THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACADEMIC OPTIMISM AND ALABAMA'S ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES IN A SELECTION OF TITLE I HIGH SCHOOLS THROUGHOUT ALABAMA PDF Free Download

Name: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACADEMIC OPTIMISM AND ALABAMA'S ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES IN A SELECTION OF TITLE I HIGH SCHOOLS THROUGHOUT ALABAMA PDF
Author: enewman

1 / 113

1 views•113 pages

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACADEMIC OPTIMISM AND ALABAMA'S ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES IN A SELECTION OF TITLE I HIGH SCHOOLS THROUGHOUT ALABAMA PDF Free Download

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACADEMIC OPTIMISM AND ALABAMA'S ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES IN A SELECTION OF TITLE I HIGH SCHOOLS THROUGHOUT ALABAMA PDF free Download. Think more deeply and widely.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACADEMIC OPTIMISM AND ALABAMA’S

ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES IN A SELECTION OF TITLE I HIGH SCHOOLS

THROUGHOUT ALABAMA

SHAYLA CRENSHAW MCCRAY

JINGPIN SUN, CHAIR

KAREN ANDERSON

BOB JOHNSON

MARGARET RICE

SONJA HARRINGTON WESTON

A DISSERTATION

Submitted in partial fullfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Education

in the Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Technology Studies

in the Graduate School of

The University of Alabama

TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA

2022

ABSTRACT

With school systems facing a trend of accountability mandates, the need for an evidence-

based construct that subdues socioeconomic status has grown. Indeed, academic optimism has

been proven to prevail over socioeconomic status. Academic optimism consists of uniting three

reciprocal properties: collective efficacy, faculty trust of students and parents, and academic

emphasis. There has been a tremendous need to examine the relationship between academic

optimism and student achievement in high schools in Alabama. Alabama’s high schools have

been identified most frequently on the Failing Schools List and generally possess lower Alabama

State Department of Education Report Card scores in comparison to elementary and middle

schools. This quantitative study examined the relationship between academic optimism and the

Failing Schools List. This study also examined the relationship and independent contributions

between academic optimism and a segment of the Alabama State Department of Education’s

Report Card Indicators for high schools: career readiness scores (CCR), graduation rate, and

student achievement (11th graders’ math and ELA ACT with Writing scores - 2019) in selected

Title I high schools throughout Alabama. The School Academic Optimism Survey (SAOS) was

distributed to teachers in 60 Title I High schools. In regard to summative ACT-English Language

Arts with Writing, the assumption of multicollinearity was not met. Also, there was not a

significant independent contribution from any of academic optimism’s subcomponents and the

Failing Schools List, college and career readiness scores, graduation rate, and academic

achievement on the summative ACT assessment. However, data analysis revealed a positive

relationship between academic optimism and the Failing Schools List, despite socioeconomic

iii

status. A positive relationship existed between academic optimism and college and career

readiness scores, graduation rate, and summative math ACT with Writing achievement scores.

This study can serve as a resource for leaders and educators expected to conquer accountability

mandates and successfully graduate students College and Career Ready in Title I high schools

throughout Alabama.

DEDICATION

This research is dedicated to my parents, who are both retired educators. My parents,

Attorney Danny West Crenshaw and Mrs. Bennie Ruth Crenshaw (former Selma City

Councilwoman for Ward 7 for 20 consecutive years) taught me the importance of serving God,

giving selflessly, and loving others. I would like to dedicate this paper to my family, including

my son and husband. Robert McCray V, this research serves as evidence that you can do all

things through Christ who strengthens you. Most essentially, I would like to dedicate this paper

to my Alpha and Omega, Jesus Christ, who gave me the strength and resources to complete this

assignment. I give all praise to Jehovah! God kept me through dangers seen and unseen. Last, I

would like to dedicate my work regarding academic optimism to high schools in low

socioeconomic communities in order to enhance school leveled characteristics that have been

proven to promote student achievement and success throughout the nation, despite poverty.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I would like to acknowledge and thank God Almighty. God confirmed that the race

is not given to the swift but to the one that endures to the end. Many individuals were

instrumental in assisting me throughout my educational journey to obtain my doctoral degree. I

would like to thank my Dissertation Chair, Dr. Jingping Sun, for continuously assisting me in

pressing forward. I would also like to thank my professor and Dissertation Member, Dr. Bob

Johnson, who inspired me to think critically beyond limitations. Further, I would like to thank

my Dissertation Member Dr. Karen Anderson, a true servant leader throughout the Alabama

State Department of Education. A special thank you to my Alabama State University research

professor and Dissertation Member, Dr. Sonja Harrington Weston, who encouraged me to

diligently dive into the research and data. I gained a rapport with my Dissertation Member, Dr.

Margaret Rice, through Dr. Richard Rice, my former professor; I sincerely thank Dr. Margaret

Rice and Dr. Richard Rice for their expertise and support.

Mrs. Bennie Crenshaw, Attorney Danny Crenshaw, and Dr. Daryl Crenshaw, I love you.

Thank you for your support and unyielding love. I want to thank Mr. Robert McCray IV, and

Robert McCray V, for believing in me and loving me unconditionally. To the remainder of my

family, thank you for praying for me and reminding me to stay the course. Attorney Dawn

Oliver, Ms. Tamara Young, Dr. Alice Jackson, Ms. Shanta Johnson, Mrs. Delray Powell, Mrs.

Beverly Chappell, Ms. Felecia Smith, and Ms. Vivian Rhodes, I thank you for continuously

stepping in, giving me sisterly love, and encouraging me to be who God has called me to be. To

a number of prayer warriors throughout Selma, Alabama, Greene County, Alabama, and

Bessemer, Alabama, thank you. Pastor Brenda Tyus, Pastor Curtis Doleman, Pastor Eunice

Pickens, and Bishop L. Spenser Smith and the Impact Nation Fellowship Church Family, thank

you so much. Spiritual friends and leaders, thank you! To Selma High School, Tuskegee

University, Alabama State University, and Vermont Law School, thank you. You molded me. To

Mrs. Athelstein Johnson, Dr. Hyacinth Findlay, Dr. Gwendolyn King, and the late Dr. Gayla

Okeke, I would not have gained a passion for writing but for you. You challenged me to write,

think, and dream without constraint. I thank you. I offer a tribute to Dr. Autumm Jeter (my

present Superintendent) and Dr. Daniel Boyd (my former Superintendent and the former Deputy

Superintendent for the State of Alabama Department of Education). You are exceptional,

innovative leaders who have prepared and inspired me to persevere in order to make a difference

in the lives of all children. I thank God for you, and I will never forget you.

I offer a special tribute to my mentor, my Soror, the legend and late Ms. Ella Bell (former

State Board of Education Member, District 5), who stood for me and gave me a sense of

confidence and a passion for positively touching the lives of disenfranchised children. I will

forever love and cherish Ms. Ella Bell, who made a significant impact on my life. Thank you,

Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. Alabama State License Plate Scholarship Committee, including

Soror Deborah Anthony, and the University of Alabama Educational Scholarship Committee,

including Dr. Rebecca Blanchard, for supporting my vision by providing me with scholarship

funds. Last, thank you, Mr. Nathaniel H. Shannon IV! You were my guiding light in the world of

statistics. Thank you for motivating me and sticking with me to the very end.

 
vii 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii 
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... iv 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................. v 
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... x 
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi 
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 
Background ............................................................................................................................. 1 
Title I Schools in Alabama...................................................................................................... 1 
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................................ 3 
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................... 5 
Theoretical Foundation ........................................................................................................... 5 
Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 7 
Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 8 
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 10 
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................... 11 
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................................ 14 
Federal Accountability’s Impact on Local Schools Throughout the Nation ........................ 14 
Alabama’s Academic Standards ........................................................................................... 17 
Alabama Accountability Act (AAA) of 2013 ....................................................................... 19 
Accountability-Alabama Department of Education Report Card ......................................... 21

 
viii 
 
College and Career Readiness (CCR) ................................................................................... 22 
Graduation Rate .................................................................................................................... 23 
Academic Achievement ........................................................................................................ 23 
Theory School Effectiveness Movement .............................................................................. 24 
Academic Optimism ............................................................................................................. 25 
Impact of Academic Optimism on Schools .......................................................................... 26 
Academic Emphasis .............................................................................................................. 29 
Impact of Academic Emphasis on Schools ........................................................................... 30 
Collective Efficacy ................................................................................................................ 31 
Impact of Collective Efficacy on Schools............................................................................. 32 
Faculty Trust in Parents and Students ................................................................................... 33 
The Impact of Trust on Schools ............................................................................................ 35 
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ...................................... 37 
The Research Design ............................................................................................................ 37 
Participants ............................................................................................................................ 38 
Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................................... 39 
Accountability Instrumentation and Measures ..................................................................... 42 
SAOS Instrumentation and Measures ................................................................................... 43 
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 45 
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 50 
Overview ............................................................................................................................... 50
Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................................. 50 
Findings ................................................................................................................................. 52 

 
 
ix 
 
Variables Relationship to Academic Optimism .................................................................... 58 
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 59 
Overview ............................................................................................................................... 59 
Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 60 
Implications for Further Research......................................................................................... 65 
Implications for District Leaders .......................................................................................... 66 
Implications for School Leaders ........................................................................................... 68 
Implications for Teachers ..................................................................................................... 69 
Implications for Policymakers .............................................................................................. 70 
Delimitations ......................................................................................................................... 71 
Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 72 
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 72 
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 74 
Appendix A: School Academic Optimism Survey (SAOS) ......................................................... 81 
Appendix B: IRB Approval .......................................................................................................... 96 
Appendix C: Superintendent’s Recruitment Letter ....................................................................... 97 
Appendix D: Principal’s Letter Seeking Support ....................................................................... 100 
Appendix E: IRB Amended Approval ........................................................................................ 101 
 
 
 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Academic Achievement ELA Weight and Proficiency .................................................. 24

Table 2. Academic Achievement Math Weight and Proficiency ................................................. 24

Table 3. SAOS Teacher Response Rate Per School ..................................................................... 41

Table 4. School Academic Optimism (SAOS) and Interpretation ................................................ 45

Table 5. Research Questions and Statistical Tests ........................................................................ 46

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics....................................................................................................... 51

Table 7. Correlation Table of Variables ....................................................................................... 52

Table 8. Standardized Coefficients Table SES and School Status By AO ................................... 53

Table 9. Standardized Coefficients Table AE, CE, and FT by CCR ............................................ 55

Table 10. Standardized Coefficients Table AE, CE, and FT By Graduation Rate ....................... 56

Table 11. Standardized Coefficients Table AE, CE, and FT by ACT ELA Scores ...................... 57

Table 12. Standardized Coefficients Table AE, CE, and FT By ACT Math Scores .................... 57

Table 13. Standardized Coefficients Table School Status, SES, CCR, Grad Rate, ACT ELA,

ACT Math By AO ......................................................................................................................... 58

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Triadic Interactions among the Three Dimensions of Academic Optimism ................... 7

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Background

For years, federal accountability mandates have permeated public schools. For decades

public schools have experienced the impact of federal accountability mandates, from the

Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) of 1965 to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of

2002 to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.a.).

Based on ESSA, local schools are to provide accountability measures to receive funding (U.S.

Department of Education, n.d.a.). In Alabama, schools are measured via indicators on the

Alabama State Department of Education State Report Card (Alabama State Department of

Education, n.d.). Also, schools’ performance and achievement are measured via the Failing

Schools List, derived from the Alabama Accountability Act (AAA) of 2013. Both accountability

measures primarily rely upon students’ demonstrations of proficiency regarding Alabama’s

College and Career Readiness Standards on summative examinations. Presently, several high

schools throughout Alabama have been labeled as Failing Schools and have also been identified

with low Alabama State Department of Education Report Card scores (AAA Schools, 2019;

Alabama State Department of Education Report Card, n.d.).

Title I Schools in Alabama

For decades, Title funding has been utilized to supply resources for schools in

impoverished communities (Department of Education, n.d). Title I, Part A of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act, as amended by the ESSA, provides financial assistance to Local

Educational Agencies (LEAs) and schools with high numbers of children from low-income

families (Department of Education, n.d.). According to the Department of Education (n.d.), “The

purpose of Title I is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to

obtain a high-quality education and reach proficiency on challenging State academic

achievement standards” (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.b.). Title I of the United States

Department of Education provides funding to the State Department of Education. The Alabama

State Department of Education then provides the LEA’s Title I funding based on the percentages

of children from low-income families (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.b.). The number of

students who receive free and reduced lunches serves as an indicator of the school’s

socioeconomic status (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.b.). Researchers frequently gain access

to the number of students who receive free and reduced lunches or their socioeconomic status

(SES) data via school principals, district federal program coordinators, superintendents, and the

State Department of Education websites.

Title I Schools are identified as schools where low-income families make up at least 40

percent of enrollment (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.b.). These schools are entitled to use

Title I funds to manage school-wide programs to enhance student achievement (U.S. Department

of Education, n.d.b.). If a Title I school provides a targeted assistance program, the school will

provide services to children who are failing or most at risk of failing to meet challenging state

academic standards” (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.b.). For decades, researchers have

stated that children from low socioeconomic communities will more than likely not excel

academically (Coleman et al., 1966). Therefore, poverty is viewed as a barrier to student

achievement. Currently, Title I high schools throughout Alabama are prevalent on Alabama’s

Failing Schools list. Title I high schools. These schools are also labeled with low Alabama State

Department of Education report card scores.

Statement of the Problem

Both elementary and middle schools provide the foundational skills necessary to prepare

students to excel in high school and beyond (Alspaugh, 1998). High school is considered the

final destination of public schooling and is the academic establishment designed to effectively

prepare students to transition towards college and their career paths. The Alabama State

Department of Education’s new focus is “Every child. Every chance. Every day” (Alabama State

Department of Education, n.d.). The chance referenced by the Alabama State Department of

Education is aligned with the Alabama State Department of Education’s former motto, “Every

Child a Graduate. Every Graduate Prepared” (Dailey, 2019, p. 1). Hence, every day, high schools

across Alabama have the chance to prepare every student to become highly efficient, productive

citizens. Nevertheless, Title I high schools face the challenge of combating poverty while

maintaining high achievement scores, graduating seniors, molding minds, and enhancing critical

thinkers to be college and career-prepared.

While working to produce highly productive graduates every year, school systems are

charged with being required to perform academically. In Alabama, the school systems await the

State Report Card’s release and Alabama Accountability Act’s (AAA) Failing Schools List to the

public. The Alabama State Department of Education Report Card was first published during the

2016-2017 academic year. The Alabama State Department of Education Report Card is viewable

on the Alabama State Department of Education website (Alabama State Department of

Education, n.d.). Annually, the Alabama State Department of Education generates Report Card

grades to publicize public schools’ status in Alabama (Alabama State Department of Education

Report Card, n.d.). In addition, the legislature enacted the AAA of 2013 to scrutinize public

schools’ academic performance. The AAA of 2013 provides parents the opportunity to choose

optional schooling. Children who attend public failing schools now receive a voucher to attend

schools that have not been identified as failing schools (AAA, 2013).

ESSA requires that states establish accountability procedures to receive federal funding.

In Alabama, student achievement is reported utilizing two distinct state-wide measures.

Substantively, AAA of 2013 requires a Failing Schools List is reported annually throughout the

state (AAA Schools, 2019). Furthermore, the Alabama State Department of Education has

enhanced accountability and pressure to perform by creating a Report Card for schools in

Alabama (Alabama State Department of Education, n.d.). According to Alabama’s Failing

Schools List from 2019, several Title I high schools throughout Alabama were identified by low

student achievement (AAA Schools, 2019). Despite poverty, Title I high schools in Alabama are

expected to achieve academically. Evaluating the Alabama State Department of Education’s

Report Card scores, Title I high schools are also more frequently identified as schools with lower

Report Card scores (Alabama State Department of Education, n.d.).

Traditionally, researchers have supported the notion that families’ backgrounds

outweighed schools’ characteristics concerning student achievement variation (Coleman et al.,

1966). However, since 2006, there have been studies on academic optimism, revealing student

achievement and academic success in schools, despite socioeconomic status (Hoy et al., 2006).

Hoy and Miskel (2013) defined academic optimism through three key concepts:

• efficacy – “teacher’s belief in his or her capability to organize and execute courses of

action required to accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context

successfully” (Hoy & Miskel, 2013, p. 163),

• trust – “teacher’s willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on the

confidence that the latter party is benevolent, reliable, competent, honest, and open”

(Hoy & Miskel, 2013, p. 194)

• academic emphasis – “the faculties focus on student success in academics” (Hoy &

Miskel, 2013, p. 196).

The researchers claimed that all three dimensions reveal schools’ internal and external beliefs

and expectations regarding student achievement.

Purpose of the Study

For years, accountability mandates have permeated public schools. In the last two

decades, public schools have experienced the impact of federal accountability mandates, from

NCLB of 2002 to ESSA of 2015 (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.a.). In Alabama, public

schools are currently tasked with avoiding the Failing Schools List and performing well on the

Alabama State Department of Education Report Card. The purpose of this study was to examine

relationships that exist between academic optimism and a segment of Alabama’s accountability

measures. Specifically, this study was designed to examine if there is a relationship between

academic optimism and the Failing Schools List and state report card indicators: College and

Career Readiness Scores (CCR), Graduation Rates, and 11th graders’ ACT with Writing English

language arts (ELA) and Math achievement scores in a sample of Title I high schools.

Theoretical Foundation

Academic optimism is based largely upon the foundation of positive psychology, which

was formulated to investigate the psychological health and wellness of the public (Myers, 2000).

Positive psychology researchers used scientific research to create theories surrounding the

characteristics of humans. Psychologists use positive psychology to measure the well-being of

others as it relates to emotional satisfaction, happiness, optimism, hope, and belief (Seligman,

2006).

Academic optimism arose from positive psychology research. Hoy et al. (2006)

determined that the three variables that make up academic optimism enhanced a positive

academic environment, which produced a positive, powerful force for learning. Furthermore,

Hoy (n.d.) disclosed that academic optimism derived from positive psychology with “theoretical

foundations from Albert Bandura’s social cognitive and self-efficacy theories, James Coleman’s

social capital theory, Hoy’s work as well as his colleagues’ research on culture and climate, and

Martin Seligman’s concept of learned optimism” (p. 1). Hoy and colleagues discovered that

academic optimism includes affective and behavioral and affective dimensions connected to

student performance (Hoy et al., 2006). The researcher further stated that “academic emphasis,

efficacy, and trust are similar not only in their nature and function but also in their potent and

positive influence on student achievement” (Hoy et al., 2006, p. 431).

Academic optimism includes faculty trusting their students and parents, faculty believing

in their collective ability to execute goals, and the faculty’s press towards academic excellence

and achievement. According to Beard et al. (2010), all three academic optimism properties are a

“triadic set of interactions,” one supporting the other. Beard et al. also stated a reciprocal

relationship exists between academic optimism’s three constructs. Figure 1 shows the triadic

interactions among the three dimensions of academic optimism.

Academic emphasis, a behavioral component, enhances collective efficacy (Beard et al.,

2010), which is based on the fact that perception is cognitive, strengthens academic emphasis,

and produces trust in students and parents. Trust in students and parents are affective responses

that cultivate academic emphasis, manifesting trust (Hoy et al., 2006). Academic optimism,

composed of all three constructs, has been proven to enhance student achievement in K-12

public schools despite SES(Beard et al., 2010; Hoy et al., 2006; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006; Smith

& Hoy, 2007).

Figure 1

Triadic Interactions among the Three Dimensions of Academic Optimism

Note. From “Academic Optimism of Individual Teachers: Confirming a New Construct,” by K.

S. Beard, W. K. Hoy, & A. W. Woolfolk Hoy, 2010. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26,

Research Questions

Seven research questions were addressed in this study:

1. Is there a significant relationship between schools’ levels of academic optimism in a

selection of Title I high schools identified on the Failing Schools List and in a selection

of Title I high schools that are not identified on the Failing Schools List in Alabama

despite SES?

Academic

Emphasis

Trust

Collective

Efficacy

2. Is there a significant relationship between schools’ levels of academic optimism and CCR

Scores in a selection of Title I high schools throughout Alabama?

3. Is there a significant relationship between schools’ levels of academic optimism and the

graduation rate in a selection of Title I high schools throughout Alabama?

4. Is there a significant relationship between schools’ levels of academic optimism and 11th

graders’ ELA and math ACT with Writing Achievement Scores in a selection of Title I

high schools located in Alabama?

5. Is there a significant independent contribution that academic emphasis, collective

efficacy, and faculty trust have on CCR Scores in a selection of Title I high schools

located in Alabama?

6. Is there a significant independent contribution that academic emphasis, collective

efficacy, and faculty trust have on the graduation rate in a selection of Title I high schools

located in Alabama?

7. Is there a significant independent contribution that academic emphasis, collective

efficacy, and faculty trust have on 11th graders’ ACT with Writing Achievement Scores

in ELA and math in a selection of Title I high schools in Alabama?

Assumptions

For decades and even presently, some researchers and educators have perpetuated the

notion that the social-economic status of students outweighs any school-level characteristics

(Coleman Report, 1966). In Alabama, the federal requirements launched by the No Child Left

Behind Act and ESSA, as well as the accountability mandate through the AAA, have required

schools in Alabama to produce academically proficient students, despite poverty.

I graduated from a Title I high school in Alabama. Further, I have served in Title I school

systems and in Title I schools my entire professional career. I have observed the educators and

leaders within the school climate and culture perpetuate the notion that socioeconomic status

(SES) is the most profound indicator of student achievement. However, I have served in schools

that bolster the expectation of student achievement despite SES. As a result, I witnessed firsthand

notable differences in achievement amongst Title I schools in Alabama that have educators that

possess an expectation of achievement versus schools that have educators that bought into the

mindset that poverty prevails.

More recently, I learned of a framework called academic optimism. Hoy et al. (2006)

discovered school-leveled characteristics that have impacted student achievement, despite

poverty. Together, collective efficacy, faculty trust of parents and students, and academic

emphasis characterized the concept of academic optimism. I became intrigued that a formula

existed for Title I schools to achieve and combat SES. Hence, I decided that I would do my study

on the concept of academic optimism.

This study examined if a relationship existed between academic optimism and

accountability indicators in high schools throughout Alabama. Specifically, the research centered

on the relationship between academic optimism and the 2019 Failing Schools List established by

the AAA and the Alabama State Department of Education’s Report Card indicators: CCR,

graduation rate, and ELA and math ACT scores. The study’s findings were based on a

quantitative analysis of the data collected from the School Academic Optimistic Survey (SAOS)

via Qualtrics from teachers within 60 Title I high schools in Alabama. I anticipated schools with

lower academic optimism scores would be on the Failing Schools List. I also anticipated that

schools with lower academic optimism levels would possess lower CCR, graduation rate, and

ACT with Writing ELA and Math Scores.

Essentially, this study helped determine if there was a relationship between academic

optimism and Alabama’s Accountability measures. Schools throughout the nation are striving to

perform academically. As we gain knowledge from research on academic optimism, school

systems throughout the nation engulfed within impoverished communities may have the

capability and resources to shift their mindset and infuse evidence-based practices to ensure that

all students learn and achieve beyond all limitations.

Significance of the Study

Annually, public schools are scrutinized based on student achievement. In Alabama, the

Failing Schools List and the Alabama State Department of Education’s Report Card are reported

to the public to enhance schools” accountability and student achievement. According to the

Failing School’s List, Title I high schools throughout Alabama have been labeled as not

academically performing (AAA Schools, 2019). The Alabama State Department of Education

Report Card has also shown that a large segment of Title I high schools are underperforming

(Alabama State Department of Education, n.d.). Researchers have indicated that poverty is a

limitation to academic achievement (Coleman et al., 1966). However, academic optimism was

shown to predict student achievement despite SES (Hoy & Miskel, 2013). The current study

provided information regarding the effects of academic optimism: collective efficacy, a sense of

trust among teachers towards students and parents, and academic emphasis on academic success

in Title I high schools throughout Alabama. Previous studies have shown that school-level

characteristics influence student achievement despite SES. This study demonstrated a

relationship between teachers’ levels of academic optimism and the Failing Schools List, CCR,

graduation rate, and student achievement. The results confirmed the theoretical framework that

high school faculties’ levels of academic optimism were related to the Failing Schools List

despite SES. This study also confirmed that high school faculties’ academic optimism is related

to the Failing School List and Alabama High schools’ accountability indicators: CCR, graduation

rate, and academic achievement. In essence, collectively, high school teachers in Title I Schools

throughout Alabama exhibiting academic optimism will produce higher levels of CCR, have

higher rates of high school graduates, and attain academic achievement on the ACT in ELA and

math.

Fundamentally, this study was proposed to add to the body of existing literature regarding

academic optimism. The purpose of this study was to examine relationships that exist between

academic optimism, accountability indicators, and student achievement. The analysis could be

used by policymakers, administrators, educators, and stakeholders in high schools in

impoverished communities to enhance the quality of education and promote positive student

outcomes. This study could have a significant effect on schools’ academic culture and climate

throughout Alabama despite SES.

Definition of Terms

Academic achievement – According to the Alabama State Department of Education,

academic achievement is measured by the weighted scores of 11th graders’ ELA and Math ACT

with scores on the summative ACT with Writing Assessment (Alabama State Department of

Education, 2019).

Alabama Accountability Act (AAA) of 2013 – This act states that schools ranked in the

bottom 6% based on summative assessments required by The Alabama State Department of

Education should be labeled as Failing Schools (AAA Schools, 2019).

Academic emphasis – “The extent to which a school is driven by a quest for academic

excellence” (Hoy et al., 2006, p. 427).

Academic optimism – A construct including three collective properties: academic

emphasis, collective efficacy, and faculty trust in clients (Hoy et al., 2006).

Academic proficiency in Alabama’s high schools – Alabama Department of Education

identifies high school students in Alabama as proficient in achieving 19 or higher in ELA and

Math and 20 or higher in science on the summative ACT with Writing Assessment (Alabama

State Department of Education, 2019).

ACT with Writing: The American College Test (ACT) – “An entrance exam used by most

colleges and universities to make admissions decisions. It is a multiple-choice, pencil-and-paper

test administered by ACT, Inc. The purpose of the ACT with Writing Test is to measure a high

school student’s readiness for college and provide colleges with one common data point that can

be used to compare all applicants” (The Princeton Review, n.d., p. 1). ). In Alabama, the ACT

with Writing is provided to high school students and used as a summative assessment to

determine high school proficiency and achievement on the Alabama State Department of

Education’s Report Card (The Alabama State Department of Education, 2019).

Collective efficacy – Collective efficacy is the perception of teachers in a school that the

faculty’s efforts can and will have a positive effect on students (Bandura, 1997).

College and career readiness (CCR) – According to the Alabama State Department of

Education, College and Career Readiness (CCR) is based upon the number of seniors that have

benchmarked on any ACT Subtest, achieved a qualifying score on AP or IB Exam, enlisted in

the military, gained approved transcript college or postsecondary credit while in high school,

obtained silver level or higher on the ACT WorkKeys, or have attained approved industry

credentials (The Alabama State Department of Education, 2022).

Faculty trust – “Faculty trust is an individual’s or group’s willingness to be vulnerable to

another party based on the confidence that the latter party is benevolent, reliable, competent,

honest, and open” (Hoy, n.d., p.1).

Failing School’s List – The legislature enacted the Alabama Accountability Act (AAA)

of 2013. As a result, schools ranked in the bottom 6% on state assessments are labeled Failing

Schools annually.

Full academic year – A student is considered FAY at the school level if the student is

enrolled 85% of the school year with a matched assessment record. A student is considered FAY

at the state level if the student takes the state-administered assessment in an Alabama Public

School and is listed on the 9th-month attendance report submitted to the Alabama State

Department of Education (The Alabama State Department of Education, 2022).

Graduation rate – A portion of the Alabama Department of Education’s Report Card for

high schools and consists of the number of students who received a diploma or its equivalent,

certifying high school completion. High schools are public schools that include Grade 12 (The

Alabama State Department of Education, 2022).

Poverty – The Alabama State Department of Education determines schools’

socioeconomic status according to the number of students who receive free and reduced lunch

(The Alabama State Department of Education, 2022).

Title I schools – Schools that are identified as schools in which low-income families

make up at least 40 percent of enrollment (United States Department of Education, n.d.).

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Federal Accountability’s Impact on Local Schools Throughout the Nation

Funding to operate school systems in Alabama generally derives from the Education

Trust Fund, local property taxes, and federal funding. In some cases, school systems can

ascertain grants that will provide additional funding. However, grants are generally competitive,

conditional, technical, and require skilled individuals to write and maintain the guidelines

required to continuously receive grant funding (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.b.).

Researchers have found that schools that possess issues with turnover, uncertified personnel,

high discipline rates, and teacher fatigue are typically issues within schools that need funding for

additional resources (Garcia & Weiss, 2019). However, schools in impoverished communities

typically cannot operate solely based on state funding and local funding revenue.

Federal funding is necessary for school systems to manage and remain viable. However,

to receive federal funding, school systems are mandated to comply with federal mandates. In

addition, accountability guidelines based on student achievement are required for states to

receive federal aid. As a result of accountability mandates from the federal government, the

Alabama State Department of Education has imposed requirements based on the federal

government’s guidelines to receive funding (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.b.).

For decades, federal requirements regarding accountability and student achievement have

been imposed on public education systems to secure funding (U.S. Department of Education,

n.d.b.). In 1981, the Secretary of Education organized a commission to investigate the state of

public education in the United States. President Reagan provided the findings of the investigation

in 1983 (Guthrie & Springer, 2004). Although the investigation results have been under scrutiny,

President Reagan revealed that public school children lacked the education to compete with other

countries in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation (Guthrie & Springer,

2004). As a result, the president expressed that public school reform is vital to the nation’s

future. Hence, the president required the public-school curriculum include four years of

language, three years of mathematics, social studies, science, and one-half year of computer

science (Guthrie & Springer, 2004). Also, President Reagan called for the states to implement

more rigorous and measurable standards and enhance teaching quality and effectiveness through

the implementation of teacher preparation and professionalization. Last, the president expressed

the need to form an accountability mechanism (Guthrie & Springer, 2004). As a result of the A

Nation at Risk Report, federal guidelines were attached to the state’s funding. The federal

guidelines included the expectation of rigorous instruction, professional development, set

curriculum, and accountability in schools. The A Nation at Risk Report initiated ideologies and

key expectations that would later become evident in the next wave of federal education

legislation enacted by President George W. Bush in 2001.

In 2001, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), through President Bush and Congress,

reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. Similar to ESEA,

NCLB promoted the resources, services, and advancement of the oppressed. Traditionally, sub-

groups consisting of minorities, special needs students, English Language Learners (ELL), and

social-economically disadvantaged students were most frequently identified as academically low.

Teachers were required to be highly qualified and certified to teach the areas in which they

worked. With NCLB, accountability was needed for all children, which was measured by the

computation of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Growth was expected on state-wide

summative annual evaluations to meet AYP each year (Tyler, 2013).

By 2014, all schools were expected to have 100% of all students proficient, based on

each state’s summative evaluation (Tyler, 2013). However, in 2015, through Congress, President

Barack Obama replaced NCLB with the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Similar to NCLB,

ESSA encourages annual testing and accountability. The purpose of ESSA is to provide an equal

opportunity to all children and all schools by providing comprehensive support and leverage to

states (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.a.). Essentially, ESSA’s objective is to loosen the

tightly woven noose from NCLB and offer more autonomy to the states. Specifically, ESSA

provides states the authority to formulate their own goals and consequences for not reaching

them (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.a.). Also, ESSA’s regulations stress academic growth

based on where students are instead of where they should be by providing points to students who

may be below grade level but still demonstrate growth. Further, states have been provided the

liberty to select the state-wide assessment to measure student achievement and academic success

(U.S. Department of Education, n.d.a.).

Federal legislation has had a tremendous impact on the curriculum in school systems

needing supplemental income to operate. In Title I Schools in Alabama, federal funding is

essentially the mechanism to ensure equitable resources, technological enhancements, and

learning opportunities (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.b.). Unlike affluent communities that

can afford to rely on property taxes and the State Education Trust Fund, Title I schools depend

on federal funding to function. As a result, accountability mandates are not optional for

underfunded Title I schools throughout Alabama. Instead, for Title I schools, federal funding is

required to secure resources and the necessities for schools in impoverished communities

(Department of Education, n.d.b.).

Alabama’s Academic Standards

The Alabama State Department of Education’s accountability requirements, the Alabama

Accountability Act (AAA) of 2013, and the United States Department of Education’s mandates

guide the accountability system outlined for school systems throughout Alabama. However,

despite poverty, high school students are expected to excel academically to be prepared for

college and/or careers. In the state of Alabama, there are accountability mandates established to

measure if students are adequately prepared to advance beyond high school. The largest segment

of the accountability requirements derives from the Alabama State Department of Education and

the Alabama Accountability Act (AAA) of 2013. The theoretical expectation is that every

student throughout Alabama will perform on or above grade level on summative assessments

based on the Alabama Course of Study, which is composed of the College and Career Readiness

Standards. College and Career Readiness Standards (CCRS) developed through working with

higher education, employers, educators, community stakeholders, and the research available to

best formulate standards to prepare students to be college and career-ready (Hill & Smith, 2013).

Next, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors

Association (NGA) worked with experts and researchers to align the standards to the college and

career-ready standards (Alabama State Board of Education, 2015). Last, a committee of experts

reviewed and validated that the standards possessed the requisites necessary to prepare students

for college and careers.

A political dispute ensued across the United States regarding teaching common standards

(Bidwell, 2014). Some state politicians thought of common standards as a means for the federal

government to control what was being taught in the classroom. Nevertheless, proponents of the

Common Core Standards contended that common standards enhanced commonality in regard to

summative assessments and unity if students move to other states (Bidwell, 2014). After much

controversy and debate, Alabama joined other states in implementing the Common Core

Standards. The Alabama State Board of Education approved the adoption of Common Core State

Standards and selected Alabama standards in November 2010 (A+ Education Partnership, 2014).

The first standards to be fully implemented were the math standards in 2012 (Council of

Chief State School Officers, n.d.). The following year, the state integrated the English Language

Arts (ELA) standards into the curriculum (Council of Chief State School Officers, n.d.). There

have been several shifts in K-12 CCRS in the areas of reading, language, science, social studies,

media, and technology, speaking, listening, and writing (Alex-Alabama Learning Exchange,

2022.) In addition, forty-one states, the District of Columbia, four territories, and the Department

of Defense Education use the Common Core Curriculum (Common Core State Standards

Initiative, 2022a). The standards now include more rigor, relevance to the real world, critical

thinking, writing, speaking, and listening (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2022b). No

longer are students expected to memorize information; instead, they are now required to apply,

synthesize, and create new knowledge (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2022b).

To measure students’ ability to use CCRS, comprehend, think, analyze, and efficiently

operate in the workforce and college classrooms, the Alabama State Department of Education

requires students to take summative assessments. In terms of accountability, 11th graders are

required to take the American College Testing (ACT). Therefore, accountability data comes from

students’ test scores on the ACT. Specifically, the Alabama State Department of Education uses

approximately six indicators to measure public high schools’ performance across the state of

Alabama (The Alabama State Department of Education, 2022). Alabama’s High Schools Report

Card consists of the following categories: college and career readiness (10%), four-year cohort

graduation rate (30%), chronic absenteeism (10%), academic achievement (20%), and academic

growth (25%), and progress in English and Language proficiency (5%) if the English Learner

(EL) population consists of at least 20 students (Alabama State Department of Education, 2019).

If 20 students are not located in a high school, 5% of the State Report Card transfers to the

Academic Growth portion of the Report Card (Alabama State Department of Education, 2019).

Alabama Accountability Act (AAA) of 2013

On February 28, 2013, the Alabama State legislature enacted the Alabama Accountability

Act (AAA). Governor Bentley signed the bill on March 14, 2013. If a student attends a failing

school, AAA permits the child to be transferred to a public or private school of the parent’s

choice (Alabama Policy Council-Guide to Issues, n.d). If a public-school student leaves a failing

school to attend a non-failing school, 80% of the public school’s funding travels with the child to

a public, charter, or private non-failing school (Alabama Policy Council-Guide to Issues, n.d.). In

addition, AAA ensures a refundable income tax credit to reimburse Alabama taxpayers who are

the parents of students enrolled in a public school ranking in the bottom 6% of K-12 public

schools in Alabama (Alabama Accountability Act, 2013). “The income tax credit a parent

receives will be equal to 80% of the average annual state cost of attendance for a public K-12

student during the applicable tax year, or the actual cost of attending a nonfailing public or

nonpublic school, whichever is less” (Alabama Policy Council-Guide to Issues, n.d., p. 1). If the

parent whose child attends a failing school chooses for their child to attend a nonfailing school

owes less than the sum of the tax credit, the parent is eligible for a refund for the difference

(Alabama Accountability Act, 2013). Also, individuals or corporations that provide

contributions, donations, and/or scholarships to students who attend failing schools are eligible

for a tax credit (Alabama Accountability Act, 2013). However, AAA mandates that the

percentage of low-income scholarship awardees equates to the percentage of low-income

students in the area where the vast majority of scholarships are awarded (Alabama

Accountability Act, 2013).

Further, scholarship awardees cannot be allowed to have previously attended a private

school (Alabama Policy Council-Guide to Issues, n.d.). Nevertheless, to ensure innovation and

school autonomy, AAA demonstrates flexibility by permitting the State Board of Education to

contract with local boards to relinquish certain laws and regulations (Alabama Policy Council-

Guide to Issues, n.d.). In addition, AAA creates education flexibility from certain state

requirements for existing public schools, establishes a tax credit scholarship program, and

institutes refundable tax credits for parents of students in failing K-12 public schools (Alabama

Accountability Act, 2013).

According to the AAA of 2013, failing schools are schools at the bottom 6% of public

schools based on the state’s standardized assessment (Alabama Accountability Act, 2013).

Regarding academic achievement and accountability, high schools do not take the same

assessment as elementary and middle schools. Instead, high schools are measured according to

11th-graders’ proficiency in Math and ELA sections of the ACT with Writing (Alabama State

Department of Education, 2019). Furthermore, high schools carry additional requirements such

as CCR and Graduation Rate, and a high school’s level of achievement is calculated based upon

Full Academic Year (FAY) 11th-graders’ ACT scores in English and mathematics (Alabama

State Department of Education, 2019).

Students in elementary school settings have performed better than those in high schools

(AAA Schools, 2019; Alabama State Department of Education Report card, n.d.). There were 75

schools indicated on the Failing Schools List in November of 2019, which consisted of 21% of

elementary schools, while 31% of the 2018-2019 Failing Schools List consisted of middle

schools. However, the vast majority of schools on the Failing Schools List were high schools

throughout Alabama. There were 36 high schools on the Failing Schools List; thus, 48% of the

2018-2019 Failing Schools List consisted of high schools (AAA Schools, 2019).

Indeed, accountability mandates apply to all schools, elementary, middle, and high.

However, in terms of student achievement, high schools in Alabama score the lowest. In addition

to the number of conditions that are obstacles to student achievement, Title I high schools

throughout Alabama are still expected to achieve and graduate students prepared to succeed in

college and throughout the workforce, despite the extreme limitations rooted in poverty.

Researchers have revealed that advancing academic optimism shows that student achievement is

obtainable, despite poverty (Beard et al., 2010; Hoy et al., 2006; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006; Smith

& Hoy, 2007). This study examined school members’ levels of academic optimism and if there

was a correlation between academic optimism, the Failing Schools List, and high schools’

Alabama State Report Card indicators: CCR academic achievement and graduation rate,

throughout Title I high schools in Alabama.

Accountability-Alabama Department of Education Report Card

In response to the federal government’s accountability requirements, the Alabama State

Department of Education created a system to measure its performance and growth. Specifically,

the Alabama State Department of Education uses approximately six indicators to measure public

high schools’ performance across the state of Alabama (Alabama State Department of Education,

2019). As noted, Alabama’s High Schools Report Card consists of the following categories:

CCR (10%), four-year cohort graduation rate (30%), chronic absenteeism (10%), academic

achievement (20%), academic growth (25%), and progress in English and Language Proficiency

(5%) if the English Learner (EL) population consists of at least 20 students (Alabama State

Department of Education, 2019). However, if the EL population does not consist of 20 students,

the 5% allocated is transferred to the academic growth portion of the Report Card (Alabama

State Department of Education, 2019). This study examined if there was a correlation between

schools’ academic optimism and the Failing Schools List as established by the AAA, as well as a

segment of Alabama State Department of Education’s Report Card Indicators for high schools:

CCR, graduation rate, and academic achievement (as measured by the ELA and math portions of

the ACT with Writing assessment).

College and Career Readiness (CCR)

CCR is used to ensure that students obtain resources that can be used to enhance

preparedness and success in college and the workforce. According to the Alabama State

Department of Education, the CCR rate is calculated based on the number of students in a four-

year cohort that have met a CCR Indicator. CCR accounts for 10% of Alabama’s High Schools

State Report Card (2019). To successfully gain CCR points, high school students in a four-year

cohort must adhere to one of the following: benchmark on any ACT Subtest, achieve a

qualifying score on advanced placement (AP) or international baccalaureate (IP) exam, enlist in

the military, gain approved transcript college or postsecondary credit while in high school, obtain

silver level or higher on the ACT WorkKeys, or attain approved industry credentials (Alabama

State Department of Education, 2019). These indicators have been formulated to enhance post-

high school graduation success in college or the workforce. Schools with students achieving high

levels of CCR points ensure that students who graduate from high school will more than likely

go to college and progress towards a profitable career.

Graduation Rate

The graduation rate indicator from the Alabama State Department of Education State

Report Card is utilized to encourage students to graduate from high school. According to the

Alabama Department of Education, the graduation rate is computed according to the percentage

of students who graduate within four years of entering 9th grade and is multiplied by 30%

because the graduation rate equals 30% of high schools’ Alabama State Department of Education

Report Card Grade in Alabama. High school graduation, or the equivalent, is typically a mandate

for students to attend college and is a prerequisite for many lucrative careers (Alabama State

Department of Education, 2019). As a result, graduation is essential for high schools’

accountability scores and is also pivotal for students to have access to college and many careers

that provide financial sustainability, health care, and retirement, among other factors.

Academic Achievement

According to the Alabama State Department of Education website, academic

achievement is “an Accountability System Indicator based on the percentage of proficient

students in tested grades” (2022 ). In addition, the Alabama State Department of Education

indicated that academic achievement on the State Report Card consists of FAY 10th graders who

qualify for Alabama Alternative Assessment (students with special needs) and includes FAY

11th graders’ math and English ACT proficiency scores (Alabama State Department, 2019).

Proficiency on the ACT is deemed by the number of FAY 11th graders who score a 19 on the

math and 19 on the ELA segment (Alabama State Department of Education, 2019). The Alabama

State Department of Education has indicated that the academic achievement score is computed

based on a weighted scale. The weighted achievement levels are indicated in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1

Academic Achievement ELA Weight and Proficiency

Level

Weight

ACT

Scores

Proficiency

1-13

Does not meet academic content standards

0.5

14-18

Partially meets academic content standards

III

19-22

Proficient/on grade level-Meets academic content standards

1.25

23-36

Exceeds academic content standards

Table 2

Academic Achievement Math Weight and Proficiency

Level

Weight

ACT

Scores

Proficiency

1-15

Does not meet academic content standards

0.5

16-18

Partially meets academic content standards

III

19-24

Proficient/on grade level-Meets academic content standards

1.25

25-36

Exceeds academic content standards

Academic Achievement makes up 20% of high schools’ Alabama State Department of Education

Report Card Score (Alabama State Department of Education, 2019).

Theory School Effectiveness Movement

Student achievement and accountability have been relevant for decades. There have been

variations of accountability mandates established to measure students’ performance. However,

researchers have debated if school leaders and educators are capable of advancing all children

academically. Coleman et al. (1966) postulated that schools had an insignificant effect on student

achievement and that most of the differences in student achievement were associated with

distinctions in family backgrounds. Nevertheless, Edmonds (1979) refuted Coleman’s findings

by alleging that school characteristics mattered regarding student achievement. Edmonds

revealed that effective schools were characterized by efficient principal leadership, systematic

evaluation of students, significance placed on learning necessary skills, high expectations

regarding student achievement, and an orderly, safe environment. Similar to Edmonds, other

researchers have found that school-level characteristics impact student achievement. Particularly,

researchers have revealed that student achievement is prevalent in schools exhibiting academic

optimism despite the students' socioeconomic status (Goddard et al., 2000; Hoy et al., 2006;

McGuigan & Hoy, 2006; Smith & Hoy, 2007).

Academic Optimism

In the early 1970s, Hoy and his colleagues commenced exploring school climate and its

impact on students’ behavior. They found that schools with positive climates enhanced positive

student outcomes, specifically regarding attitudes and self-actualization (Hoy, 2012). In addition,

schools with educators and leaders who promoted authentic interactions among students, parents,

and teachers enhanced students’ attitudes towards achievement (Hoy, 2012). Hoy and his

colleagues further explored the positive effects of school climate and found that a positive

climate did not appear significant when accounting for the variances in achievement, especially

when compared to the impact found in socioeconomic status (Hoy, 2012). Consequently, Hoy

and other researchers began to seek variables that were just as significant as socioeconomic

status in predicting student achievement. For years, research was conducted involving the

individual and organizational properties of academic optimism: collective teacher efficacy,

faculty trust in parents and students, and academic emphasis. Then, in 2006, Hoy et al. found that

of the three properties combined, academic optimism was a powerful predictor of academic

achievement in 96 high schools in Ohio.

Impact of Academic Optimism on Schools

With the increased weight of standardized tests and accountability in schools, researchers

have conducted studies to determine school-level characteristics aligned to student academic

achievement. Hoy et al. (2006) focused on school-level aspects that impact student academic

achievement, despite socioeconomic factors and found that integrating three school-level

constructs enhanced a concept known as academic optimism. Hoy and his colleagues formulated

the concept of academic optimism because of the high correlation levels between academic

emphasis, collective efficacy, and faculty trust. Academic optimism has been proven to exist in

schools that are academically successful (McGuigan & Hoy, 2006). Essentially, academically

optimistic schools possess stakeholders who have an expectation of success. Collectively,

teachers who believe they can make a difference are committed, optimistic, engaged, intentional,

and trust that students are capable of reaching academic success and achievement (McGuigan &

Hoy, 2006; Smith & Hoy, 2007).

Although the academic optimism construct is considered relatively new, theorists have

researched the individual components for years. Academic optimism is similar to the triadic

reciprocal causation portrayed by Bandura (1989), who found that individual school members

behave according to how the school behaves collectively. Bandura claimed that school members’

behaviors, expectations, and self-evaluations are enhanced according to their environmental

norms and practices (Bandura, 1989). In addition, Bandura and Jourden (1991) concluded that

human action results from a blend of behavioral, cognitive, and ecological factors.

The foundation of academic optimism is rooted in Bandura’s social cognitive and self-

efficacy theories for collective efficacy (Bandura, 1993, 1997). Coleman’s (1990) social capital

theory for faculty trust and Hoy and his associates’ research on culture and climate for academic

emphasis were derived from Parsons’s research regarding organizational health (Hoy et al.,

1991). Hoy et al. (2006) expanded the initial study and created the academic optimism construct

to be more relevant to schools. Furthermore, Hoy and other researchers examined academic

optimism in terms of schools’ student achievement. The researchers constructed a survey

instrument, the School Academic Optimism Scale (SAOS), to measure academic optimism,

which is composed of collective efficacy, faculty trust in students and parents, and educational

emphasis. Researchers have continued to investigate the impact of the individual constructs of

academic optimism: academic emphasis, faculty trust, and collective efficacy on school-level

characteristics (Bevel & Mitchell, 2012; Cassity, 2012; Forsyth et al., 2011; Smith & Hoy,

2007). These studies continue to develop research theories concerning academic optimism.

Several studies have been conducted on academic optimism in elementary schools (Beard

et al., 2010; Forsyth et al., 2011; Hoy et al., 2006; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006). In McGuigan and

Hoy’s (2006) study, the researchers found that in a rural elementary school, academic optimism

was strongly related to mathematics and reading and even revealed that the relationship to

student achievement was so significant that socioeconomic status was no longer a predictor of

achievement. Smith and Hoy (2007) also described a significant relationship between academic

optimism and student achievement at the urban elementary school level for mathematics, even

when controlling for socioeconomic status. In addition, Bevel (2010) found a significant

relationship between academic optimism and student achievement in reading and mathematics in

an elementary school in Alabama.

Researchers have also studied academic optimism at the high school level. For example,

Hoy et al. (2006) found that academic optimism was significantly related to social studies,

reading, and writing achievement at the high school level, even after controlling for

socioeconomic status, student population, and previous 9th-grade achievement scores. Surveys

were administered to faculty members in 96 high schools. A factor analysis and hypothesis

testing were performed to measure the findings. The study revealed that the three components of

academic optimism: collective efficacy, faculty trust, and academic emphasis, were predictors of

student achievement. In addition, Kirby and DiPaola (2009) discovered a significant relationship

between academic optimism and student achievement in high school history and biology, despite

controlling for socioeconomic status. Wagner and DiPaola (2011) revealed similar results,

showing a significant relationship between academic optimism and biology, reading, and writing

achievement.

Furthermore, Bower and Powers (2010) found a relationship between academic optimism

constructs. The researchers indicated that student success arises from schools promoting

academic press to all the stakeholders. As a result, the relationship between academic emphasis

and faculty trust is reinforced. Bower and Powers also found that the two other components of

academic optimism are interrelated. They indicated that collective efficacy enhances confidence,

and trust in parents and students promotes collective efficacy amongst the faculty. The

researchers explained that rigor is enhanced when school members perceive they can organize

and execute actions that impact student learning. As student achievement transpires, collective

efficacy is enhanced (Bower & Powers, 2010).

Researchers have validated that faculty trust, collective efficacy, and academic emphasis,

the elements that make up academic optimism, collectively reinforce each other and predict

student achievement (Bevel & Mitchell, 2012; Cassity, 2012; Hoy et al., 2006; McGuigan &

Hoy, 2006; Smith & Hoy, 2007). Hoy et al. (2006) demonstrated the relationship between the

three components of academic optimism in a conceptual framework. Collectively, the three

constructs form a foundation that supports the advancement of academic optimism and student

achievement. Studies on academic optimism studies regarding CCR, ACT reading and math

student achievement, graduation rate, and the Failing Schools List in Title I high schools in

Alabama were lacking in the literature. This study was the first study to examine the impact of

schools’ level of academic optimism on accountability indicators in Title I high schools in

Alabama.

Academic Emphasis

Academic emphasis is defined as “the extent to which a school is driven by academic

excellence” (Goddard et al., 2000, p. 684) or a press for academic achievement. Educational

emphasis is characterized as academic excellence, including high but achievable goals, a severe

and orderly school environment, motivated students, and the pursuit of student achievement

(Goddard et al., 2000). Academic emphasis, often referred to as academic press, occurs when

schools make academic achievement a central focus (McGuigan & Hoy, 2006). To measure

schools’ level of academic emphasis, Hoy et al. (1991) developed the Organizational Health

Inventory (OHI).

According to Bevans et al. (2007), academic focus provides a view of a school’s

organizational health. The researchers used the OHI and found that the schools’ climate impacted

the staff’s actions, which subsequently moved student achievement. Moreover, Hoy and Miskel

(2013) revealed that “academic emphasis is the enacted behavior prompted by collective efficacy

and faculty trust –an emphasis on intellectual pursuits and academic success” (p. 314). In

essence, academic emphasis is the collective belief and exertion of actions that demonstrate that

student achievement is vital.

Impact of Academic Emphasis on Schools

Schools with a reputation for promoting academic emphasis focus on and promote

student achievement. School communities that embrace academic emphasis send stakeholders an

explicit and transparent message that all students’ academic achievement is feasible and

significant. Schools with high academic focus also have high expectations for all students, and

schools with high academic emphasis offer strong, prescriptive support and resources to assist all

students with striving to achieve proficiency and beyond.

Goddard et al. (2000) revealed that academic emphasis was a significant predictor of

student achievement in reading and math in poor socioeconomic communities. Specifically, the

researchers found that schools with higher academic emphasis had higher levels of student

achievement. Goddard et al. stated, “Although students receiving a free or reduced-price lunch

scored on average 2.41 points below their schools’ mean reading scores, the school means

averaged 11.39 points higher where there was a strong academic emphasis” (p. 698). The

researchers’ findings were that schools that exhibited high levels of academic emphasis had

higher levels of student achievement despite race or SES. The researchers concluded that schools

with higher academic focus should enhance collective efforts to promote student achievement.

Although this was the first study to evaluate the relationship between academic emphasis

and segments of Alabama’s Accountability System, several studies have demonstrated that

academic focus is related to student achievement despite SES (Cassity, 2012; Goddard et al.,

2000; Hoy et al., 1991; Hoy et al., 2006; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006). Hoy and his associates were

the first researchers to conduct studies that demonstrated a positive and direct relationship

between academic emphasis and student achievement in high schools while controlling for SES

(Hoy et al., 1990; Hoy et al., 1991; Hoy et al., 2006). Theorists later demonstrated the same

positive relationship for middle schools while controlling for SES (Hoy & Hannum, 1997; Hoy

& Sabo, 1998). Positive results were also demonstrated for elementary schools (Bevel, 2010;

Hoy et al., 2006). According to Hoy et al. (2006), regardless of the methodology or settings of

schools, the results remain constant. They further stated that “academic emphasis is a key

variable in explaining student achievement, even controlling for socioeconomic status, previous

achievement, and other demographic variables” (Hoy et al., 2006, p. 137).

Collective Efficacy

Collective efficacy is the teachers’ judgment that the entire school faculty can

systematically execute actions needed to have a positive effect on students (Goddard et al.,

2004). Bandura (1993) and later Goddard et al. (2000) discovered that schools with faculty

members who exhibited high levels of collective efficacy performed better than schools with

teachers who doubted their collective ability to meet their academic goals. Hoy and Miskel

(2013) defined collective efficacy by using four sources of effectiveness: mastery experience,

vicarious experience, social persuasion, and affective state. Efficacy increases as mastery

experiences occur. Mastery experience occurs when each student produces positive results and

demonstrates confidence. Vicarious experiences also strengthen self-efficacy. As individuals

observe and identify with others who produce positive and predictable outcomes, they gain

confidence in executing similar tasks. Social persuasion relates to having others influence one

directly and providing opportunities for mastery experiences in a safe manner. Finally, the

affective state, which is the emotional state of an individual, influences efficacy by shifting the

individual’s focus inward (Hoy & Miskel, 2013). For example, emotionally elated individuals

are the most positive and productive at work. Conversely, if individuals are depressed or

unhappy, they are more than likely unable to focus on work tasks. Thus, the individual’s

perception of their work abilities will most likely not be positive or productive. As a result, based

on Bandura’s research, how individuals collectively view their work capabilities affects student

learning (Bandura, 1989).

Impact of Collective Efficacy on Schools

Bandura (1986) was one of the first theorists to find a connection between efficacy and

student achievement, regardless of SES. Bandura enhanced the foundation of collective efficacy

through his research on self-efficacy. His research was critical to the concept of the teacher

collective efficacy construct. To effectively promote an image on a group level, an individual

must value the concept on a personal level. Self-efficacy is essential because an individual’s

beliefs influence how they perceive tasks and set goals (Bandura, 1977).

Regarding self-efficacy, Bandura’s (1997) findings were that “people's level of

motivation, affective states, and actions are based more on what they believe than on what is

objectively true” (p. 2). As a result, individuals’ behavior can frequently be predicted by their

beliefs regarding their capabilities versus their actual capacity. Self-efficacy beliefs help guide

what individuals do with their knowledge and skills. Therefore, individuals’ behaviors may seem

vastly different from their existing capabilities, which could explain various actions of

individuals with similar knowledge and skills. Moreover, goals and objectives are accomplished

when individuals possess self and collective efficacy. In contrast, goals and objectives are less

likely to be successful when self and collective efficacy beliefs are limited.

Hoy et al. (2002) found that collective and individual efficacy enhance each other.

Collective efficacy enhances the positive effects of individual teacher efficacy, and individual

teacher efficacy increases collective efficacy. The researchers also stated that collective teacher

efficacy appears to promote individual teachers to effectively use the skills they already possess.

When teachers become believers, collective efficacy can result (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).

In one study involving high schools, Hoy et al. (2000) discovered that collective efficacy was the

critical variable connected to student achievement; it was found to be more significant than SES

and academic press. Although this study was the first to examine the relationship between

collective efficacy and Alabama’s Accountability Systems, several researchers have connected

collective efficacy and student achievement (Bandura, 1993; Goddard et al., 2000; Hoy et al.,

2002). Despite each study’s methodology or academic environment, the results remained

consistent. Collective efficacy made a difference in student achievement.

Faculty Trust in Parents and Students

The last component of academic optimism is trust. Relational trust is needed to cultivate

positive collaborative relationships (Beard et al., 2010), and faculty trust is a collective form of

faith. In essence, the faculty expects the “word, promise, and actions of another group or

individual can be relied on and that the trusted party will act in the best interests of the faculty”

(Forsyth et al., 2011, p. 4). A trusting relationship consists of the perception of benevolence,

reliability, competence, honesty, and openness towards another (Goddard et al., 2001).

Benevolence has been described as a sense of goodwill and generally caring about another

person and exists when one cares about a relationship (Baier, 1986). Benevolence embodies the

“confidence that one’s well-being or something one cares about will be protected by the trusted

person or group” (Hoy and Tschannen-Moran, 1999, p.187). It is exhibited in school

organizations where teachers believe that their students and parents care about their well-being.

When there is a lack of trust in the parents’ and students’ benevolence, teachers become worried

about real and imagined harm (Hoy et al., 2006). Practically, teachers must feel comfortable and

trust their students and parents to experiment with new teaching mechanisms and inevitably

make mistakes (Hoy & Sabo, 1998). Reliability is another component of trust; it is the extent to

which behavior is predictable and benefits the other party. Consistency of action ensures

expectations dependability from others (Butler & Cantrell, 1984). Reliability is rooted in

predictability and dependability and integrates consistency and caring (Hoy & Tschannen-

Moran, 1999). School teachers can trust students and parents if they perceive they are reliable

and consistent.

Also, competence is a required component of trust. Barber (1983) explained competence

as the “expectation of one’s technically competent role performances” (p. 9-10). Competence is

included in one’s ability to perform according to appropriate standards. Trust is developed

through an individual's dependency to fulfill a duty with a level of skill involved to meet an

expectation (Baier, 1986). Teachers are tasked with trusting that students and parents are capable

of achieving academic optimism in school organizations.

Further, honesty is a trust component grounded in integrity (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy,

2000). Honesty is defined as an individual’s character and integrity, with the “expectancy that

the word, promise, verbal or written statement of another individual or group can be relied upon”

(Rotter, 1967, p. 651). Therefore, if honesty is prevalent in school organizations, individuals will

have confidence that their members will keep their promises and provide truthful feedback.

The last element of trust is openness, which is a process in which relevant information is

not withheld; it is a process by which people make themselves vulnerable to others by sharing

personal information (Butler & Cantrell, 1984). Administrators, educators, parents, and students

who conceal information enhance suspicion rather than openness and trust (Hoy et al., 2006).

Openness is exhibited by the willingness to communicate and disseminate information. For

example, transparency regarding feedback and curriculum is needed to enhance trust in school

organizations. Hoy et al. (2006) claimed that a reciprocal relationship of openness and trust is

encouraged to improve academic optimism.

The Impact of Trust on Schools

Several researchers have found that trust is a vital school characteristic that influences

student achievement (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Goddard et al., 2001; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran,

1999). The relationship between trust and Alabama's Accountability System has not yet been

explored; however, in a 1999 study, Hoy and Tschannen-Moran measured if trust had a

significant impact on student achievement (Hoy and Tschannen-Moran, 1999). From the study,

trust in students and trust in parents merged into one construct, trust in clients. The researchers

found that faculty trust in students and parents significantly affected school effectiveness and

student achievement in reading and mathematics. Furthermore, the researchers found indirect

links between faculty trust and student achievement through collective efficacy. The results were

conclusive, showing higher levels of collective efficacy among schools generated more elevated

levels of trust in students and parents despite SES (Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999).

Similarly, Goddard et al. (2001) found that the degree of meaningful teacher-student and

teacher-parent relationships is affected by the trust that binds the connections. Faculty trust has

been found to impact student learning (Goddard et al., 2001). Researchers have established that

the higher the faculty trust in clients, the higher the students’ achievement in math and reading

(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). The validity of the faith and its relationship to student

achievement was demonstrated in the Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000) study. The researchers

found trust was related to democratic decision making, a positive school climate conducive to

learning, effective, productive communication, and individuals’ willingness to go beyond the call

of duty. In addition, the researchers found that trust impacted student learning, teachers’

collective efficacy, and school effectiveness, despite SES. Their findings enhanced researchers’

perception that trust is a vital construct towards advancing achievement. Furthermore, Forsythe

et al. (2006) stated that the “strength of relational trust inherent in role groups … of the

organization does indeed appear to predict school effectiveness and thus student achievement”

(p. 137). In addition, other studies confirmed that higher levels of trust in school organizations

positively impacted student achievement (Goddard et al., 2001; Hoy & Tarter, 1997; Hoy et al.,

2002; Tschannen-Moran & Goddard, 2000).

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Academic optimism embodies school characteristics that have been positively associated

with student achievement in schools (Hoy et al., 2006; Smith & Hoy, 2007). This study sought to

test previous findings and extend the research in Title I high schools throughout Alabama. The

purpose of this study was to examine relationships that exist between academic optimism,

accountability indicators, and student achievement. Academic optimism is a construct that

commenced from quantitative studies that identified three related school characteristics that had

strong relationships with student achievement. There have been studies that have used

quantitative research to examine academic optimism (Bevel & Mitchell, 2012; Cassity, 2012;

Hoy et al., 2006; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006, Smith & Hoy, 2007; Tschannen-Moran et al., 2013).

This study aimed to provide further quantitative evidence to impact research, practices, and

school-related factors connected to enhancing student achievement in schools.

The Research Design

The School Academic Optimism Scale (SAOS; Appendix A) was used to measure

teachers’ levels of academic optimism in this study. Title I high schools throughout Alabama

were the unit of analysis. Regarding the first research question, the independent variable

consisted of schools’ status (Failing and Non-Failing Schools), and the dependent variable was

academic optimism, which includes academic emphasis, collective efficacy, and teacher trust of

clients. SES was controlled in research question one and was determined by the percent of

students who received free and reduced lunch at each school from 2018 to 2019. The

independent variable remained the same throughout the remainder of the research questions. The

dependent variables were CCR scores, graduation rates, and 11th grade ACT English and math

achievement scores, respectively.

This quantitative study examined the significance of the relationships between academic

optimism, CCR scores, graduation rates, 11th-grade ACT with Writing ELA and math

achievement scores, and the Failing Schools List, despite SES. Scoring was completed in phases.

First, there was a calculated school means for each item/variable. Then, each item’s means were

averaged to calculate the overall school mean for each variable. Before scoring, negatively

worded questions were reverse coded. Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) 27 was

used to calculate reliability statistics, mean scores, standard deviations, and the ranges for

academic optimism and each of the subscales. The School Academic Optimism Survey (SAOS)

was utilized to measure schools’ levels of academic optimism. In this study, using Cronbach’s

Alpha, the reliability estimate for the overall survey in this study was .98. In addition, the

estimates of reliability for the properties of academic optimism (collective efficacy, faculty trust,

and academic emphasis) were .95, .94, and .95, respectively. The remainder of the resources

aligned to the research questions were the Failing Schools List, Title I high schools’ CCR

Scores, graduation rate, and English and math ACT scores, which were all published on the

Alabama State Department of Education’s website.

Participants

A selection of Title I high schools on the Federal Programs section of the Alabama State

Department of Education website were invited to participate in the study. The schools were

selected from 38 school systems, including 82 Title I high schools. However, 22 superintendents

responded and provided consent for this study to be conducted in their districts. After gaining

full authorization for the IRB, I contacted 60 Title I high school administrators via email. The

administrators then provided the research design, procedures, protocol, consent, and the

electronic survey to their faculty. The teachers were informed that their participation was

voluntary. The SAOS survey was used to measure the teachers’ levels of academic optimism

(collective efficacy, faculty trust, and academic emphasis) within Title I high schools.

Data Collection Procedures

A selection of Title I high schools was acquired through the Alabama State Department

of Education webpage for the 2018-2019 school year. The Title I high schools in this study had

free and reduced lunch percentages ranging from 29.26% to 98.28%. Title I high school teachers

throughout the state of Alabama participated in the study.

I received authorization from the University of Alabama’s IRB to contact 38

superintendents throughout Alabama because I was seeking 82 Title I high schools (which

include a 12th-grade level) to be a part of the study. After gaining approval from IRB (Appendix

B), I then contacted the selected superintendents of the Title I high schools in Alabama to gain

permission to conduct the research (Appendix C). Each superintendent was provided a summary

of the research design, procedures, protocol, and consent, a copy of the School Academic

Optimism Survey (SAOS), a copy of the researcher’s Internal Review Board approval to make

contact, and the contact information for both the researcher and the dissertation chairpersons.

After obtaining consent from the selected superintendents, I provided each superintendent’s

documentation verifying authorization to the IRB. Next, I emailed 38 superintendents seeking

consent for teachers in Title I high schools within their system to voluntarily participate in my

study (Appendix D). However, I received written consent from only 22 superintendents.

Subsequently, I provided the IRB with the documentation of superintendents’ authorization,

totaling 60 Title I high schools within 22 school systems throughout the State of Alabama.

After gaining superintendents’ and the University of Alabama IRB authorization to

proceed with my study, I sent correspondences to school administrators to seek their consent and

assistance with administering the School Academic Optimism Survey (SAOS) electronically to

local schools. I provided a summary of the research design, procedures, protocol, consent, a copy

of the researcher’s IRB approval, and each superintendent’s documentation for me to proceed.

Since I was unable to enter schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I emailed school

administrators to seek assistance with the administration of the voluntary, anonymous survey.

School leaders then provided the School Academic Optimism Survey (SAOS), research design,

procedures, protocol, and consent documentation electronically to full-time certified secondary

teachers throughout 60 Title I high schools in Alabama.

The surveys were administrated via Qualtrics to each high school teacher. The teachers

also received a summary of the research design, procedures, protocol, and consent

documentation electronically. The participants were posed three initial questions before

proceeding; they were asked to provide consent, their employment location, and notate if they

were full-time teachers. If a teacher did not consent or validate that they were a full-time

certified teacher, the survey ended immediately.

Out of the 82 Title I high schools solicited, 60 Title I high schools participated in the

study, yielding a participation rate of 73%. A total of 1,391 teachers took the surveys. The

participation rates for each school are indicated in Table 3.

Table 3

SAOS Teacher Response Rate Per School

School

# of

Responses

# of

Teachers

Response

Rate

(pct)

School

# of

Responses

# of

Teachers

Response

Rate

(pct)

81.25

77.36

81.82

80.00

78.26

78.38

77.78

81.82

83.33

82.35

76.47

86.84

82.61

73.33

75.76

84.62

78.26

77.78

81.63

75.00

83.33

83.78

79.25

77.42

82.98

80.95

73.33

82.35

73.91

82.35

80.00

82.05

86.67

78.57

80.77

83.33

78.13

76.00

76.92

85.71

80.00

84.62

72.00

79.31

76.19

82.86

83.78

74.29

76.92

76.67

81.82

74.29

85.00

74.29

75.00

72.22

80.95

74.19

However, 1,379 participants fully completed the surveys. Three participants failed to

include the school where they were employed. Also, 9 participants started the survey but did not

answer all the questions. As a result, 12 surveys were removed from the study. The remainder of

the data: The Failing Schools List, CCR data, graduation rates, ACT with Writing ELA and math

data, and SES data were obtained from the Alabama State Department of Education website for

the 2018-2019 school year.

Accountability Instrumentation and Measures

The Failing Schools List is composed of schools that have been identified in the bottom

6% percent of schools in the state of Alabama, according to achievement test scores (AAA

Schools, 2019). In Alabama, high schools’ achievement is measured by 11th graders’ ACT with

Writing Scores in ELA and math. All schools that are identified as the lowest achieving, in the

bottom 6% of schools throughout the state of Alabama, are identified as Failing Schools. In this

study, Failing Schools’ status was a binary variable. Failing Schools were coded as 1, and non-

Failing Schools were coded as 0. There were 43 Failing Title I high schools and 17 non-Failing

Title I high schools included in the study.

According to the Alabama State Department of Education, The College and Career

Readiness (CCR) rate is calculated based on the number of students in a four-year cohort that

have obtained a CCR Indicator. The Alabama State Department of Education used the number of

seniors that have benchmarked on any ACT subtest, achieved a qualifying score on AP or IB

Exam, enlisted in the Military, gained approved transcript college or postsecondary credit while

in high school, obtained silver level or higher on the ACT WorkKeys, or have attained approved

industry credentials to obtain the CCR scores for high schools (Alabama State Department of

Education, 2019). CCR accounts for 10% of Alabama’s High Schools State Report Card. To

receive points for CCR, high school students must achieve proficiency on any ACT Subtest,

possess a qualifying score on the AP or IB exam, enroll in the Military, provide an approved

transcript college or postsecondary credit while in high school, score silver level or higher on the

ACT WorkKeys, or obtain an agreed industry credential (Alabama State Department of

Education, 2019).

In addition, the graduation rate was computed according to the percentage of students

who graduated within four years of entering 9th grade and was multiplied by 30% because the

graduation rate equals 30% of high schools’ Alabama State Department of Education Report

Card Grade (Alabama State Department of Education, 2019). Last, the percentage of students

who achieved academic proficiency was computed according to the number of FAY 11th graders

who scored a 19 on the math and ELA segment of the ACT with Writing (Alabama State

Department of Education, 2017). Academic achievement makes up 20% of high schools’

Alabama State Department of Education Report card scores (Alabama State Department, 2019).

SAOS Instrumentation and Measures

Academic emphasis, collective efficacy, and faculty trust in students and parents were

respectively measured by the Academic Emphasis Subscale of the Organizational Health

Inventory (Hoy & Miskel, 2005; Hoy et al., 1991), the Collective Efficacy Scale (Goddard,

2002; Goddard et al., 2004), and the faculty trust in Students and Parents Subscale of the

Omnibus Trust Scale (Hoy, 2002; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 2003). These constructs were

combined to create the academic optimism index. The foundational research on academic

emphasis, collective efficacy, and faculty trust in clients were integrated into the construct of

academic optimism (Hoy et al., 2006).

The School Academic Optimism (SAOS) has been used to examine schools’ levels of

academic optimism. Hoy et al. (2006) explained that academic optimism consists of behavioral

(academic emphasis), cognitive (collective efficacy), and emotional (faculty trust) constructs.

They affirmed that the three constructs coexist to enhance expectations that create a sense of

hope and motivation to learn. Overall, academic optimism produces a favorable environment

found to be possible at all levels of K-12 education (Hoy et al., 2006).

In this study, Title I high schools were the unit of analysis. The SAOS data from certified

Title I high school educators were collected via Qualtrics. The SAOS was used to measure

academic optimism through its sub-constructs: (collective teacher efficacy, faculty trust in

parents and students, and academic emphasis). The survey was composed of 30 questions using a

Likert scale format. Items 1-12 of the SAOS measured collective teacher efficacy ranging from 1

(Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). Items 13-22 of the SAOS measured faculty trust in

parents and students. A Likert scale was used for items 13-22 of the SAOS ranging from 1

(Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). The last segment of the SAOS, items 23-30, measured

academic emphasis. A Likert scale score from 1 (Rarely Occurs) to 4 (Very Often) was used to

measure academic emphasis.

Teachers’ responses to the School Academic Optimism Survey (SAOS) were aggregated

to produce a single school-level score. Socioeconomic status was used as a control variable in

research question one. As noted, the SAOS was composed of three components: collective

efficacy (questions 1-12), faculty trust (questions 13-22) in students and parents, and school’s

academic emphasis (questions 23-30), which collaboratively produced a single academic

optimism score for each school. The scores were standardized using the earlier formulas created

by Hoy et al. (2006). Scoring the SAOS required averaging and reverse scoring for specific

questions (Hoy et al., 2006). Hoy et al. indicated that the standard score for collective efficacy

equals: [100X (collective efficacy - 3.96) /.33] + 500. In addition, the standard score for faculty

trust (SSFT) equals [100X (trust - 3.65) /.39] + 500. The standard score for academic

emphasis (SSAE) equals [100X (academic emphasis) - 2.75) /.26] + 500. Last, the standard

academic optimism score for each school was calculated by applying the following formula:

academic optimism equals [(SSCE) + (SSFT) + (SSAE)] divided by 3 (Hoy, n.d.).

Academic optimism scores are based on a normal distribution. The range of the scores is

between 200 and 800. The average academic optimism score is 500; therefore, a composite score

of 700 and up represents a positive school perception of academic optimism, while a composite

score of 300 or less represents a lower level and depicts a negative school perception of

academic optimism. Table 4 represents the range and meaning of academic optimism scores.

Table 4

School Academic Optimism (SAOS) and Interpretation

SAOS Score

Score Interpretation

200

Lower than 99% of schools

300

Lower than 97% of schools

400

Lower than 84% of schools

500

Average

600

Higher than 84% of schools

700

Higher than 97% of schools

800

Higher than 99% of schools

Data Analysis

The independent variables in Research Question 1 consisted of a selection of Title I high

schools identified as Failing and a selection of Title I high schools that were not identified as

Failing in Alabama, according to the Failing Schools List. Also, for RQ1, the dependent variable

was academic optimism, which consisted of academic emphasis, collective efficacy, and teacher

trust of clients, and a control variable, SES, which consisted of the percentage of students who

received free and reduced lunch. For the remainder of the research questions, the independent

variable was academic optimism. The dependent variables were CCR scores, graduation rates,

and 11th grade ACT with Writing ELA and math achievement scores in Title I high schools

throughout Alabama. The analysis included inferential statistics, where the alpha level was set at

.05 for each research question. In addition, multiple regression and bivariate correlations were

conducted via IBM SPSS 27.

First, several assumptions were required to be met in order to establish that the model had

more variance than the null model. The data needed to be linear, meaning the relationship

between the independent and dependent variables needed to be linear. Second, homoscedasticity

needed to be maintained, wherein the variance of the residual needed to be the same for any

value of the dependent variable. Third, independence of observations needed to exist, meaning

that observations could not be highly correlated with one another. Last, the data needed to be

normally distributed.

In the following analyses, the data met the assumptions of linear regressions, except for

the analyses involving ELA. After evaluating the assumptions, regression analyses were

conducted to examine the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Table 5

outlines the statistical analysis used to evaluate each research question.

Table 5

Research Questions and Statistical Tests

Research Questions

Alpha

Level

Independent

Variables

Dependent

Variables

Control

Variable

Statistical

Test

1. Is there a significant

relationship between the levels of

academic optimism in a selection

of Title I high schools identified

on the Failing Schools List and in

a selection of Title I high schools

that are not identified on the

Failing Schools List in Alabama

despite SES?

.05

Selected Title I high

schools identified as

Failing and selected

Title I high schools

that have not been

identified as Failing

in Alabama

Academic

Emphasis,

Collective

Efficacy, and

Faculty Trust-

Academic

Optimism

Social

Economic

(SES)

Multiple

Regression

2. Is there a significant

relationship between schools’

levels of academic optimism and

CCR Scores in a selection of Title

I high schools throughout

Alabama?

.05

Academic

Emphasis,

Collective Efficacy,

and Faculty Trust-

Academic

Optimism

CCR Scores in

a selection of

Title I high

schools

N/A

Bivariate

Correlation

3. Is there a significant

relationship between schools’

levels of academic optimism and

the graduation rate in a selection

of Title I high schools throughout

Alabama?

.05

Academic

Emphasis,

Collective Efficacy,

and Faculty Trust-

Academic

Optimism

Graduation

Rate in a

selection of

Title I high

schools

N/A

Bivariate

Correlation

4. Is there a significant

relationship between schools’

levels of academic optimism and

11th graders’ ELA and math ACT

Achievement Scores in a

selection of Title I high schools

located in Alabama?

.05

Academic

Emphasis,

Collective Efficacy,

and Faculty Trust-

Academic

Optimism

11th grader's

English

Language Arts

and math

summative

ACT

proficiency

Scores in a

selection of

Title I high

Schools

N/A

Bivariate

Correlation

5. Is there a significant

independent contribution that

academic emphasis, collective

efficacy, and faculty trust have on

CCR Scores in a selection of Title

I high schools located in

Alabama?

.05

Academic

Emphasis,

Collective Efficacy,

and Faculty Trust-

Academic

Optimism

CCR Scores in

a selection of

Title I high

schools

N/A

Multiple

Regression

6. Is there a significant

independent contribution that

academic emphasis, collective

efficacy, and faculty trust have on

the graduation rate in a selection

of Title I high schools located in

Alabama?

.05

Academic

Emphasis,

Collective Efficacy,

and Faculty Trust-

Academic

Optimism

Graduation

Rate in a

selection of

Title I high

schools

N/A

Multiple

Regression

7. Is there a significant

independent contribution that

academic emphasis, collective

efficacy, and faculty trust have on

11th graders’ ACT Achievement

Scores in ELA and math in a

selection of Title I high schools in

Alabama?

.05

Academic

Emphasis,

Collective Efficacy,

and Faculty Trust-

Academic

Optimism

ACT

Achievement

Scores in

English and

math in a

selection of

Title I high

schools

N/A

Multiple

Regression

Regarding schools’ levels of academic optimism, the procedures used by Hoy et al.

(2006) were used to examine Title I high schools’ levels of academic optimism in this study.

First, to determine schools’ levels of collective efficacy (questions 1-12 of the SAOS), the

scores were reversed on the following items: 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, which equated to 1 = 6, 2 = 5, 3

= 4, 4 = 3, 5 = 2, and 6 = 1 (Hoy, n.d.). Then, the average score was computed for each

participant on the first 12 items. Next, the scores for the first 12 items were added and then

divided by the number of items for the responses received. Last, the average collective efficacy

score was between 1 and 6. To obtain the average score, the average individual scores for all

teachers were added and divided by the number of teachers in the school who responded (Hoy,

n.d).

To gain schools’ levels of faculty trust (questions 13-22 of the SAOS), the scores were

reversed on item 22, which means that the response was scored as 1 = 6, 2 = 5, 3 = 4, 4 = 3, 5 =

2, and 6 = 1 (Hoy, n.d.). Then, the average score for each participant on the items 13 through 22

was computed. Last, the scores from the10 items were added and then divided by the number of

items for the responses received. The faculty trust average was between 1 and 6. To obtain the

average score, the average individual scores for all teachers were added and divided by the

number of teachers in the school who responded (Hoy, n.d.).

Last, to obtain schools’ levels of academic emphasis (questions 23-30 on the SAOS), the

items were scored from 1 to 4. Next, the average score for the SAOS, questions 23 through 30,

was computed. After adding the eight items, the sum was divided by the number of responses

received from teachers. The final computation was the academic emphasis score. To compute

the final academic optimism score, the following formula established by Hoy et al. (2006) was

used. Standardized scores for each construct were calculated based on the following formula:

• Standard score for collective efficacy (SSCE) = [100X (collective efficacy - 3.96)

/.33] + 500

• Standard score for faculty trust (SSFT) = [100X (trust - 3.65) /.39] + 500

• Standard score for academic emphasis (SSAE) = [100X (academic emphasis) - 2.75)

/.26] + 500

• The standard academic optimism score for each school was calculated by applying

this last formula: academic optimism = [(SSCE) + (SSFT) + (SSAE)] divided by 3

(Hoy. n.d.).

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Overview

This study examined the construct of academic optimism, its subconstructs of collective

teacher efficacy, faculty trust in students and parents and academic emphasis, and the

relationships to these Alabama’s accountability constructs identified as Failing and non-Failing

schools, College and Career Readiness (CCR), graduate rate, and English (ELA)/math ACT

scores in Title I high schools in Alabama while controlling for socioeconomic status. The

purpose of this study was to examine relationships that exist between academic optimism,

accountability indicators, and student achievement. Specifically, the study sought to provide a

framework for high school leaders in impoverished communities to advance school

organizational health in order to enhance student achievement throughout Alabama. This chapter

includes the procedures, research questions, hypotheses formulated, and measures used in the

study. The chapter provides a data analysis section, which includes statistical tests, descriptive

statistics, and the findings of the seven research questions posed in this study.

Descriptive Statistics

There were 43 Failing Title I high schools in this study and 17 Non-Failing Title I high

schools (N = 60). The average school status was .28, SD = .45. In addition, SES was included as

a control variable in examining the relationship between school status and academic optimism

and was measured on a 0-100 scale. The average SES score was 65.58, SD = 16.60. In addition,

CCR (N = 59) was measured on a scale from 0-100. The CCR score from one Title I high school

was not provided. The average CCR score was 65.69, SD = 19.53. Further, graduate rate (N =

60) was measured on a scale of 0-100. The average graduation rate was 88.84, SD = 7.33. Last,

ACT ELA and math achievement (N = 60) was also measured on a scale from 0-100. The

average ELA score was 28.95, SD = 14.33, and the average math achievement score was 27.77,

SD = 16.37. The descriptive statics are demonstrated in Table 6.

Further, a correlation table is provided in Table 7, which illustrates the relationship the

variables have with academic optimism and each other. The absolute relationship between the

variables ranges from .09 to .99. Most variables in the correlation matrix have a moderate

relationship with each other, which is an assumption of multiple regression. However, the

subcomponents of academic optimism were strongly correlated with academic optimism: faculty

trust and collective efficacy, r =.99 and academic emphasis, r = .98. In addition, the

subcomponents were highly correlated with each other, r > .98. It appears that these variables are

measuring the same construct and may not be able to be treated as individual variables in regard

to a multiple regression analysis

Table 6

Descriptive Statistics

School Status

.28

.45

SES

65.58

16.60

CCR

65.69

19.53

Grad Rate

88.84

7.33

ACT ELA

28.95

14.33

ACT Math

27.77

16.37

547.60

236.32

593.57

195.20

520.59

211.37

553.92

211.13

Table 7

Correlation Table of Variables

School

Status

SES

CCR

Grad Rate

ACT ELA

ACT Math

School

Status

-0.51

SES

-0.18

0.37

CCR

0.47

-0.44

-0.35

Grad Rate

0.36

-0.39

-0.09

0.67

ACT ELA

0.42

-0.67

-0.54

0.77

0.53

ACT Math

0.39

-0.60

-0.53

0.70

0.48

0.94

0.98

-0.48

-0.19

0.45

0.36

0.41

0.38

0.99

-0.52

-0.17

0.45

0.34

0.41

0.95

0.99

-0.49

-0.18

0.48

0.37

0.42

0.38

0.95

0.97

Note. All relationships are significant to the p<.005 level

Findings

For every research question, a hypothesis was formulated. The findings are indicated

below: 1. There will be a significant relationship between schools’ levels of academic optimism

in a selection of Title I high schools identified on the Failing Schools List and in a selection of

Title I high schools that are not identified on the Failing Schools List in Alabama despite SES.

H1: There will be a significant relationship between schools’ levels of academic

optimism in a selection of Title I high schools identified on the Failing Schools List and in a

selection of Title I high schools that are not identified on the Failing Schools List in Alabama

despite SES.

Regarding RQ1, all of the necessary assumptions were met. An omnibus ANOVA

showed that a model including SES and school status explained more variance in academic

optimism than the null model. Based on the results of the multiple regression analysis, there was

a very significant relationship found between schools’ status (according to AAA’s Failing

School’s List) and academic optimism when controlling for SES (r = .51, p <.001). Further,

negative beta values were associated with schools identified as Failing Schools (1 = school

status; Β = -242.60, SE = 56.07). As a result, the SAOS for Failing Schools, as identified by the

AAA, cannot surpass 557.4, which is within the average range on the School Academic

Optimism Scale. Thus, the results of this analysis revealed that Failing Schools’ highest level of

academic optimism was 557.4 versus 800 and as indicated in the SAOS. However, there was not

a significant relationship between SES and academic optimism (p > .05). Hence, the H1 was

supported. The model coefficients are shown in Table 8.

Table 8

Standardized Coefficients Table SES and School Status By AO

Model

Beta

Sig.

(Constant)

6.30

.00

SES

0.39

0.26

.80

School Status

-242.60

-4.33

.00

H2: There will be a significant relationship between schools’ levels of academic

optimism and CCR Scores in a selection of Title I high schools throughout Alabama.

Evaluating the data from research Q2, all of the assumptions were met. A bivariate

correlation was performed to examine the relationship between CCR and academic optimism. A

significant amount of variance in academic optimism was explained by the model, including

CCR, versus the null model was demonstrated by an omnibus ANOVA, r (59) = .47, r2 = .22, F

= 15.80, p < .001. Consequently, there was a significant relationship between CCR and academic

optimism, Β = .04, SE = .01, t = 3.98, intercept = 42.00, p <.001. Based on the findings of this

analysis, the hypothesis was supported. Schools’ levels of academic optimism were a very

significant predictor of the percentage of CCR points gained on the Alabama State Department

of Education Report Card. Based on the results of this study, starting at 42 points, for every 1-

point increase in academic optimism, there was a .04-point increase in CCR. Therefore, H2 was

supported.

H3: There will be a significant relationship between schools’ levels of academic

optimism and the graduation rate in a selection of Title I high schools throughout Alabama.

A bivariate correlation was conducted to examine the relationship between graduation

rate and academic optimism. A significant amount of variance explained by the entered model

versus the null model was demonstrated by an omnibus ANOVA, r(60) = .35, r 2 = .12, F = 7.90,

p < .01. In addition, there was a positive relationship between the high schools’ graduation rate

and schools’ levels of academic optimism, B = .01, SE = .00, t = 2.81, intercept = 82.18, p <.01.

This means that starting at an 82.18 graduation rate, for every 1-point increase in academic

optimism, there was a .01-point increase in the graduation rate. Thus, the relationship between

the graduation rate and academic optimism was very significant. As a result, H3 was supported.

H4: There will be a significant relationship between schools’ levels of academic

optimism and 11th graders’ ELA and math ACT with Writing Achievement Scores in a selection

of Title I high schools located in Alabama.

A bivariate correlation was performed in which it was determined that there is a lack of

difference between the null model and the model, including academic optimism as a predictor of

ACT ELA scores (p > .05). The entered model did not explain more variance than the null

model. Thus, the proposed model, which examined the relationship between ELA scores and

academic optimism, was not further investigated. As a result, this portion of the hypothesis was

rejected.

However, the results of an omnibus ANOVA comparing the null model to the model

including academic optimism as a predictor of ACT math was very significant, r(60) = .39, r 2 =

.15, F = 10.27, p <. 005. A bivariate correlation analysis showed a moderate positive relationship

between math ACT scores and academic optimism, Β = .03, SE = .09, t = 3.20, intercept = 11.11,

p <.005. Starting at 11.11, for every 1-point increase in academic optimism, there was a .03-point

increase in math ACT scores in high schools in Alabama (p <. 005). Based on the results of the

analysis, H4 was supported.

H5: There will be a significant independent contribution that academic emphasis,

collective efficacy, and faculty trust has on CCR Scores in a selection of Title I high schools

located in Alabama.

Multiple regression analyses were performed to determine if there was a

significant independent contribution from the three elements of academic optimism in predicting

CCR, graduation rate, and student achievement (ELA and math ACT Scores). In regard to CCR,

there was a significant amount of variance explained by the model predicting CCR using the

predictors, academic emphasis, collective efficacy, and faculty trust versus the null model, r(59)

= .49, r 2 = .24, F = 5.84, p <.005. Conversely, the results of the multiple regression analysis

showed that there was not a significant independent contribution from academic emphasis,

collective efficacy, and faculty trust in predicting CCR in Title I high schools in Alabama (p >

.05). As a result, H5 was rejected. Model coefficients are indicated in Table 9.

Table 9

Standardized Coefficients Table AE, CE, and FT by CCR

Model

Beta

Sig.

(Constant)

3.26

.02

.01

.03

.98

-.35

-.76

.45

.88

1.58

.12

Note. CCR = .01(AE)*-.42(CE)*.88(FT)

H6: There will be a significant independent contribution that academic emphasis,

collective efficacy, and faculty trust has on the graduation rate in a selection of Title I high

schools located in Alabama.

In addition, the results of the omnibus ANOVA showed that there was a significant

amount of variance explained by the model predicting graduation rate using predictors, academic

emphasis, collective efficacy, and faculty trust, versus the null model, r(60) = .38, r 2 = .14, F =

3.13, p <.001. Much similar to CCR, the results of a multiple regression analysis showed that

there was not a significant independent contribution from academic emphasis, collective

efficacy, and faculty trust in predicting graduation rate in Title I high schools in Alabama (p >

.05). Thus, H6 was rejected. The model coefficients are shown in Table 10.

Table 10

Standardized Coefficients Table AE, CE, and FT By Graduation Rate

Model

Beta

Sig.

(Constant)

20.09

.00

.03

.18

.86

-.16

-.90

.37

.30

1.38

.17

Note. Graduation Rate = .07(AE)*-.52(CE)*.80(FT)

H7: There will be a significant independent contribution that academic emphasis,

collective efficacy, and faculty trust have on 11th graders’ ACT with Writing Achievement

Scores in ELA and math in a selection of Title I high schools in Alabama.

Unlike CCR scores and the graduation rate, the assumption of multicollinearity was

violated with regard to ELA ACT scores. Still, there was not a significant amount of variance

explained by the model predicting ACT ELA scores using the predictors, faculty trust, academic

emphasis, and collective efficacy r(60) = .09, r 2 = .01, F = .14, p >. 05). Therefore, a portion of

the hypothesis was not supported because there was no relationship between ACT ELA scores

and academic optimism. Consequently, H7 was rejected. The model coefficients are provided in

Table 11.

Table 11

Standardized Coefficients Table AE, CE, and FT by ACT ELA Scores

Model

Beta

Sig.

(Constant)

1.27

.21

.28

.11

.91

.13

.39

.70

-.22

-.55

.58

Note. ELA = .05(AE)*.25(CE)*-.35(FT)

Similar to CCR and the graduation rate, math ACT met all the assumptions of multiple

regression. An omnibus ANOVA for math ACT results showed a significant amount of variance

explained by the model predicting a school’s ACT math scores using predictors FT, AE, and CE

versus the null model, r(60) = .39, r 2 = .15, F = 10.27, p <.05. However, much like CCR and

graduation rate, a multiple regression analysis showed that there was not a significant

independent contribution from any of academic optimism’s subcomponents in predicting a

school’s ACT math scores in Title I high schools in Alabama (p > .05). Therefore, H7 was

rejected. The model coefficients are found in Table 12.

Table 12

Standardized Coefficients Table AE, CE, and FT By ACT Math Scores

Model

Beta

Sig.

(Constant)

1.85

.07

-.05

-.16

.88

.48

1.20

.24

-.20

-.41

.68

Note. ACT Math Scores = -.06(AE)*.69(CE)*-.24(FT)

Variables Relationship to Academic Optimism

Evaluating the significance of all of the variables in this study in one single model, a

multiple regression analysis revealed that there was a very significant relationship between

school status and academic optimism, p <.001. There was also a significant relationship between

CCR and academic optimism, p .<.05. However, there were no significant relationships between

the remainder of the variables and academic optimism, p >.05. The model coefficients are

identified in Table 13.

Table 13

Standardized Coefficients Table School Status, SES, CCR, Grad Rate, ACT ELA, ACT Math By

Model

Beta

Sig.

(Constant)

1.05

.30

School Status

-221.06

-3.08

0.00

SES

0.47

0.26

0.80

CCR

4.73

2.12

0.04

Grad Rate

0.16

0.03

0.97

ACT ELA

-5.66

-0.98

0.33

ACT Math

2.30

0.56

0.58

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION

Overview

Academic optimism is composed of a transactional relationship among the three

domains: collective efficacy, faculty trust, and academic emphasis. Hoy et al. (2006) described

collective efficacy as the cognitive domain and defined collective efficacy as the belief that the

faculty as a whole has the support, skills, and knowledge to collaboratively organize and execute

goals necessary to have a positive impact on students. Faculty trust in students and parents was

deemed the affective domain. Faculty trust was identified as a readiness to be vulnerable based

on the belief that that party is benevolent, competent, reliable, honest, and open. Last, academic

emphasis was labeled as the behavioral domain and was identified as the extent to which a

school is driven by a quest for academic excellence—a press for academic achievement (Hoy et

al., 2006). Essentially, Hoy et al. (2006) revealed that with higher levels of collective teacher

efficacy, faculty trust in students and parents, and academic emphasis, higher levels of student

achievement were demonstrated.

Hoy et al. (2006) found that academic optimism was a strong predictor of student

achievement. Specifically, they found a significant relationship between academic optimism and

student achievement when controlling for SES. The researchers indicated that a reciprocal

relationship existed among three properties: collective efficacy, faculty trust, and academic

emphasis. The findings in this study support Hoy et al.’s research. There was a relationship

between Alabama’s 2019 Failing Schools List and academic optimism, despite SES. There was

also a relationship between academic optimism and CCR, the graduation rate, and math ACT

with Writing assessment scores. However, the assumption of multicollinearity was violated

regarding ELA ACT Scores. Multiple regression analysis showed that there was not a significant

independent contribution from any of academic optimism’s subcomponents. In other words, the

study results did not demonstrate that one component of academic optimism was more

significant than the other. However, when all three subcomponents were combined to create

academic optimism, and academic optimism was enhanced, student achievement increased as

well.

Discussion

The data analysis from this study confirmed a very significant relationship between

school status and academic optimism when controlling for SES. Conversely, there was not a

significant relationship between SES and academic optimism. Therefore, the hypothesis was

supported. Similar to previous studies that measured the relationship between academic

optimism and student achievement, there was a significant positive relationship between

academic optimism and schools’ status despite SES (Cassity, 2012; Hoy et al., 2006; McGuigan

& Hoy, 2006). However, the findings added new knowledge to research regarding academic

optimism since the relationship between the Failing Schools List and academic optimism had not

been examined previously.

I perceive that there was a very significant relationship between a sample of Title I high

schools’ status and academic optimism because Failing School Status is derived from student

performance and achievement on summative tests. In my experience as an educator working

within Title I secondary schools in Alabama that may have lacked academic optimism, these

schools endured high rates of suspensions, teacher burnout, disciplinary referrals, teacher

turnover, or additional variations of disruptions to the learning environment. As a result, in these

settings, academic achievement was frequently compromised. In essence, in my tenure in Title I

secondary schools, it seems a portion if not all components of academic optimism were not

present in the schools that did not perform well academically. Hence, to individuals within the

educational arena serving in Title I secondary settings that lack segments of academic optimism,

the results of this study may appear plausible.

There was also a positive relationship between CCR and academic optimism. Based on

the analysis, the hypothesis was supported. As noted, the findings supported previous research,

which indicated a positive relationship between academic optimism and student achievement

(Hoy et al., 1990; Hoy & Hannum, 1997; Hoy & Sabo, 1998). Nevertheless, new knowledge was

obtained about academic optimism regarding its relationship with CCR.

CCR indicators all include post-graduation avenues for seniors in the school. In my

experience as an educator, I have witnessed teachers and schools that exhibit the components of

academic optimism advocate for their students to attend college, assist with Financial Aid, call

colleges and universities, and even encourage students to complete resumes, letters of interest,

etc., towards their careers. However, within schools where the properties of academic optimism

may not have been present, those teachers did not promote post-graduation activities. In non-

optimistic schools, teachers were frequently in survival mode, meaning their goal was to strive to

make it (deliver instruction, not be consumed in an altercation, etc.) from one day to the next. In

addition, some teachers in non-optimistic settings did not believe that the students possessed the

skillset to make it in college and perform well in their careers. As a result, based on the

aforementioned rationale, I can foresee why there is a significant relationship between CCR and

academic optimism.

Furthermore, there was a positive relationship between the high school graduation rate

and schools’ levels of academic optimism; hence, the hypothesis was supported. These findings

will add to the body of research regarding academic optimism since the relationship between the

graduation rate and academic optimism had not been explored prior to this study. The graduation

rate is computed based on the number of seniors that graduate from high school within a cohort. I

believe that there was a significant relationship between graduation rate and academic optimism

for similar reasons that significance was found between CCR and academic optimism.

It is my belief, based on my experience as a leader and educator, that schools with high

graduation rates possess teachers and leaders who exhibit academic optimism. School educators

and leaders that demonstrate academic optimism frequently: collaborate, communicate, believe

in students, encourage students, and support students towards the goal of graduation. However,

schools that lack academic optimism may not provide support, collaborate, communicate, or

promote achievement towards graduation. Again, managing day-to-day operations may be the

ultimate goal in schools that lack academic optimism. Thus, the significant relationship between

graduation rate and academic optimism is conceivable.

However, the ELA correlation analysis revealed that the entered model did not explain

more variance than the null model. As a result, the proposed model, which examined the

relationship between ELA scores and academic optimism, was not further investigated. Thus,

this portion of the hypothesis was rejected.

Evaluating the possible rationale for why ELA ACT Scores did not have a significant

relationship to academic optimism, I surmised that ELA teachers might not have been well

represented in the study. I asked for participation from all school educators in a sample of Title I

high schools. Therefore, ELA teachers may not have been represented. In a future study, if

identifying participants' specific content area of instruction will not jeopardize the respondents’

identity, it may be beneficial to insert a preliminary question that will include the participant’s

area of specialization. Hence, researchers will be able to further scrutinize schools' levels of

academic optimism in relation to subject matter content specialization.

However, the results of an omnibus ANOVA comparing the null model to the model,

including academic optimism as a predictor of ACT math, were significant. Therefore, the

hypothesis was supported. These findings will contribute to the body of research regarding

academic optimism since the relationship between the ACT with Writing Scores and academic

optimism had not been investigated prior to this study.

Unlike ELA ACT, there was a significant relationship between math ACT and academic

optimism. Presently, the Alabama State Department of Education has revealed that schools

possess fewer math teachers. However, the participation rates from schools were relatively

moderate to high. As a result, it may be likely that math teachers participated in the study and

were able to provide insight regarding academic optimism from a mathematical teacher’s

perspective.

Although there was a significant amount of variance explained by the model predicting

CCR, there was not a significant independent contribution from faculty trust, academic

emphasis, and collective efficacy in predicting CCR in Title I high schools in Alabama. As a

result, the hypothesis was rejected. The independent contributions of academic optimism in

predicting CCR had not been studied previously. Therefore, the findings need to be further

explored. A significant amount of variance was explained by the model predicting the graduation

rate; however, there was not a significant independent contribution from faculty trust, academic

emphasis, and collective efficacy in predicting the graduation rate in Title I high schools in

Alabama. Therefore, the hypothesis was rejected. Similarly, the independent contributions of

academic optimism in predicting the graduation rate had not been examined previously.

Therefore, the findings need to be further explored.

Examining the relationship between ELA scores and academic optimism, the entered

model did not explain more variance than the null model; as a result, the proposed model was not

further investigated. Thus, this portion of the hypothesis was rejected. Similarly, the independent

contributions of academic optimism in predicting the ELA ACT with Writing had not been

examined previously. Thus, the findings need to be further researched.

Last, the math ACT results showed a significant amount of variance explained by the

model predicting a school’s ACT math scores using predictors FT, AE, and CE versus the null

model. However, there was not a significant independent contribution from any of academic

optimism’s subcomponents (faculty trust, academic emphasis, and collective efficacy) in

predicting a school’s ACT math scores in Title I high schools in Alabama. Therefore, the

hypothesis was rejected. Likewise, the independent contributions of academic optimism in

predicting the math ACT with Writing had not been examined previously. Therefore, the

findings need to be further examined.

In regard to the lack of significant independent contribution that academic emphasis,

collective efficacy, and faculty trust have on CCR, graduation rates, and 11th graders’ ACT with

Writing Achievement Scores, a correlation analysis revealed the relationship the variables have

with one another and academic optimism. The correlation variables are demonstrated in Table 7.

I perceive that the variables’ similar values were the reason that a significant independent

contribution was not evident in this study. However, the concept of academic optimism requires

all three properties to exist in order to enhance student achievement. Therefore, I can deduce that

all three components of academic optimism share similar value and significance, thus, explaining

why a significant independent contribution of academic optimism was not identified in

connection to CCR, graduation rate, achievement on the ELA, and math portions of the ACT.

Implications for Further Research

As a result of the findings in this study regarding the relationship between accountability

mandates and academic optimism, there are implications for future research. Accountability

measures have existed for decades. State and federal accountability measures will not become

obsolete futuristically. To receive federal funding, local schools are bound by accountability

mandates. In addition, in Alabama, the legislature established additional accountability for

schools based on annual summative examinations that measure students’ mastery of Alabama’s

ELA and math course of study standards (Alabama Accountability Act, 2013). The schools in the

bottom 6% of all the public schools are labeled as Failing Schools. Currently, the Failing Schools

List predominantly comprises high schools, which have been shown to have lower Alabama

State Department of Education Report Card scores.

To ensure academic growth, it would be beneficial to conduct additional studies to further

validate the relationship between academic optimism and student achievement. Research studies

consisting of larger sample sizes could be evaluated to determine the significance of the

relationship between academic optimism in larger populations. Also, longitudinal studies that

include elementary, middle, and high school students’ data could also be examined in Title I

schools in order to further expand the body of research on academic optimism. Further, future

studies regarding accountability and academic optimism could provide respondents the

opportunity to identify their content area so that researchers can provide prescriptive feedback on

academic optimism and determine who is lacking input in the study if providing this information

does not jeopardize the respondent’s identity.

Beyond student achievement, different data (discipline data, student attendance, teacher

turnover) could be studied to determine if there is a relationship between other school-level

indicators that more frequently impact impoverished communities and academic optimism.

Furthermore, additional research could transpire in a variation of school environments, from

urban and metropolitan low socioeconomic communities, to allow for an expansion of research

involving academic optimism.

Implications for District Leaders

Based on the results of the conducted analysis, this study could be used by

superintendents and district leaders with Title I high schools in Alabama seeking to improve

student achievement. District leaders serve as a model for school leaders, teachers, and

employees. Therefore, after observing teachers’ instruction in classrooms and examining

teachers’ SAOS levels, district-level employees could then provide prescriptive support and

model evidence-based practices to enhance academic optimism. For example, Questions 1-12 of

the SAOS are related to collective efficacy. This portion of the SAOS evaluates if teachers feel

safe, supported, and have the ability to perform collectively in order to accomplish school-related

goals (Hoy et al., 2006). Therefore, district leaders should optimistically interact with schools

and support schools to promote collective efficacy. In fact, district leaders should promote

opportunities for district, teacher, and school collaboration (Donohoo et al., 2018). For example,

there could be days on the district calendar designated for collaboration before school starts,

during the school year, or in the summer. In addition, to ensure that each school has support,

district leaders could organize and promote mentoring programs, where teachers serve as

mentors for novice teachers or for all teachers who need support in each school building.

Essentially, mastery-level expertise should be encouraged and supported from the district level

(Hattie, 2008).

Questions 13-22 of the SAOS address faculty trust of students and parents. This segment

of the survey relates to if teachers feel they can trust parents and students to be reliable and

committed to success. To enhance faculty trust, district leaders should strive to emulate positive

relationships with parents and the community. District leaders are capable of empowering

principals, faculty, staff, parents, and students by modeling open, honest, and respectful

communication that exemplifies and elucidates the expectations of the school community in its

entirety (Forsyth et al., 2011). Enhancing positive relationships from the district level sets the bar

for school-level employees. The effect of setting an expectation of positive relationships with

parents and the community can spread from the top throughout schools (Bryk & Schneider,

2002).

Last, the school community should promote high behavioral and academic expectations.

Questions 23-30 on the SAOS examined academic emphasis. Superintendents, school

administrators, district leaders, teachers, staff, stakeholders, parents, and students should actively

promote high expectations in terms of academics and behavior (Hattie, 2008). District leaders

should encourage school leaders to publicly promote academic and behavioral excellence

throughout the school system. District leaders could also promote academic excellence on the

school system’s website, via social media, in newspapers, through media coverage, and

incentives.

Implications for School Leaders

Similar to this study and previous studies involving academic optimism, school leaders

should first measure their schools’ levels of academic optimism (Beard et al., 2010; Hoy et al.,

2006; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006; Smith & Hoy, 2007). Next, schools striving to increase student

achievement scores should examine the latent constructs of academic optimism individually to

determine which areas teachers have indicated need improvement. Finally, it may be beneficial

for school administrators to increase evidence-based practices to enhance schools’ collective

efficacy, faculty trust in students and parents, and academic emphasis in areas that teachers rated

optimistically low (Hattie, 2008). For example, school leaders striving to enhance collective

efficacy could organize professional learning communities (PLCs), offer variations of support,

and create a climate for all teachers to be optimistic, vulnerable, and innovative (Hattie, 2008). In

addition, school leaders should enhance a collaborative culture and climate by allowing teachers

to visit other classrooms for support. In essence, school leaders should strive to demonstrate and

facilitate opportunities for teachers to communicate and interact in order to partner and

communicate shared expectations for the advancement of school children (Hoy, 2002).

One way for school leaders to advance faculty trust in parents and students is to enhance

and model positive interactions with students and parents. Essentially, to enhance faculty trust,

there should be opportunities for respectful, open, and honest communication (Butler & Cantrell,

1984; Hoy et al., 2006). Furthermore, as a school leader, it would be beneficial to facilitate

celebrations involving the collaboration of the teachers, parents, and students to establish

optimistic relationships and a sense of community (Forsyth et al., 2006). To increase faculty

trust, administrators should encourage positive teacher, student, and parent communication and

relationships (Bryk &Schneider, 2002)

Furthermore, school administrators should seek grant funding and other resources that

will help students excel based on the principles of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow,

1943). Leaders should strive to ensure that students are safe, have the resources, and are capable

of performing in an environment conducive to learning (Maslow, 1943). In addition, leaders

should build positive relationships with students and exude high expectations in terms of

academics and behavior with consistency and fairness. School leaders should also publicly

foster, communicate, acknowledge, and celebrate behavioral and academic achievement (Hattie,

2008; Hoy et al., 2006). Last, school leaders should facilitate academic and behavioral

celebrations to recognize students achieving the school’s mission and vision towards success.

Implications for Teachers

School teachers striving to build the individual components of academic optimism:

collective efficacy, faculty trust in students in parents, and academic emphasis could use

research-based strategies to enhance academic optimism. To build collective efficacy, school

teachers could promote social persuasion by serving as mentors for novice teachers and offering

public praise for positive behaviors through (a) vicarious experiences, working collaboratively to

visit each other’s classrooms, (b) affective state, promoting a positive school culture and climate

by exhibiting optimism, holding everyone accountable while providing support, and (c) by

enhancing mastery experience opportunities for all teachers to achieve mastery and success of

individual and school-related goals (Bandura, 1997; Hattie, 2008).

According to Hattie (2008), it is essential that “parents are educated on the language of

schooling so that the home and school can share in the expectations, and the child does not have

to live in two worlds” (p. 70). As a result, to enhance the faculty trust of parents and students,

schoolteachers should frequently communicate with parents to ensure that parents are

knowledgeable and supportive of the mission and vision of the school. When teachers

communicate, collaborate, listen, and allow parents to have positive interactions in schools,

strong positive connections with schools can occur (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Teachers can then

develop faculty trust with the parents and students. To enhance academic emphasis, teachers

must build positive relationships with students, which is a deterrent to disciplinary issues. In

addition, teachers must believe their students can achieve, stress the importance of academic

performance, offer resources, foster academic and behavioral support, and frequently provide

positive incentives for students who strive to perform (Hattie, 2008).

Implications for Policymakers

Schools across the nation are responsible for educating students to prepare them for

college and/or careers. Although every state is provided the option to refute funding from the

federal government, the funding is most often needed, especially in impoverished communities.

In Alabama, schools in impoverished communities rely on funding from the federal government

and the State Department to operate efficiently. However, the federal government and the

Alabama State Department of Education established guidelines and stipulations in order for state

schools to receive supplemental funding (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.b.). Title I and other

Title funding from the federal government are used to ensure schools have supplemental

resources and services to remain operational. However, federal funding is tied to federal

regulations and mandates.

In Alabama, accountability mandates have been established by the Alabama State

Department of Education based on requirements from the United States Department of Education

federal government (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.a.). Based on the Every Student

Succeeds Act (ESSA), established by President Barack Obama in 2015, annually, the local and

federal government publishes Report Cards that will include achievement data (U.S. Department

of Education, n.d.a). Also, the Alabama State Department of Education Accountability

Guidelines indicates that Alabama’s high schools are required to graduate students college and/or

career-prepared. In addition to the State Report Card, AAA establishes another level of

accountability for schools in Alabama. The Failing Schools List was created by policymakers in

Alabama and is published annually.

Hoy et al. (2006) indicated, “The reform and accountability movements have promoted a

press toward the academic achievement of all students (No Child Left Behind Act, 2002). The

focus of schooling is clear-it is an academic one. A push for academic achievement, however, in

an environment where teachers do not feel efficacious is a recipe for frustration and stress. The

challenge is to create school conditions in which teachers believe they are up to the task and so

are their students” (p. 441). As a result, policymakers should be cognizant that some teachers can

easily become overwhelmed by the stress and weight that too many accountability measures

have placed on schools with extreme cultural challenges. Therefore, policies should enhance

mechanisms to encourage teachers and students to believe that they are equipped to be effective.

Currently, there is a crisis in Alabama to retain teachers (Smith, 2022). Thus, it is pivotal that

policymakers are aware that too many accountability mandates coupled with the lack of support

and resources may enhance stress and frustration and may influence teachers to leave the

teaching profession altogether.

Delimitations

The convenience sample consisted of 60 Title I High schools in Alabama. In order to

examine if there was a relationship between academic optimism and the Failing Schools List,

despite SES, the sample in this study was limited to schools in low socioeconomic communities.

In addition, a section was not included to distinguish the school departments or specific content

areas of teachers being represented in the study. As a result, there may be content specialists who

were not represented in this study.

Limitations

Several limitations transpired while developing this study. First, it was difficult to contact

superintendents. Second, due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, physical visitations to

school systems were limited. Participation rates may have been higher, but visitations were not

allowed. Then, the SAOS was not distributed in person; instead, it was collected and

administered to high school teachers electronically via Qualtrics due to the COVID-19

pandemic. To curtail the spread of the virus throughout the school community, schools in

Alabama disallowed visitors from entering campuses. Another limitation was the data used in

this study was based on the latest publications of the Failing School List and the Alabama State

Department of Education Report Card; however, the Failing Schools List and the Alabama State

Department of Education’s Report Card have not been updated since the pandemic commenced.

As a result, the data from this study was from the 2018-2019 school year.

Conclusion

Though poverty has been historically noted as a barrier to achievement, high schools are

expected to remain above the bottom 6% of schools in Alabama via AAA and enhance college

and careers, the graduation rate, and student achievement, as measured by the annual Alabama

State Department of Education Report Card. Leaders and educators within Title I high schools

must embrace the trend of state and federal accountability measures by researching and

implementing evidence-based strategies that surpass the notion of low SES. There is currently a

body of research that provides evidence that indicates that school-level factors improved student

achievement, despite SES. Academic optimism is a construct that has had proven results (Bevel

& Mitchell, 2012; Cassity, 2012, Hoy et al., 2006; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006; Smith & Hoy, 2007;

Tschannen-Moran et al., 2013). As a result, school leaders throughout the nation should assess,

analyze, and address their teachers’ levels of academic emphasis, collective efficacy, and faculty

trust and implement evidence-based practices to enhance overall student achievement and

success (Hoy et al., 2006).

In this study, a significant relationship between Alabama’s Failing Schools List and

academic optimism was revealed, despite SES. A significant relationship between academic

optimism and a segment of Alabama’s high school accountability indicators: CCR, graduation

rate, and math ACT with Writing, was also indicated in this study. Based on the findings of this

study, when combined, the properties of academic optimism (academic emphasis, collective

efficacy, and faculty trust) have a relationship with student achievement in a sample of

Alabama’s Title I high schools.

 
 
74 
 
REFERENCES  
Alabama Accountability Act of 2013, Stat.§§ 6D-16-6D-1-16-6D-9 (2013).  
https://revenue.alabama.gov/legal/alabama-accountability-act/ 
 
AAA Schools. (2019). Alabama state department of education.  
  https://www.alabamaachieves.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/AAA-Failing-School-
List-November-2019.xlsb 
 
Alabama Media Group. (2013, November 12). What's changed under common core? Comparing 
the old and new standards in Alabama.  
https://www.al.com/spotnews/2013/11/whats_changed_under_the_common.html 
 
Alabama Policy Council-Guide to Issues. (n.d). The Alabama accountability act.  
  https://alabamapolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2013-Alabama-Accountability-
Act-GTI.pdf   
 
Alabama State Department of Education. (2019). Alabama accountability system:  
  Technical Guide. https://www.alabamaachieves.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2018-
2019-Accountability-Technical-Guide-Fall-2019.pdf 
 
Alabama State Department of Education. (2022). Business rules.  
https://www.alabamaachieves.org/reports-data/school-data/business-rules/ 
 
Alabama State Department of Education. (2022). Glossary of terms.    
https://www.alabamaachieves.org/reports-data/school-data/glossary-of-terms/ 
 Alabama State Department of Education. (2015). Alabama state board of education:  
  PLAN 2020. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/approved-
  requests/alapprovalattach.pdf 
 
Alabama State Department of Education. (n.d.) Alabama state department  
of education report card. https://reportcard.alsde.edu/SelectSchool.aspx 
 
Alabama State Department of Education. (2022). Welcome to the Alabama state  
department of education. https://www.alabamaachieves.org/ 
 
Alex-Alabama Learning Exchange. (2022). Courses of study.   
http://alex.state.al.us/browseStand.php
 
 

 
 
75 
 
Alspaugh, J. W. (1998). Achievement loss is associated with the transition to middle  
school and high school. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(1), 20-25. 
  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679809597572  
 
A+ Education Partnership. (2014). Academic standards in Alabama.  
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED560224.pdf 
 
Baier, A. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96(2), 231-60.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/2381376 
 
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American  
Psychologist, 44(9) 1175-1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.44.9.1175 
 
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and  
functioning, Educational Psychologist, 28(2) 117-148. 
  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3     
 
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W H Freeman/Times Books/  
Henry Holt & Co. 
 
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.  
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-  295X.84.2.191 
 
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.  
Prentice-Hall. 
 
Barber, B. (1983). The Logic and Limits of Trust. Rutgers University Press. 
 
Beard, K. S., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. W. (2010). Academic optimism of individual 
teachers: Confirming a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1136-1144. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.02.003 
 
Bevel, R. K. (2010). The effects of academic optimism on student academic achievement  
  in Alabama. https://ir.ua.edu/bitstream/handle/123456789/742/file _1.pdf?sequence = 1 
 
Bevans, K., Bradshaw, C., Leaf, P., & Miech, R. (2007). Staff and school-level predictors  
  of school organizational health: A multi-level analysis. The Journal of School Health, 
77(6), 294-302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2007.00210.x 
 
Bevel, R., & Mitchell, R. M. (2012). The effects of academic optimism on elementary  
reading achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(6), 773-787. 
  https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211264685 
 
Bidwell, A. (2014, February 27). The history of common core standards. U.S. News.  
  https://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/articles/2014/02/27/the-history-of-
  common-core-state-standards 
 

 
 
76 
 
Bower, H. A., & Powers, J. D. (2010). What is rigor? A qualitative analysis of one  
school’s definition. Academic Leadership, 7(4), 1-14. 
  https://scholars.fhsu.edu/alj/vol7/iss4/39 
 
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.  
Russell Sage Foundation. 
 
Butler, J. K., Jr., & Cantrell, R. S. (1984). A behavioral decision theory approach to  
  modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55, 19-28. 
https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1984.55.1.19 
 
Cassity, A. (2012). Relationships among perceptions of professional learning  
  communities, school academic optimism, and student achievement in Alabama middle 
and high schools [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama]. 
https://ir.ua.edu/handle/123456789/1529 
 
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld,  
  F.D., & York, R.L. (1966). Quality of educational opportunity. 
  https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED012275.pdf 
 
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2022a). Standards in your state. 
http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/#:~:text = 
Forty%2Done%20states%2C%20the%20District,the%20Common%20Core%20State%2
0Standards. 
 Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2022b). What parents should know. 
http://www.corestandards.org/what-parents-should-know/ 
 Council of Chief State School Officers. (n.d.) Alabama college and career ready  
standards; includes adoption of common core ELA and math in 2010. 
https://ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/Alabama.pdf 
 Dailey, D. (2019). College and career readiness in Alabama. Public Affairs Research  
  Council of Alabama. https://parcalabama.org/college-and-career-readiness-in-alabama/ 
 
Department of Education. (n.d.) Office of elementary and secondary education.  
  https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/school-support-and-
  accountability/essa-legislation-table-contents/title-i-part-a/ 
 
DiPaola, M. F. & Wagner, C. (2011). Academic optimism of high school teachers: Its  
relationship to organizational citizenship behaviors and student  
achievement. Journal of School Leadership, 21(6), 891-924. 
  https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461102100607 
 

 
 
77 
 
Donohoo, J., Hattie, J. & Eells, R. (2018, March 1). The power of collective 
  efficacy. https://educacion.udd.cl/files/2021/01/The-Power-of-Collective-
  Efficacy_Hattie.pdf 
 
Ed.gov. (n.d.). A parent guide to state and local report cards.  
  https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/parent-guide-state-local-report-cards.pdf  
 
Edmonds, R. (1979). Some schools work, and more can. Social Policy, 9, 28-32. 
 
Forsyth, P. B., Adams, C. M., & Hoy, W. K. (2011). Collective trust: Why schools can’t improve 
without it. Teachers College Press. 
 
Forsyth, P. B., Barnes, L. L. B., & Adams, C. M. (2006). Trust-effectiveness patterns in schools. 
Journal of Educational Administration, 44(2), 122-141. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230610652024 
 
Goddard, R. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of collective 
efficacy: The development of a short form. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 
62(1), 97-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164402062001007 
Goddard, R. G., Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). The academic emphasis of urban 
elementary schools and student achievement: A multi-level analysis. Educational 
Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 692-701. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610021969164 
 
Goddard, R. D., Tchannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Teacher trust in students and 
parents: A multi-level examination of teacher trust's distribution and effects in urban 
elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 102, 3-17. 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1002166 
 
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical 
development, empirical evidence, and future directions. Education Researcher, 33(3), 3-
13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033003003  
 
Guthrie, J. W., & Springer, M. G. (2004). A nation at risk revisited: Did "wrong" reasoning 
  result in "right" results? At what cost? Peabody Journal of Education, 79(1), 7-35. 
  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327930pje7901_2   
 
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of meta-analyses relating to achievement.  
Routledge. 
 
Hill, J. & Smith, C. (2013). Alabama's college-and career-ready standards: Clarifying  
  common core concerns. http://www.alabamapolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/Common-
  Core-White-Paper.pdf 
  
Hoy, W. K. (2002). Faculty trust: A key to student achievement. Journal of School Public 
Relations, 23, 88-103. https://www.waynekhoy.com/faculty-trust/ 
 

Hoy, W. (2012). School characteristics that make a difference for the achievement of all

students. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(1), 76-97. https://doi.org/10.1108/

09578231211196078

Hoy, W. K. (n.d). Teacher academic optimism: School AO.

https://www.waynekhoy.com/school-ao/

Hoy, W. K., Gage III, C. Q., & Tarter, C. J. (2006). School mindfulness and faculty trust:

Necessary conditions for each other? Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 236.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04273844

Hoy, W. K., & Hannum, J. W. (1997). Middle school climate: An empirical assessment of

organizational health and student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly,

33(3), 290-311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X97033003003

Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2005). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice

(7th ed). McGraw-Hill.

Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2013). Educational administration: theory, research, and practice

(9th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill.

Hoy, W. K., & Sabo, D. J. (1998). Quality middle schools: Open and healthy.

Corwin Press.

Hoy, W. K., Smith, P. A., & Sweetland, S. R. (2002). A test of a model of school

achievement in rural schools: The significance of collective efficacy. In W.K. Hoy &

Miskel (Eds). Theory and research in educational administration (pp. 185-202).

Information Age.

Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to free and healthy schools: A handbook for

change. Corwin Press.

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Bliss, J. R. (1990). Organizational climate, school health,

and effectiveness: A comparative analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly,

26, 260-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X90026003004

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, A. W. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A

force for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal,

43(3), 425-446. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043003425

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools:

Measuring organizational climate. Sage.

Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The conceptualization and measurement of

faculty trust in schools. In W. K. Hoy & Miskel (Eds.), Studies in leading and

organizing schools (pp. 181-208). Information Age Publishing, Inc.

 
 
79 
 
 
Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five faces of trust: An empirical confirmation in 
urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership, 9(3), 184-208. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/105268469900900301  
 
Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J. & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991). Open schools/Healthy schools: Measuring 
organizational climate. Sage.  
 
Kirby, M. M., & DiPaola, M. (2009). Academic optimism and achievement: A path  
model. In W. K. Hoy & M. DiPaola (Eds.), Studies in school improvement (pp. 77-94).
  Information Age Publishing, Inc. 
 
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370- 
396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346 
 
McGuigan, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2006). Principal leadership: Creating a culture of  
academic optimism to improve achievement for all students. Administration and Policy in 
Schools, 5(3), 203-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760600805816 
 
Myers, D. G., (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American  
Psychologist, 55, 56-67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.56 
 
Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of  
Personality, 35(4), 651-665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x 
 
Shouse, R. C. (1995, April 18-22). Academic press and school sense of community: Sources of 
friction, prospects for synthesis [Paper presentation]. The Annual Meeting of the 
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. 
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED387868.pdf 
 
Seligman, M. (2006). Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life (2nd ed.).  
Pocket Books.  
 
Smith, P. A. & Hoy, W. K. (2007). Academic optimism and student achievement in urban  
elementary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(5), 556-568. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230710778196  
 
Smith, R. (2022, February 22). Alabama makes system changes to hire more teachers [Video]. 
https://www.wsfa.com/2022/02/23/alabama-makes-system-changes-hire-more-
teachers/#:~:text=MONTGOMERY%2C%20Ala.,Alabama%20is%20of%20great%20co
ncern 
 
The Princeton Review. (n.d.). What is the ACT?  
https://www.princetonreview.com/college/act-information 
 
 

 
80 
 
Tschannen-Moran, M., Bankole, R. A., Mitchell, R. M., Moore, D. M. (2013).  
Student academic optimism: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Educational 
Administration, 51(2), 150-175. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311304689 
 
Tschannen-Moran, M. & Hoy, W.K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of nature,  
meaning and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 547-92. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070004547 
 
Tschannen-Moran, M. & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Trust in schools: A conceptual and  
empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 36, 334-352. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239810211518  
 
Tyler, R. W. (2013). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University  
of Chicago Press. 
 
U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Laws and guidance.  
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/landing.jhtml?src = pn 
 
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.a.). Every student succeeds act.   
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html 
 
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.b.). Improving basic programs operated by local  
educational agencies (Title I, Part A).  
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html#:~:text = 
Schools%20in%20which%20children%20from,of%20the%20lowest%2Dachieving%20st
udents

Appendix A: School Academic Optimism Survey (SAOS)

SAOS Survey for Title I High Schools

Start of Block: Default Question Block

Procedures, protocol, and consent information for academic optimism study Please review the

procedures and protocol for this study in the link attached to this question. By clicking yes, you

acknowledge that you have read the procedures and protocols. By clicking yes, you are agreeing

to participate in this study. Your individual responses will remain anonymous. If you select no,

the survey will end immediately. Thank you in advance.

o Yes (1)

o No (2)

Skip To: End of Survey If Procedures, Protocol, and Consent for Academic Optimism Study ! = Yes

I am a certified teacher in this School.

o Yes (1)

o No (2)

Skip To: End of Survey If I am a certified teacher in this School. ! = Yes

I am a teacher at one of the following schools:

Page Break

Q1. Teachers in this school are able to get through to the most difficult students.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Some Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q2. Teachers here are confident they will be able to motivate their students.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q3. If a child doesn't want to learn teachers here give up.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q4. Teachers here don’t have the skills needed to produce meaningful results.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q5. Teachers in this school believe that every child can learn.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q6. These students come to school ready to learn.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q7. Home life provides so many advantages that students are bound to learn.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q8. Students here just aren’t motivated to learn.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q9. Teachers in this school do not have the skills to deal with student disciplinary

problems.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q10. The opportunities in this community help ensure that these students will learn.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q11. Achievement is more difficult at this school because students are worried about their

safety.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q12. Drug and alcohol abuse in the community make achievement difficult for students

here.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q13. Teachers in this school trust their students.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q14. Teachers in this school trust the parents.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q15. Students in this school care about each other.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q16. Parents in this school are reliable in their commitments.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q17. Students in this school can be counted upon to do their work.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q18. Teachers can count upon parental support.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q19. Teachers here believe that students are competent learners.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q20. Teachers think that most of the parents do a good job.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q21. Teachers can believe what parents tell them.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q22. Students here are secretive.

o Strongly Disagree (1)

o Disagree (2)

o Somewhat Disagree (3)

o Somewhat Agree (4)

o Agree (5)

o Strongly Agree (6)

Q23. The school sets high standards for performance.

o Rarely (1)

o Sometimes (2)

o Often (3)

o Very Often (4)

Q24. Students respect others who get good grades.

o Rarely (1)

o Sometimes (2)

o Often (3)

o Very Often (4)

Q25. Students seek extra work so they can get good grades.

o Rarely (1)

o Sometimes (2)

o Often (3)

o Very Often (4)

Q26. Academic achievement is recognized and acknowledged by the school.

o Rarely (1)

o Sometimes (2)

o Often (3)

o Very Often (4)

Q27. Students try hard to improve on previous work.

o Rarely (1)

o Sometimes (2)

o Often (3)

o Very Often (4)

Q28. The achievement environment is orderly and serious.

o Rarely (1)

o Sometimes (2)

o Often (3)

o Very Often (4)

Q29. The students in this school can achieve the goals that have been set for them.

o Rarely (1)

o Sometimes (2)

o Often (3)

o Very Often (4)

Q30. Teachers in this school believe that their students have the ability to achieve

academically.

o Rarely (1)

o Sometimes (2)

o Often (3)

o Very Often (4)

End of Block: Default Question Block

Appendix B: IRB Approval

Appendix C: Superintendent’s Recruitment Letter

March 30, 2021

To: Superintendent

From: Shayla McCray, J.D.

Re: Dissertation Survey Distribution

I am currently working on my dissertation in Educational Administration at the

University of Alabama. The title of my research is “Academic Optimism - An Approach to

Predicting the Failing Schools List, College and Career Readiness (CCR) Scores, The

Graduation Rate, and Achievement in Title I High Schools Throughout Alabama.” As part of my

research, I am conducting an online survey using the School Academic Optimism Scale (SAOS).

The SAOS measures the collective efficacy of the school, the faculty trust of parents and

teachers, and the Academic Optimism of the school. The survey is no more than 10 minutes

long.

For decades, federal accountability mandates have permeated public schools. Currently,

based on the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), Alabama’s public schools are

measured via indicators on the State Report Card provided by the Alabama State Department of

Education. In addition, schools are evaluated via Alabama Legislature’s Accountability Act

(AAA). Despite poverty/socioeconomic barriers, Title I high schools are tasked with enhancing

student achievement as well as graduating students to be College and Career Ready, prepared to

compete in a global society.

This research will examine the effects of Academic Optimism on the “Failing” Schools

List and high school’s accountability indicators: college and career readiness scores, the

graduation rate, and achievement in Title I high schools throughout Alabama by proposing the

following research questions:

1. Is there a significant difference between the levels of academic optimism in Title I high

schools identified on the Failing Schools List and Title I high schools that are not

identified on the Failing Schools List in Alabama, despite SES?

2. To what extent is there a significant relationship between schools’ academic optimism

and college and career readiness scores, the graduation rate, and reading and math ACT

achievement scores on the ACT?

3. What is the independent contribution that academic emphasis, collective efficacy, and

faculty trust have on college and career readiness scores, the graduation rate, and reading

and math ACT achievement scores on the ACT in randomly selected Title I high schools

located in Alabama?

After obtaining the teachers’ consent and their responses in regard to academic

optimism, there will be multiple analyses conducted. The following statistical tests will be

utilized: independent samples t-test, bivariate correlation, and multiple regression via IBM

SPSS 27 in order to find the results. No specific participant’s information will be gathered or

disclosed. The participant’s individual online survey results will remain anonymous.

The research sample will include teachers’ responses from randomly selected Title I

high schools throughout Alabama. Socioeconomic status (SES) data, College and Career

(CCR) data, graduation rate, and ACT math and reading Scores will be obtained from the

State Department of Education Report Card found on the Alabama State Department of

Education website. Thank you for your consideration and your assistance. I have included

contact information for my Dissertation Committee Chair at the University of Alabama as

well as myself. I am readily available if questions arise.

Thank you kindly in advance for your support,

Shayla McCray, J.D. Dr. Jingping Sun, Dissertation Committee Chair

Doctoral Student at the University of Alabama Associate Professor, University of Alabama

sacrenshaw@crimson.ua.edu Jsun22@ua.edu

334-301-8971 205-826-6830

100

Appendix D: Principal’s Letter Seeking Support

April 30, 2021

Dear High School Principal,

I am currently working on my dissertation in Educational Administration at the University of Alabama. The

title of my research is “Academic Optimism - An Approach to Predicting Alabama’s Failing Schools List, College

and Career Readiness (CCR), The Graduation Rate, and Achievement in Title I High Schools Throughout

Alabama.” As part of my research, I am conducting an online survey using the School Academic Optimism Scale

(SAOS). The SAOS measures the academic emphasis, collective efficacy of the school, and the faculty trust of

parents and teachers, which is collectively called academic optimism. I gained consent to administer the SAOS

Survey from your superintendent before contacting you.

For decades, federal accountability mandates have permeated public schools. Currently, based on the Every

Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), Alabama’s public schools are measured via indicators on the State Report

Card provided from the Alabama State Department of Education. In addition, schools are evaluated via Alabama

Accountability Act (AAA). Despite poverty/socioeconomic barriers, Title I high schools are tasked with enhancing

student achievement as well as graduating students to be College and Career Ready, prepared to compete in a global

society.

` The research sample will include teachers’ responses from randomly selected Title I high schools

throughout Alabama. No specific participant’s information will be gathered or disclosed. The participant’s

individual online survey results will remain anonymous. Socioeconomic status (SES) data, College and Career

Readiness (CCR) scores, Graduation Rate, and ACT math and ELA scores will be obtained from the State

Department of Education Report Card found on the Alabama State Department of Education website.

This research will examine the effects of academic optimism on the Failing Schools List and high schools’

accountability indicators: College and Career Readiness Scores, the Graduation Rate, and achievement in Title I

high schools throughout Alabama. Will you please email your teachers the procedures, protocol, and consent

document as well as the SAOS survey or provide your faculty’s e-mail addresses to me? I thank you for your

consideration. I have included the contact information for my Dissertation Committee Chair at the University of

Alabama as well as myself. I am readily available if questions arise.

If you have questions about the study or need to report a study-related issue, please contact:

Name of Principal Investigator: Shayla McCray, J.D.

Title: Doctoral Student at the University of Alabama

Department Name: Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Technology Studies

Telephone: (334)301-8971

Email address: sacrenshaw@crimson.ua.edu

Faculty Advisor’s Name: Dr. Jingping Sun

Department Name: Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Technology Studies

Telephone: (205)348-6082

Email address: jsun22@ua.edu

Thank you in advance!

101

Appendix E: IRB Amended Approval

1 views·113 pages

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACADEMIC OPTIMISM AND ALABAMA'S ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES IN A SELECTION OF TITLE I HIGH SCHOOLS THROUGHOUT ALABAMA PDF Free Download

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACADEMIC OPTIMISM AND ALABAMA'S ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES IN A SELECTION OF TITLE I HIGH SCHOOLS THROUGHOUT ALABAMA PDF free Download. Think more deeply and widely.

Uploaded by enewman on 3/12/2026

/113

100%