A Case Study About the Relationship Between PDS and Non PDS High School Variables and Student Outcomes in the State of New Jersey Maria A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Seton Hall University eRepository @ Seton Hall Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs) 2009 A Case Study About the Relationship Between PDS and Non PDS High School Variables and Student Outcomes in the State of New Jersey Maria A. Poidomani Seton Hall University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations Part of the Educational Methods Commons, and the Other Education Commons Recommended Citation Poidomani, Maria A., "A Case Study About the Relationship Between PDS and Non PDS High School Variables and Student Outcomes in the State of New Jersey" (2009). Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs). 52. https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations/52 A Case Study about the Relationship between PDS and Non-PDS High School Variables and Student Outcomes in the State of New Jersey BY Maria A. Poidomani Dissertation Committee Mary Ruzicka, Ph.D., Mentor James Caulfield, Ed.D. James Montesano, Ed.D. BNC~Sabatini, Ed.D. Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education Seton Hall University ABSTRACT A CASE STUDY ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PDS AND NON PDS HIGH SCHOOL VARIABLES AND STUDENT OUTCOMES IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY by Maria A. Poidomani Using a case study design and inferential statistics, the author examined data from 14 New Jersey High Schools to see if there was a difference between Professional Development (PDS) high schools and Non PDS high schools in regards to student achievement and other school variables. Data was analyzed in aggregate according to PDS and Non PDS designation and was also analyzed by matching seven PDS and seven Non PDS schools by socio-economic (DFG) designation and percentage of ethnicity diversity. Standardized tests scores and other descriptive, contextual school data related to student demographics, attendance, mobility, average class size, length of instructional day, and level of teacher education and experience and school mission statements were examined using the Chi-square Test or Fisher's Exact Test, when applicable. Other school and student descriptive information was categorized according to similarities and differences that emerged fiom comparing/analyzing site data using the constant comparative method of data analysis. The state- reported, categorized mean scores (in terms of Advanced, Proficient, and Partial proficiency) of eleventh grade students in select schools on the New Jersey High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) were used to observe and categorize student achievement data for the purpose of this study. Language Arts and Mathematics scores were analyzed. Four of the 15 hypotheses in the study were found to be statistically significant. The findings in this study support and answer the main research question that there was a difference in PDS and Non PDS schools in the area of student performance outcomes in both Mathematics and Language Arts, but findings were not conclusive in all matched pairs. Even though a majority of the significant results in this study supported more favorable student outcomes for students in the Non PDS schools, some positive results from some of the PDS schools in this study in regards to student achievement outcomes were also affumed. The significant differences were most apparent in the data that has been disaggregated by ethnicity. APPROVAL FOR SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE Duclural Candidate, hlarla Poidomanl, ha4 successfdly dddcdand made the required modilicadms to ihu tcu orthe da'toral diwttmon for lhc Ed.n. during this Spring Scmnter 2009. The mentor and any ahacummlttce mcrnben ~huw~sh to wim revisions will sign and dam lh~sdwurnunc only rhcn roirions have h- cornplcled. PI- mum this farm lo lhe Oficc ol'Gndulc Studla. whurc 11 will k nlacrd on the eandihle'r lileand rubm~la copy w~thywr hlwl dlmml~onlo be bund 4%page number two TABLE OF CONTENTS ... Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. 111. List of Tables ................................................................................................................. iv-ix List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... x I . Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2 Need for This Study ................................................................................................. 6 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................ 8 Significance of the Study ......................................................................................... 8 Main Research Question .......................................................................................... 8 Hypotheses... ............................................................................................................... 9 Limtations. and Assumptions ................................................................................ 11 Defimbons of Terms ............................................................................................. 13 I1 . Review of the Literature ................................................................................................ 16 The Professional Development School .................................................................. 16 HistorylBackground of the Professional Development School ............................. 17 PDS Standards and Features .................................................................................. 21 PDS Philosophy versus Traditional Professional Development ............................ 23 Benefits of the PDS Model .................................................................................... 25 Criticism of the PDS Model ................................................................................... 29 Teacher Experience and Student Achievement ..................................................... 32 Socioeconomic Status. Ethnic Diversity. and Student Achievement .................... 34 Other School. Variables and Student Achievement ................................................ 36 School Mission Statements .................................................................................... 37 I11 . Methodology ................................................................................................................ 39 Subjects .................................................................................................................. 39 Method ................................................................................................................... 40 Procedure of Data Collection ................................................................................. 43 Instruments ............................................................................................................. 44 IV . Analysis of the Data ..................................................................................................... 46 The '6I 3) Districts ..................................................................................................... 75 Montclair High School (PDS).................................................................... 75 Columbia High School (Non-PDS) ........................................................... 76 "I .. District Data Results ............................................................................ 77 The "FG Districts ................................................................................................. 94 Dumont High School (PDS) ...................................................................... 94 Hasbrouck Heights High School (Non-PDS) ............................................ 95 '6FG District Data Results ......................................................................... 96 The "DE" Districts ............................................................................................... 113 Hawthorne High School (PDS)......................................................... 113 Saddle Brook High School (Non-PDS) ................................................... 114 6' 6' . DEDlstnct Data Results ...................................................................... 115 The "CD (Pair 1) Districts.................................................................................. 130 Rahway High School (PDS) .................................................................... 130 Hackensack High School (Non-PDS) ...................................................... 131 "CD(Pair 1) District Data Results .......................................................... 132 The "CD (Pair 2) Districts 152 Wdliamstown High School (PDS) ........................................................... 152 Delsea Regional High School (Non-PDS) ............................................... 153 6' CD(Pair 2) District Data Results ...................................................... 154 The "B" (Pair 1) Districts .................................................................................... 173 Plainfield High School (PDS) .................................................................. 173 Abraham Clark High School (Non-PDS) ................................................ 174 "B District (Pair 1) Data Results ............................................................ 175 The "B(Pair