1
Using a mixed methods research design to deconstruct the nature of low academic
performance in primary schools facing exceptional challenge within the Republic of
Trinidad and Tobago
Jerome De Lisle
School of Education, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine
Abstract
MacBeath et al. (2005) defined schools facing exceptionally challenging circumstances as
institutions confronted by complexity resulting from higher levels of poverty, disadvantage,
and turbulence among student, parent and staff, thereby threatening school performance. In
the Trinidad and Tobago primary school system, this definition was operationalized by
locating poorly performing schools located in disadvantaged areas that also experienced
higher numbers of economically disadvantaged students. Overall, the study employed an
explanatory sequential mixed methods research design, with a quantitative Phase I project
and a mixed methods Phase II project. The Phase I project was designed to identify and
characterize schools facing exceptional challenge and Phase II was a multi-site case study of
three selected institutions, two single-sex and urban, one co-education and rural. The Phase II
project used an embedded qualitative-dominant mixed methods design, with multiple-
methods. However, qualitative themes were given priority. Metainferences were of three
kinds: unique to one method, corroborative, or contradictory. It was not possible to resolve all
contradictory findings, pointing to findings providing different lenses on the phenomenon.
Overall, the evidence suggested that mechanisms and processes associated with “exceptional
challenge” as operationalized in Trinidad and Tobago were complex and context dependent.
Sustainable school improvement would require not just leadership training but also integrated
services and interlaced interventions targeting the multiple levels and multiple deficits.
Key words
Mixed Methods
Schools facing challenge
Poverty concentration
School effectiveness and improvement
National Assessments of Educational Achievement
2
Using a mixed methods research design to deconstruct the nature of low academic
performance in primary schools facing exceptional challenge within the Republic of
Trinidad and Tobago
Rationalizing the concept of “challenging context” in the South
Schools confront a variety of external contexts, some more challenging than others
(Harris et al., 2006; Levin, 2006; Michalak, 2009). These different contexts impinge on the
very nature and purpose of schooling, the pathway to successful school improvement,
essential processes such as leadership and teaching-learning, and the attainability of national
targets set for school improvement (MacBeath et al., 2005; Jacobson, 2008). For schools
within countries of the developing world, data from international assessments suggest that
variations in contexts are much higher (Mullis, Martin, Kennedy, & Foy, 2007). These
variations are attributable to uneven national development, the absence of policies fostering
equity, and the insufficiency of essential human and physical resources.
There is a large body of work on the relationship between contexts of poverty and the
underperformance of schools in the United States, Canada, and the UK (Ylimaki, Jacobson &
Drysdale, 2007). However, the issue has not been extensively studied within small
developing states. Such a study can address the transferability of key school effectiveness
constructs contexts (Harber & Muthukrishna, 2000). Trinidad and Tobago provides an
especially interesting case for investigating the nature of challenging contexts. Although now
classified as a high-income country, the legacy of unequal development has persisted. This
inequity has been identified as a notable problem in the English speaking Caribbean and in
Trinidad and Tobago (World Bank, 1993; World Bank, 1995).
Poverty concentration in Trinidad and Tobago schools arises from both geographic
location and the operation of the education market (De Lisle et al., 2009). At the primary
school level, there are various choice options in the education market, including private,
denominational or government institutions. However, private schools are not necessarily the
preferred choice among the socially advantaged because public schools can be equally high
performing. The great majority of public primary schools are, in fact, managed by the
different denominations (MacKenzie, 1991). The existence of this complex education market
has a downside with many low performing primary schools being vilified and rejected. The
Ministry of Education has recently labelled some schools as “underperforming” based on the
number of low performing students in the high stakes Secondary Entrance Examination.
Several labels have been used to describe schools performing below expectations
within accountability systems. However, not all descriptors give adequate attention to the
issue of context. One approach might be to label such schools as “ineffective” or
“underperforming” (Van de Grift and Houtveen, 2006; Houvteen et al., 2007). Muijs et al
(2004) focused more on context in the label “schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged
areas”. The label “high poverty-low performing” (HP-LP) is perhaps one of the more useful
because it captures both comparative underperformance and context. High poverty contexts
might refer to a variety of challenging contexts, with multilingual (Pretorius & Currin, 2010)
and urban dimensions (Jacobson, 2008). Ainscow, Muijis and West (2006) used the term
“schools facing challenge” to describe schools confronted by location, history, and pupil and
parental attitudes. MacBeath et al. (2005) added an important dimension of schools at the
extreme end of the continuum of contexts, with “exceptionally challenging” defined as
conditions of poverty, disadvantage, and turbulence among student, parent and staff that is
significantly higher than that of other schools.
3
Evidence and context within the Anglophone Caribbean
Policy formulation in Caribbean education systems has traditionally suffered from the
lack of high-quality, contextualized data. This lack of “indigenous knowledge” includes
evidence from both empirical data and qualitative case studies. Crossley (2008)
recommended the use of qualitative approaches to gather contextualized evidence within
small states. However, given the possibility of significant variations across geographic
location, case studies have limited utility. High quality evidence in the Caribbean requires
both generalizable data and information to elucidate the black box of operations. One
approach might be to use multi-site case studies and multistage purposeful random sampling
(Onwuegzubie & Collins, 2007). However, prior information on the characteristics of
institutions and communities must come from a large-scale quantitative study (Teddlie & Yu,
2007).
In the past decade, large-scale achievement data have only been available from public
examinations in the Anglophone Caribbean (World Bank, 1993). When used in evaluating
system performance, however, this type of data is limited because of the strong shadow
education market (Mizala, Pilar & Urquiola, 2007). Public examinations also do not provide
standards-referenced data to answer the question, “how good is good enough?” Only in the
last decade, have monitoring assessments been introduced into some Anglophone Caribbean
islands (UNESCO, 2008). Trinidad and Tobago installed a new national assessment system in
2004 designed to better to monitor achievement standards. From 2005, both norm-referenced
and standards-referenced data on education districts, schools and students were provided.
The context and design of the study
To operationalize “exceptional challenge” among primary schools in Trinidad and
Tobago, a measure of school performance was developed using the numbers of students at
different achievement levels in Language and Mathematics national tests administered at
Standards 1 and 3. Also obtained was a measure of community economic and social
disadvantage called the Basic Needs Index and the percentage of students experiencing
economic disadvantage in the school. The socioeconomic composition of the schools was
estimated from the percentage of the school population entitled to free school meals. Schools
in the category of exceptional challenge scored below 240 on the API, reported a free school
meals index of above 90, and are situated in communities with a BNI of below 50.
The overall purpose of the study was to identify schools facing exceptional challenge
and to deconstruct the nature of underperformance in these schools. Deconstruct means to
dismantle and analyze antecedents and consequences. Thus, the study was designed to gather
deep insight into the nature of low achievement within schools facing exceptional challenge
and to elucidate factors contributing to low school underperformance. The three research
questions guiding this study were:
(1) What are the locations and institutional characteristics of schools facing
exceptional challenge? (QUAN)
(2) What is the nature of key processes and systems, such as teaching-learning,
leadership, and the parent-school-family interface? (QUAL/MIXED METHODS)
(3) How do the contextual factors impinge on organizational efficiency and academic
achievement? (MIXED METHODS)
Design of the study
The overall mixed methods design was sequential explanatory, with quantitative and
qualitative data collected in two consecutive phases within the study (Ivankova, Creswell &
Stick, 2006). The design of the overall programme is illustrated in Figure 1. Using the
framework of Morse & Niehaus (2009), the Phase I and II components were separate
4
Overall Mixed Methods Programme Design: Sequential Explanatory. Theoretical Thrust: Quantitative
PHASE I Project:
Quantitative Study of
secondary databases for all
477 primary schools in
Trinidad and Tobago
To identify schools facing exceptional
challenge
Phase II Project: Mixed Methods Qualitatively-Driven Embedded Study of three school sites designed to elucidate nature of underachievement in different challenging
contexts
Integrated analysis of nature and factors involved in
challenge
research projects within an overall mixed methods research programme. Although Phase I
was a mono-method quantitative study, Phase II was a qualitatively driven embedded mixed
methods study of underachievement at each school site. The theoretical thrust for the overall
programme was deductive. The theoretical drive of the Phase I project was deductive and the
Phase II mixed methods study inductive. The projects were sequential, with priority given to
the quantitative Phase I.
Figure 1: Overall Mixed Methods Programme Design
Rationale for the mixed methods research design
The rationale for the mixed methods design in the overall programme and in the Phase
II project was explored by considering the different purposes of mixing identified by Greene,
Caracelli, and Graham (1989). As shown in Table 1, the five purposes are triangulation,
complementarity, development, initiation and expansion. The complementary framework
proposed by Bryman (2006) extends and complements this framework. In the overall
programme, the main purposes were complementarity and development, with the qualitative
component in Phase II designed to enhance and illustrate the nature of processes within the
schools identified as exceptionally challenging. The qualitative component in the Phase II
project sought new frameworks while extending the breadth and range of inquiry.
Sampling strategy
The overall sampling strategy was sequential mixed method with multilevel sampling
used for Phase II (Teddlie & Yu, 2007). In Phase I, Census data 1 was obtained for all 477
primary schools in Trinidad and Tobago. The criteria used to select the schools facing
exceptional challenge were (1) 90% of the student population receiving free school meals and
(2) and API of under 150. A short list of six schools was developed and visits were made to
each school. The final list of three schools in Phase II was chosen based on criteria that
captured the variations for composition (coeducational/single-sex) and geographic location
(urban-rural). The schools came from two educational districts, which accounted for 74 of the
159 schools classified as “under academic watch” using the API rubric. All three schools
were enrolled in the Government’s Performance Enhancement Project for low performing
schools. The two urban schools (School A-Female and School B-Male) had populations just
over 100 (118 in both schools), but in the rural school, which catered for pupils from a small
very isolated village, the school population was just 41. In Phase II, probability samples were
obtained for some surveys and purposive samples used for interviews, observations and some
surveys.
5
Table 2: Rationale and purposes for mixed method design used to investigate challenging
schools in Trinidad and Tobago Primary Purpose of Mixing – Greene, Caracelli, & Graham (1989)
Programme/
Project
Additional Purposes – Bryman (2006)
1. Complementarity -sought
elaboration, enhancement,
illustration, and clarification of
the results from one method
with the results from the other
method.
Overall
Programme MM Completeness- A more comprehensive account of
the area of inquiry was provided.
Process- quan provided an account of structures but
qual provides sense of process
Different RQs- quan and qual each answered
different research questions
Explanation qual used to help explain findings
generated by the other
Sampling – quan used to facilitate the sampling of
respondents or cases.
Context - qual provided contextual understanding
coupled with generalizable, externally valid findings
in quan.
Diversity of views – quan uncovered relationships
between variables and qual revealed meanings
among research participants
Illustration - Used qual to illustrate quan findings.
2. Development –sought to use
the results from one method to
help develop or inform the
other method.
Overall
Programme MM
3. Initiation sought the discovery
of paradox and contradiction,
new perspectives of
frameworks, the recasting of
questions or results from one
method with questions or
results from the other method
Phase II MM Unexpected results - quan or qual generates
surprisingly results only explained by other.
Enhancement –Findings of quan or qual
augmented by gathering data using qual or qual.
Different RQs- quan and qual reach answered
different research questions
4. Expansion -sought to extend
the breadth and range of inquiry
by using different methods for
different inquiry components.
Phase II MM
5. Triangulation -sought
convergence, corroboration, and
correspondence of results from
the different methods.
Phase II MM
Instrumentation
In Phase II semi-structured interview schedules were prepared for individual and
focus group interviews with leaders, teachers and parents. Both structured and unstructured
observation methods were used. For teaching and learning, the Instructional Practices
Inventory was used to assess the nature of teaching and learning (Painter & Valentine, 1996).
Video and photographs from two of the three sites supplemented field notes, which contained
descriptions of teaching-learning events. Parents and teachers in the focus group were
required to complete survey questionnaires. Teachers completed questionnaires on collective
teacher efficacy and group organizational citizenship behaviour. Questionnaires were also
administered on student engagement to both students and teachers of all target classrooms.
The student engagement questionnaires included items from existing instruments on student
engagement (OECD, 2003).
6
Table 2: Distribution of schools facing exceptional challenge in the eight education districts of Trinidad and Tobago
Educational
District
Administrative Regions Urban-
rural
Exceptionally
Challenging
Context
Ownership Multigrade Status Classified by
Ministry as
Low
Performing No. % Gov’t Denom Full Partial Multi-
grade
POS & Environs City of Port of Spain Urban 5 13.9 1 4 4 1 0 5
Diego Martin Suburban 1 5.3 0 1 1 0 0 1
San Juan /Laventille Suburban 3 7.3 2 1 2 1 0 3
Victoria City San Fernando Urban 4 14.3 1 3 1 2 1 2
Princes Town Rural 4 3.0 0 4 1 2 1 3
Penal/Debe Rural 1 3.6 0 1 0 1 0 0
St. George East Arima Borough Urban 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tunapuna/Piarco Suburban 3 5.7 1 2 0 2 1 2
Caroni Chaguanas Borough Urban 1 4.0 0 1 1 0 0 1
Couva/Tabaquite/Talparo Rural 5 8.5 1 4 1 4 0 3
St. Patrick Point Fortin Borough Urban 2 10.0 2 0 2 0 0 1
Siparia Rural 2 6.1 0 2 2 0 0 1
North Eastern Sangre Grande Rural 7 17.1 2 5 0 3 4 5
South Eastern Mayaro/Rio Claro Rural 3 14.3 0 3 1 1 1 0
Tobago Tobago -- 5 15.2 2 3 1 3 1 0
46 9.6 12 34 17 20 9 27
7
Procedures and Analyses
A merged database was created for all primary schools in the country. This database
was analyzed using SPSS 13.0. Means and standard deviations were reported along with a
comparison of means from schools classified as “exceptionally challenging” and “normal”
schools. The principals of the chosen schools were contacted and a formal meeting held with
staff. The field assistants then accessed the schools and gathered data twice a week for two
months. For the data gathered in Phase II, priority was given to the qualitative data. Survey
data from the purposive samples (focus group interviews) were included but reported under
the dominant qualitative themes (Tashakorri & Teddlie, 1998; Morse & Niehaus, 2009)
Findings
(1) What are the locations and institutional characteristics of schools facing exceptional
challenge?
Forty six schools were classified as experiencing exceptionally challenging external
contexts. Of these schools, only 27 were classified as underachieving by the Ministry of
Education. Of the schools facing exceptional challenge, 12 were government-owned and 34
were denominational. The majority of schools (29) were either multi-grade or partially multi-
grade without a full complement of staff for every class. For the 46 schools classified as both
facing challenge and performing poorly, the majority were in the urban areas of Port of Spain
and Environs (9), Victoria (9), in Northern Eastern (7).
Table 3: Characteristics of schools facing exceptional challenge compared
School Characteristics Exceptionally
Challenge
Rest of
Schools
p-
value
Effect
size
1. % receiving free lunch 101.27 67.64 .000 .154
2. Mean Academic Performance Index 192.50 281.30 .000 .221
3. Mean % below 30% 28.77 14.19 .000 .105
4. Mean Eleven Plus % score (2001-2004) 42.50 54.65 .000 .090
5. % meeting & exceeding standards in Language (Std. 3) 25.81 52.27 .000 .119
6. % meeting & exceeding standards in Maths (Std. 3) 13.72 35.87 .000 .082
7. Years of teacher experience 15.94 9.63 .007 .015
8. % Teachers with A-Levels 25.00 24.16 .699 .000
9. % Teachers with basic training (teachers’ college) 79.50 86.52 .001 .023
10. % Teachers with 1st Year University (Cert. Ed.) 9.63 11.05 .426 .001
11. % Teachers with Degrees 6.60 5.56 .345 .002
12. Student/teacher ratio 11.90 16.69 .000 .072
13. School size 107.48 280.58 .000 .067
Effect Size Benchmarks = Small (0.01); Medium (0.06); and Large (0.14)
Table 3 compares 13 characteristics of 46 for both school types. Of the 13 variables,
10 showed significant differences. No differences were found for teachers with A-Levels and
teachers with partial or full degrees. Schools facing exceptional challenge performed more
poorly in national assessments (Mean API=192.50; P-value=.000, Eta Squared=.221), the
mean SEA score (Mean=42.50; P-value=.000; Eta Squared=.090), and had larger number of
students below the 30% remedial score (P-value=28.77; P-value=.000; Eta Squared=.105).
The greatest deficiency appeared to be in Language, with the difference between the mean
percentage meeting and exceeding standards in exceptionally challenged schools
(Mean=25.81 cf Mean=52.27) much lower. The effect size for the difference in Language
(Eta Squared=.119) was larger than that of Mathematics (Eta Squared=.082). The schools
facing exceptional challenge were generally smaller (Mean=107.5; P-value=.000; Eta
8
Squared=.067) with smaller class size ratios (Mean= 11.90; P-value=.000; Eta Squared
=.067).
(2) What is the nature of key processes and systems, such as teaching-learning, leadership
and organization, and the parent-school-family interface?
The parent-school-family-interface
Location
The dominant theme at all sites was the influence and nature of the school’s context.
Schools A (Boys) and B (Girls) were in a disenfranchised urban community in the capital city
of Port of Spain and school C was located in a disadvantaged community located within an
isolated rural agricultural area. Although the economic situations in the communities were
varied, the majority of families in these schools worked in low paying menial jobs. All
twenty-one families interviewed in the focus group reported manual father occupations, such
as labourer, gardener, and handyman. The majority of mothers were homemakers or
employed in low-level jobs such as cleaning. Nine of the twenty-one fathers had either no
education or primary school as the highest level. Based on the survey data, family sizes were
relatively small, but larger in the rural school. In the urban school, however, children might
have several stepsiblings in other homes.
Despite the proximity of the communities to major towns, the school and
communities remained isolated and this was often reflected in the students’ lack of
experiences. Nine of the twenty-one focus group families never or occasionally carried their
children on visits to major cities or towns. The urban boys’ school was unique in drawing
students from a wide range of economically disadvantaged communities in the Port of Spain
and Diego Martin areas. In the case of the rural school, the community was isolated because
of the quality of roads and distance from the main traffic ways. This made it expensive for
transport in and out of the area and with large family sizes; it was often prohibitive for all
siblings to go to the better quality schools outside the village.
Views of Parents and Teachers compared
Parents generally had neutral or negative views of the institutions. The majority of
parents in the rural school focus group believed that standards in the schools had declined
considerably as one parent expressed:
But now the standard of the school [has declined]. There [was a good] principal in the
school at the time [and after him], [they] break down everything in the school. I would
say [that] because I know. I passed by all my other schoolteachers before [there] was a
total breakdown of the school. Up to now, the school can’t catch itself and I [am] sure
[that] a lot of parents who [are here, if they] want to speak the truth -- they would say the
same thing.
Despite their low educational level, parents were aware of specific teaching-learning
deficits, including inattention to language and language development, as discussed within a
parent focus group:
Parent 1: I wish . . . [the] children . . . here [had] learn[t] to read and that is a big
problem [for] me, that is a [very] big problem.
Parent 2: You know the [other] children-they [are] coming home [everyday] with a
paragraph [to] read. Well, they don’t have that here at all. I don’t know if the other class
does . . . it but I never [saw] my daughter [bring anything home to read]. She doesn’t
bring [her] reading book [home] and she [does not] write. She [is in] std 5. I mean you
have to [read at that stage].
9
Parent 3: Standard 5 [does not get] reading or spellings. [They] right to say [that]. Well
we have nothing too] in the Standard 4 because my daughter, she [is] in Standard 4 [and]
she could read well and she could spell [well] because [has to] help the other one[s], and
so you [can] understand [that] they need more spelling and reading.
The parents’ concerns centred especially upon the examination classes of Standards 4 and 5,
which prepared students for the entrance into secondary school. Perhaps, parents were
conscious that poor language skills at this stage could severely hinder the students’ chances at
success, both in the examination and in the secondary school.
Parents and teachers had different perspectives on homework and reinforcement, with
teachers blaming the parents as noted by the following teacher:
Well, I can only speak about this culture. It’s what I’m dealing with right now. There’s a
total and complete lack of parental support. You will see it and hear of it as you go along
in the other classes. I don’t give home work. I have stopped it because it’s an exercise in
frustration . . . so whatever recapping we do, [we do] in the class. [They] come in the
morning and we try and work [and] they would retain [the information] to a certain point.
But the reinforcement at home [is not there]. There is no support network at home. There
are different issues [like] the television on all day, they next to a bar, they didn’t have any
electricity.
The principal of the rural school acknowledged this lack of connection between school and
community; indeed, he regarded it as the greatest challenge for further progress of the
schools, admitting:
Well, I think one of the greatest challenges would be that people in the community have
lost confidence in the school. I think that’s our biggest challenge and so therefore what
you find happening is that people are taking their children and sending them to schools
outside of [the area] as in [nearby location]. I think another challenge would be that our
school has not been producing pupils that go to secondary school and do an entire five
years there because we have a high secondary school dropout rate.
Overall low expectations for the students from school personnel stemmed in part from
the realization that the school had not been the first choice for many parents. This, teachers
felt, influenced the attitude of both parent and child to school work. As one of the leaders in
the urban school pointed out:
You know parents who are not interested in work send their children here. There are
those who are interested [and] try to get in[to] the better schools first. And they might
come here as a last resort and then when they go to these good schools, now they would
give them some attention like when they fail there.
These opposing views pointed to a lack of trust between community, parents, and teachers.
Even though the urban girls’ school had established a “less harmful” reputation, generally all
three schools maintained a distrustful view of parents. Thus, at the urban schools, staff often
bemoaned the lack of parental involvement and even blamed parents for much of the situation
at hand, as one school leader in the urban school expressed:
Education Leader: Well, in the community, it’s more or less the attitude of the parents. .
. and the interest . . . They don’t push the children school wise and they’re not too
interested in the children’s schoolwork. As such, they give no assistance to the children in
10
[their] schoolwork at home. And even when we have meetings, class meetings, when you
[would] expect, well every parent [to] come you might get about a two thirds for the
most.
Moderator: [Is that] in every class?
School Leader: Yes, in most classes, yes
Moderator: So the [level of] parental involvement, [don’t] teachers have no control over
that
School Leader: No.
The child’s experience
Children in the rural community reported having fewer books at home than children
in the urban community, with no child reporting more than 100 books in the rural
community. Comparing the urban schools, pupils from the girls’ school had more books at
home, with 29.3% having 100 or more books compared with 16.7% for the boys. However,
some books were well below the reading age of the children. No student in the rural school
had a computer at home and 61.9% of the urban girls’ school pupils and 53.5% of the urban
boys’ school pupils reported the same. This finding is important because 14 of the 21 focus
group parents said they rarely accessed the library in their area or visited areas of cultural
interest such as museums. It is just as well that children in the focus group claimed that they
had little help with their schoolwork at home.
Overall, 26 of the 99 students felt like outsiders in the school, but at this age group,
the majority of students had a relatively positive view of the school. However, 12 of the 14
students in the rural school claimed to feel bored. The same number felt that their parents
wanted them to go to another school, reflecting the community’s lack of trust. Feelings that
their parents wanted another school were also strong in the urban boys’ school but almost
absent in the female urban school (B). Parental expectations were overwhelmingly positive in
the rural school but in the urban school, some students reported low parental expectations.
Such low expectations were more common in Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science than
in Reading and Writing.
Teachers and Teaching-Learning
Qualifications
None of the teachers was from the school’s community. In school A, all 4 teachers in
the focus group possessed a Teacher’s Diploma, with 6 to 10 years experience. Two teachers
had undergraduate degrees. In school B, six teachers participated in the survey. Three had
between 21-25 years experience, one had 11 to 15 years, and two had 6-10 years. However,
only one had an undergraduate degree. For school C, three of the six teachers had additional
academic qualification at the lower level and two had undergraduate degrees. Four of the six
had professional training. Four of the six teachers had been teaching for at least 15 years.
Thus, contrary to the findings in the secondary data, teachers in these schools were relatively
well trained and experienced.
The critical issues of preparation and attendance
The most critical issues in the teaching-learning environment were student attendance
and attitude towards schoolwork. Daily attendance by students was never acceptable in most
schools, as noted by the principal of the urban boy’s school:
On the roll we have 114 … sometimes you have people leaving, sometimes you have
people coming the average attendance a day is let’s say 85 out of that 114 so I don’t
know how you would really rate that that’s 85/114 that what probably about 80%
somewhere round there between 70 and 80%
11
In the rural school, teachers observed that some students only came for the school meals. It
might also be that low attendance was part of the school and community culture, although
one teacher felt that this was beginning to change:
There was a time where on a Friday you had nobody in school at all. Now that has started to
change, they start coming to school. It have (sic) some of them who would come to school
like once for the week, twice for the week, [but] all that has started to change [as we] try to
incorporate more of the community into the school and the school in the community
In school A, the attendance of students was much lower in Standard 1, but increasing
in Standards 3, and 5. In all 3 schools, teachers believed that few students were not well
prepared. Of the 33 students directly assessed in Standards 1, 3 and 5, as many as15 did not
turn in work on time and 14 did not complete work with 100 percent efficiency. Although 24
of the 33 students were eager to learn and 22 were confident about their ability to participate,
19 of the 33 did not persist when given difficult tasks. For school B, students in the 3 classes
surveyed were rarely considered withdrawn or not engaged. However, preparation for school
and attendance were significant problems in Standard 1.
School B provided school level data on student attendance for the year 2007. The
figures varied from 58% to 84%. The lowest periods of attendance were in the months of July
(58%), December (67.6%) and September (77%). School C reported high engagement and
positive behaviours in the four classes sampled. Teachers reported more positively on the
learning behaviours of students in School C, with 18 of 25 regarded as completing and
turning work in on time and 20 of 25 as eager to learn. The students of school C were also
more likely to persist on difficult tasks (19 of 25). Still, attendance was very poor at the
infants’ level.
Although class sizes were small, observation suggested that there was (frequently)
limited one-to-one interaction in classrooms. More often than not, instruction was pitched at
the entire class. Even when teachers used instructional aids, teaching was never authentic and
rarely constructivist, with off-task behaviours very high. Observational data on four classes in
School B indicated that students were frequently disengaged, engaged on worksheets without
teacher assistance, or engaged in seatwork with some teacher assistance. None of the
observed classes in this school reported students as engaged in instruction on authentic
project work or in active conversations as they constructed knowledge.
Leadership and organization
A lack of vision
In all three schools, leadership was lassiez-faire, with little focus on instructional
improvement and student success. Surprisingly, none of the principals possessed a Bachelor’s
degree in Educational Administration, the current minimum qualification for primary school
principals in Trinidad and Tobago. In schools B and C, the principals had some leadership
experience. Leadership by the principal of the rural school was very lax, even negligent
fearing that teachers would transfer out of the school, a shad happened in the past. He readily
admitted:
And another challenge we have [here] is to try to keep the teachers happy here so that
they would want to remain and the children would benefit from that kind of stability. I
think those are the challenges that I that I would consider major challenges.
However, turnover of staff was a challenge for leadership in both urban schools and
especially in school A, high turnover had impacted strong on leadership influence.
12
Although school leaders claimed to lack support from the school’s community, for the
urban schools, there were several city businesses involved in resourcing and funding student
development programmes. The rural school was formally enrolled in the Caribbean-wide US
funded school improvement exercise. Although resources were abundant on paper, the
principals wanted greater psychological support and presence from the Ministry of Education
and the Denominational Board. In a sense, then, the leaders and staff felt isolated and
abandoned, powerless to effect change, as the principal of one of the urban schools described:
Physical resources in terms of charts and books and things like that [are] fairly accessible
but in terms of human resources, [that is a] major problem. As I say, we need guidance
counsellors here because you would cringe to hear some of the stories from some of these
children here. And again I feel they just don’t want to come to [this area] because they
hear [where it is situated]. When we inquired [of other nearby schools], they had
counsellors. And we are right around the corner. We [are] in walking distance and
nobody is assigned to this school to deal with those problems.
On observation, however, principals were more inclined to engage in social and
bureaucratic activities as their administrative duty, but generally did little monitoring or
evaluating. In part, this was because of the turbulence of the school environment and the need
to provide psychological support to teachers. Observation of the principals’ daily tasks
suggested that little was done to protect teaching and learning time. Indeed, daily activity in
the school was often disjointed and unfocused. Largely, this reflected the leaders’
philosophies, which rarely focused upon teaching-learning. Instead, principals saw
themselves as social engineers, keeping harmony and peace and thereby fostering stability.
One principal described what she understood her leadership to be:
Well, I guess that’s what I see my role as: being [a] motivator both to students and staff
[and] being able to relate to staff and students and parents. Being able to resolve disputes
amicably again children and staff [and] being a role model again for both staff and
students . . . that’s it in a nut shell.
Classes in all three schools were very small, most well below 20 students and there
was only one of each class in the school, but none was multi-grade. All schools had sharply
declining rolls, even School B, which reported the highest API score. The annual data for this
institution showed that the school population had declined consistently each year from 140 in
2002-2003 to 108 in 2006-2007. The decline in roll was also apparent at the other sites
suggesting that parents were not inclined to enrol their children in these failing institutions.
The early grades were poorly attended by both students and teachers and most of the efforts
were focused upon the upper school with the Eleven Plus examination. Field assistants
observed that teaching time was an issue in all schools and especially for the rural school,
where classroom teaching started late and ended early.
(3) How do the contextual factors impinge on organizational efficiency and academic
achievement?
The relationship between the different variables identified at the three study sites are
explored in Figure 1. As shown, the dominant theme was the impact of the economically and
socially disadvantaged school community. In the rural school and in the girl’s school, the
school’s community was the actual physical community but in the urban boy’s school, the
school community was drawn from the immediate environment and several high poverty
communities in the area. The nature of the community had a direct impact upon both the
13
governance and leadership of the school. Principals’ philosophies of leadership and
leadership in practice were all aimed at managing the turbulent environment.
Figure 1: Model of recurring processes, interfaces, and sub-systems in schools facing
exceptional challenge in Trinidad and Tobago
Thus, poverty, poor nutrition, and social problems dominated all aspects of school life.
Teachers believed that they lacked training in dealing with social issues and special needs.
Thus, arguably, teachers’ perceptions of leadership and governance were also influenced by
the intensity and frequency of the problems that occurred in this environment. In the urban
schools, the interviews indicated that teachers were very reluctant to accept postings in this
school. In a sense, then, the schools did the best with what was available to them. There were
multiple interventions in all three schools, with homework centres, adult reading
programmes, and early school reading programmes in the rural school; however, these
interventions were not co-ordinated and therefore failed to impact on the problems.
Discussion and Implications
The methodology and findings in this study were inextricably linked, with the use of
multiple methods and methodologies in Phase II, a key strategy in capturing the phenomenon
of (under)achievement as a complex issue in the social system (Rogers, 2008; Xu, 2009).
Such an approach supports the qualitative philosophy of holism (Morse & Chung, 2003). One
might even argue for a tradition of using mixed methods to gain added insight into issues like
ECONOMICALLY & SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED SCHOOL COMMUNITY
LEADERSHIP IN THE SCHOOL
TEACHERS-------------TEACHING/LEARNING-----------STUDENTS
LOW ACHIEVEMENT
Ministry of Education Denominational
Education Board
Intervention programmes
Low Supply of
high quality
experienced
teachers
High Poverty
Many Social Problems
Parental Involvement
Low Parental Education
LOW PERFORMING SCHOOL
Not Focused upon
14
poverty and vulnerability within social systems (Lucke et al., 2001; Shepard et al., 2002).
Arguably, elements and antecedents of achievement are found across multiple levels and sub-
systems. Consequently, the data collection strategy required information from multiple actors
(Goldenberg, Gallimore, & Reese, 2005).
Table 4: Findings and meta-inferences in the challenging school study Relationship
Between Findings
Description of meta-inference Implications for Research/Policy Making
1) Corroboration/
Expansion/
Enhancement
1. Low performing urban and rural schools
face different challenges.
1. School improvement plans must
consider the context and location of the
school.
2. The free school meal and basic needs
quantitative indices accurately capture the
socioeconomic status of the school
population.
2. Greater use might be made of
demographic and other indices in
planning support and targeting aid for
schools.
3. Social and economic disadvantage
operated through several mechanisms:
limited family resources, lack of access to
experiences, and higher absenteeism. The
alienating response of the school
magnified these deficiencies.
3. Integrated education, health, and social
services are required along with a
retraining of staff to serve low-income
communities.
2) Conflicting/
Contradictory
1. The quality of teachers was not always
related to poor teaching (QUAL) although
underperformance was correlated with
teacher quality in the QUAN.
1. Teacher training programmes might
focus on reorientation of teachers
rather than simply providing skills.
2. There was a moderate correlation between
resources and school performance in the
QUAN. However, observation and
interviews confirmed that schools were
well supplied with teaching resources,
although they were not always used in the
classroom (observation QUAL).
2. Simply providing more resources
might not be enough to improve
schools, integrated services and
interventions, teacher reorientation and
on-site training should be necessary.
3. Teachers reported high levels of
collective teacher efficacy. However, in
the observational and interview QUAL
data, low expectations/efficacy was
evident, but these beliefs were deflected,
rationalized or justified.
3. Quantitative measures of individual
and collective teacher efficacy do not
always capture low expectations or
belief systems of local teachers. This
critical variable should be addressed in
teacher training and school reform.
4. Lack of parental concern was cited as a
problem by most teachers in the site
survey and interviews, but interviews with
parents suggested that they were very
concerned about the schools’
underperformance, but had limited access
to opportunities for resolution.
4. Parents must be given a greater say in
school and community arrangements
for enhancing performance. Integrated
parental education and outreach
programmes should be set up.
3) Unique to
methodology
1. The observation QUAL data revealed that
inauthentic, low- quality classroom
teaching was a major factor in low school
performance.
1. Teacher training should be integrated
with the provision of resources and
focus on the nature of teaching-
learning and low engagement among
children from low-income
communities.
2. The interview QUAL data revealed that
poor nutrition and student absenteeism
were significant factors in limited
learning opportunity.
2. The school feeding programme might
be extended by the inclusion of
breakfast for schools with high social
and economic disadvantage.
3. The QUAN data revealed that some
schools performed adequately despite
high levels of social and economic
disadvantage.
3. Best practice might be disseminated
and shared, allowing schools to learn
from or emulate each other.
15
Although the use of multiple qualitative methods and multiple methodologies
provided complex and rich data, some information was contradictory. Contradictory data
might be regarded as a challenge to integrating or merging (Plano-Clark et al., 2010). There
were several apparent contradictions in the data within Phase II (between the qualitative and
quantitative and between the qualitative methods) and between Phase I and Phase II
quantitative and qualitative). It was not always possible to resolve these differences as
suggested in Creswell and Plano-Clark (2010). It might be that contradictory findings provide
multiple perspectives on a complex issue and useful for policy-making.
There were, in fact, three kinds of relationships between the findings from different
methods and methodologies. As shown in Table 3, findings might corroborate or expand as in
triangulation. Some findings were conflicting, however, because they represented a different
perspective or provided a clearer view of an issue and some findings were unique to the
particular methodology. For example, although the quantitative data suggested that there
were fewer trained teachers in schools facing exceptional challenge, in reality the situation
was often more complex than that. The staff of the rural school included several highly
qualified teachers although this did not seem to alter their approach to teaching in this school.
Table 4 also summarises the policy-making implications derived from the different
types of meta-inferences. Although all the schools were involved in various kinds of
individual interventions, these different programmes were neither focused nor explicitly
linked together. Linking can achieve reinforcement across and within the school and
community. For example, teaching resources might be linked to specific training on
constructivist teaching. Likewise, the early childhood interventions might be linked to the
adult literacy classes in the community. Additional interventions and services are required,
including integrated services to deal with the economically and socially disadvantaged
communities. Programmes and policies to address student absenteeism must also be
established.
Although several international studies have focused on the leadership component in
improving schools in challenging contexts (Jacobson, 2008), it seems more useful in the
context of Trinidad and Tobago to ensure coordinated efforts by the education districts and
other support services external to the school in effecting school improvement in these
contexts. This relates to the level of autonomy in school sites, the complex nature of the
contextual variables, and the quality of personnel available for leadership. Even if committed
informed leadership were available, turnaround will prove quite a difficult task for these
schools. Fostering collective responsibility and better integration with the community
therefore emerge as critical goals.
References
Ainscow, M., Muijs, D., & West, M. (2006). Using collaboration as a strategy for improving
schools in complex and challenging circumstances: What makes the difference?
National College for School Leadership. Retrieved from http://networkedlearning.ncsl.org.uk/knowledge-base/research-papers/using-collaboration-as-
a-strategy-for-improving-schools-in-complex-and-challenging-circumstances.pdf
Bryman, A. (2006) Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?
Qualitative Research 6(1), 97-113
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods
Research (2nd
Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crossley, M. (2008). The advancement of educational research in small states. Comparative
Education, 44(2), 247-254.
De Lisle, J., Keller, C., Jules, V., & Smith, P. (2009). When choosing might mean losing: A
Mixed method study of secondary school choice in the Republic of Trinidad and
16
Tobago. Caribbean Curriculum, 16(1), 131-176.
De Lisle, J., Smith, P., & Jules, V. (2010). Evaluating the geography of gendered
achievement using large-scale assessment data from the primary school system of the
Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. International Journal of Educational Development,
30(4), 405-417.
Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., & Reese, L. (2005). Using mixed methods to explore
Latino children's literacy development. In T. Weisner (Ed.), Discovering successful
pathways in children’s development: new methods in the study of childhood and
family life (pp. 21-46). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Government of Trinidad and Tobago (2006). Vision 2020 operational plan 2007-2010. Port
of Spain: Ministry of Planning.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework
for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11
(3), 255-274.
Harber, C., & Muthukrishna, N. (2000). School effectiveness and school improvement in
context: The case of South Africa. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
11(3), 421-434.
Harris, A., Muijs, D., Chapman. C., Russ, J., & Stoll, L. (2006). Improving schools in
challenging contexts: Exploring the possible. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement 17(4), 409-425.
Hemming, P. J. (2008). Mixing qualitative research methods in children’s geographies. Area,
40 (2), 152-162.
Houtveen, T., van de Grift, W., Kuijpers, J., Boot, M., Groot, F., & Kooijman, H. (2007).
Improving underperforming schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed At
Risk, 12(4), 36-381.
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed methods sequential
explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3-20.
Jacobson, S. (2008). Leadership for success in high poverty elementary schools. Journal of
Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 23(1), 3-19.
Kairi Consultants. (2007). Analysis of the Trinidad and Tobago survey of living
conditions. Port of Spain, Trinidad: Ministry of Social Development.
Levin, B. (2006). Schools in challenging circumstances: A reflection on what we know and
what we need to know. School Effectiveness and School Improvement , 17(4) 399-
407.
Lucke, J., Donald, A. M., Dower, J. A. F., & Raphael, B. (2001) Considerations in the
design of a mixed-method cluster evaluation of a community programme for 'at-risk'
young people. Evaluation, 7(1), 110-113.
MacBeath, J., Gray, J., Cullen, J., Cunningham, H., Ebbutt, D., Frost, D., Steward, S. &
Swaffield, S. (2005). Schools facing exceptionally challenging circumstances: Final
report. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.
MacKenzie, C. G . (1991). Denominational primary schooling: The case of Trinidad and
Tobago. International Review of Education, 38(2), 211-226.
Michalak, J. M. (2009). Making a difference in challenging urban schools: Successful
principals. European Educational Research Journal, 8(3), 386-396.
Mizala, A., Pilar, R., & Urquiola, M. (2007). Socioeconomic status or noise? Tradeoffs in the
generation of school quality information. Journal of Development Economics, 84, 71-
75.
Moe, C. (2009, November 14). Ministry moves to assist underperforming schools. Trinidad
Guardian Newspaper. Retrieved from
17
http://guardian.co.tt/news/general/2009/11/14/ministry-moves-assist-
underperforming-schools.
Morse, J.M., & Chung, S.E. (2003). Toward holism: The significance of methodological
` pluralism. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3). Retrieved October 15,
2003 from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/2_3final/html/morsechung.html
Morse, J.M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut
Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving schools in
socioeconomically disadvantaged areas: A review of research evidence. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement,15(2), 149–175.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Kennedy, A. M., & Foy, P. (2007). PIRLS 2006 international
report: IEA’s Progress in International Reading Literacy Study in primary schools in
40 countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center,
Boston College.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2003). Student
engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation. Results from PISA
2000. Retrieved from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/35/33689437.pdf.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. T. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling
designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281-316.
Painter, B., & Valentine, J. (1996). Instructional practices inventory. Columbia, MO:
Missouri Center for School Improvement, University of Missouri.
Plano Clark, V. L., Garrett, A. L., & Leslie-Pelecky, D. L. (2010). Applying three strategies
for integrating quantitative and qualitative databases in a mixed methods study of a
nontraditional graduate education program. Field Methods, 22(2), 154-174.
Pretorius, E.J., & Currin, S. (2010). Do the rich get richer and the poor poorer?
The effects of an intervention programme on reading in the home and school
language in a high poverty multilingual context. International Journal of Educational
Development, 30(1), 67-76.
Rogers, P. J. (2008). Using programme theory for complicated and complex programmes.
Evaluation: The International Journal of Theory, Research & Practice, 14(1), 29-48.
Shephard, M. P., Orsi, A. J., Mahon, M. M., & Carroll, R. M. (2002). Mixed-method research
with vulnerable families. Journal of Family Nursing, 8, 334-352.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal
of Mixed Methods Research 1(1), 77-100.
UNESCO. (2008). Education for all global monitoring report 2008: Education for All by
2015. Will we make it? Paris: Author.
Van de Grift, W., & Houtveen, T. (2006). Underperformance in primary schools. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 1–19.
World Bank (1993). Caribbean region: access, quality, and efficiency in education.
Washington, DC.: Author
World Bank (1995). Trinidad and Tobago: Poverty and unemployment in an oil based
economy. Report No. 14382-TR. Country Department III. Country Operations II Latin
America and the Caribbean Region. Washington, US: Author.
World Bank (1995). Trinidad and Tobago: Poverty and unemployment in an oil-based
economy. (Report No. 14382-TR.Washington, DC: Author.
Xu, S. (2009). Inquiry from the outside and the inside: A mixed method study of university
18
underachievement in China. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 15/1-
2(155-173)
Ylimaki, R. M., Jacobson, S. L., & Drysdale, L. (2007). Making a difference in challenging,
high-poverty schools: Successful principals in the USA, England, and Australia.
School Effectiveness & School Improvement,18(4), 361-381.