans, and School Accountability" (2019).edu/edudissertations/244 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Theses & Dissertations at CU Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Ed. Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CU Commons.
For more information, please contact libraryadmin@cu- portland. Concordia University–Portland College of Education Doctorate of Education Program WE, THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBERS OF THE DISSERTATION COMMITTEE CERTIFY THAT WE HAVE READ AND APPROVE THE DISSERTATION OF Amber Nicole Holomshek CANDIDATE FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Barbara Weschke, Ph., Faculty Chair Dissertation Committee Deborah Johnson-Blake, D., Content Specialist Genelle Morris., Content Reader Schools’ Mission Statements, Local Education Agencies’ Strategic Plans, and School Accountability Amber Nicole Holomshek Concordia University–Portland College of Education Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the College of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in Transformational Leadership Barbara Weschke, Ph., Chair Dissertation Committee Deborah Johnson-Blake, D., Content Specialist Genelle Morris., Content Reader Concordia University–Portland 2019 Abstract This study examined the role alignment between a school’s mission statement and its LEA’s strategic plan had on their students’ overall academic performance in achieving any of the seven distinctions and a met standard rating on the 2016–2017 Texas Education Agency’s school accountability system. Data were used to determine if there was a higher rate of alignment between Title I or non-Title I schools’ mission statements and LEA’s strategic plan. The conceptual framework of this multiple case study was grounded in Tyler’s model of objectives- based evaluation, utilizing critical incident technique as an organizational tool, which called for three pieces of data: identification of objective, identification of action steps, and evaluation based on performance measures.
The school mission statements were used to identify the objectives, the LEAs’ strategic plans were used to identify the action steps, and the school report cards were used as the performance measures. Schools and LEAs qualified for this study if the school mission statement and the LEA’s strategic plans were available on-line. The major sources of data were the content analysis of seven case schools’ mission statements and the LEAs’ strategic plans, and the information provided on the school report cards produced by TEA. While the study did not reveal significant new data in the research related to school mission statements, strategic plans, and school accountability systems, it did provide some insight for school leaders looking to rewrite their school mission statements to better reflect LEA strategic plans and school accountability measures.
Key words: mission statements, strategic plans, accountability, objective-based evaluation ii Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my grandparents – John and Alice Holomshek. Two people who never wanted me to be anyone other than who I was meant to be. iii Acknowledgements The work of this dissertation was influenced by countless people. Barbara Weschke, thank you for your time and effort through this entire process.
Many times I wanted to give up, but you kept encouraging me to push through. Your guidance has truly turned me into a more dedicated scholar. Johnson-Blake and Dr. Morris, thank you for helping me improve my writing craft and allowing me to send countless versions of my work for any and all input.
Dad, thanks for just being my dad. Uncle Will and Aunt Kimberly, thanks for letting me talk random facts and pieces of data around your kitchen table. Hunter Cole, thanks for checking on my doggos on the days I stayed late at work to whittle away at this dissertation instead of having to rush home. My best friends, Audrey, Chrissy, and Nichole.
Food, fun, and fellowship in the moments I needed it most. Aston, thanks for inspiring me to enter the education profession. You will forever and always be the best teacher. Daisy, River, and Cooper – three of the very best dogs a girl could ever ask for.” Ray Young, for providing me with motivation to keep moving because you were not about to be the only doctor on this administration team.
There were so many other along the way who helped me in this process, and I wish I had the space to thank them all. iv Table of Contents Abstract ……………………………………………. iv List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………. ix Chapter 1: Introduction ………………………………………….
10 Background, Context, History, and Conceptual Framework for the Problem …………. 13 Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………………………. 17 Purpose of Study ………………………………………………………………………. 20 Rationale, Relevance, and Significance of the Study ………………………………….
20 Definition of Terms …………………………………………………………………. 21 Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations ………………………………………. 24 Chapter 2: Literature Review …………………………………………………………………. 26 Conceptual Framework ………………………………………………………………… 26 Tyler’s model ………………………………………………………………….
27 Critical incident technique …………………………………………….……… 29 Review of the Research Literature and Methodological Literature ……………………. 29 Types of Accountability in Education ………………………………………. 29 Purpose of Mission Statements in Education ………………………………. 30 School Mission Statements and School Effectiveness …………………….…… 37 v Review of Methodological Issues ……………………………………………………… 40 Synthesis of Research Findings ………………………………………………….…… 45 Critique of Previous Research ………………………………………………………….
54 Purpose and Design of the Study ………………………………………………………. 55 Research Population and Sampling Method …………………………………………… 57 Instrumentation ………………………………………………………………………… 58 Data Collection ………………………………………………………………………… 59 Identification of Attributes ……………………………………………………………. 60 Data Analysis Procedures ……………………………………………………………… 61 Limitations and Delimitations of the Research Design …………………………….… 62 Validation, Credibility, and Dependability ……………………………………………. 62 Expected Findings ……………………………………………………………………… 64 Ethical Issues ………………………………………………………………………….
64 Conflict of Interest and Researcher’s Position …………………………………………. 65 Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results …………………………………………………………. 68 Description of the Sample ……………………………………………………………… 69 School A and LEA 1 …………………………………………………………… 71 vi School B and LEA 2 …………………………………………………………… 74 School C and LEA 3 …………………………………………………………… 77 School D and LEA 4 …………………………………………………………… 80 School E and LEA 5 …………………………………………. 83 School F and LEA 6 …………………………………………………………… 86 School G and LEA 7 …………………………………………………………… 89 Research Methodology and Analysis ………………………………………………….
92 Summary of the Findings ………………………………………………………………. 95 Presentation of Data and Results …………………………………………………. 106 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion ………………………………………………………. 109 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………… 109 Summary of Results ……………………………………………………………….
109 Discussion of Results …………………………………………………………………. 114 Discussion of the Results in Relation to the Literature ………………………………. 129 Implication of the Results for Practice, Policy, and Theory ……………………….… 131 Recommendations for Further Research ……………………………………………… 136 Conclusion …………. 139 Appendix A: Statement of Original Work …………………………………………………….
152 Appendix B: Themes found in Mission Statements and Strategic Plans ……………………. 154 Appendix C: Theme Analysis of Indices and Distinctions …………………………………… 160 vii Appendix D: Theme Rubric ……………. 162 Appendix E: Permissions ……………………………………………………………………… 164 viii List of Tables Table 1. Schools and LEA Title I Status and Type ………………………………….
Performance on School Accountability System …………………………. School A and LEA 1 Themes, Mission Statement & Strategic Plan Wording ……. School B and LEA 2 Themes, Mission Statement, & Strategic Plan Wording ……. School C and LEA 3 Themes, Mission Statement, & Strategic Plan Wording …….
School D and LEA 4 Themes, Mission Statement, & Strategic Plan Wording …. School E and LEA 5 Themes, Mission Statement, & Strategic Plan Wording ……. School F and LEA 6 Themes, Mission Statement, & Strategic Plan Wording ……. School G and LEA 7 Themes, Mission Statement, & Strategic Plan Wording …….
Schools Receiving Title I Funds ………. Schools not Receiving Title I Funds, but LEA Does …………………………. Schools and LEAs Receiving No Title I Funds ………. 98 ix Chapter 1 Introduction At the end of World War II, a Cold War dawned pitting the democratic United States of America against the communist United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR).
These two superpowers soon began dividing the world along treaty lines – the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, headed by the United States, and the Warsaw Pact, overseen by the USSR. An arms race commenced, each superpower working furiously to out-produce and out-destroy each other. This conflict reached its peak in 1957 when the USSR launched Sputnik, the first satellite, into space (Wissehr, Concannon, & Barrow, 2011). This single event was used by President Eisenhower to convey a message of school inferiority to the public.
In response to the dire message supported by the president regarding the lack of American preparedness, an emphasis was placed on math and science education in order to not be outperformed by the USSR (Cohen, 2013). As a result of the belief that the schools of the United States were inferior, the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) was passed in 1958. The intent was to provide the country with a national defense infrastructure, which led to the increase in number of loans offered to students moving on to study at colleges and universities (Kessinger, 2011). In the mid-1960s, the United States passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Acts, which placed an emphasis on educating the children of the poor (Kessinger, 2011).
This led to the creation of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which provided the government a tool to track the academic progress of students in Grades K-12 in the United States. This has been the only assessment that allowed a state-by-state comparison of students’ academic performance in math, science, reading, writing, and other selected contents in grades 4, 8, and 12. This nation’s report 10 card, so to speak, provided an annual snapshot of the average student’s academic performance, but it did not provide a true understanding of how well all students were performing academically (Kessinger, 2011). In 1983, the desire for a more comprehensive school accountability system would emerge.
School accountability within the United States is a product of a series of legislative acts passed since the early 1980s (Deming & Figlio, 2016). In 1983, President Reagan called for the formation of a committee to assess the state of education within the United States. This study was identified as A Nation at Risk (1983) and highlighted how the state of education prevented the United States from operating at the same level as other industrialized nations. A Nation at Risk provided the information and documentation necessary for lawmakers to begin considering extensive federal legislation in regards to education (Scott, 2011).
Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama each passed educational reforms with the goal of creating citizens that would be able to compete in a global economy (Deming & Figlio, 2016; Scott, 2011). Through their work, legislation, such as GOALS 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 (Scott, 2011), No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), were implemented over the years. These pieces of legislation each attempted to reform education and placed an emphasis on the overall academic performance of students educated in public institutions across the United States. Politicians believed by legislating academic proficiency measures and common curricula, the academic performance of students would improve and schools could be held to the high standards put in place by accountability systems at both the federal and state levels (Deming & Figlio, 2016; Scott, 2011).
The pressure on schools and local education agencies (LEAs) grew over time and forced them to provide the evidence necessary to demonstrate an increase in their students’ overall 11 academic performance in an attempt to satisfy the federal legislation. Tools that schools and LEAs used to communicate were mission statements and strategic plans.