Building Capacity for Program Sustainability in Schools Partnering with the Center for Supportive Schools for the Peer Group Connection Program
Whitney Fliehman April 21, 2021
In fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education in Leadership and Learning in Organizations Capstone Advisor
Dr. Marisa Cannata
Acknowledgements
I want to express my gratitude to the staff at the Center for Supportive Schools, along with teachers and administrators at the partnering schools offering the Peer Group Connection program. My experience working with this organization was both educational and rewarding; I am thankful for their collaboration and support. Additionally, I would like to thank Peabody College at Vanderbilt University for designing such an innovative and transformative program focusing on excellence in organizational leadership. I am particularly appreciative of Dr. Eve Rifkin and Dr. David Laird for challenging me to be a better learner, and Dr. Marisa Cannata whose constant support meant more than she will ever know. Furthermore Vanderbilt University afforded me a most unexpected, but treasured gift in my fellow cohort members. I am beyond grateful to each member of the cohort and the immense positive impact they have made on my professional and personal life.
Throughout the last three years, my siblings: Debbie, Dillan, and Paula; extended family:
Bubba, Nana, Pop & Mop, Aunt Toni, Hannah, Liam, Billy, Savannah, Angela, Anna, Daren, Aunt Jane, Jimmy Watkins family, Rachel, Rich, TJ, Wade, Cody & Lauren, Carolyn, Chuck, Aunt Linda & Uncle Danny, Brian & Lauren, Melissa & Hayden, Aunt Eleanor & Uncle Jimmy, the Robin Sharpe family, the Richard Sharpe family, Rodney, and Uncle Dale; friends, near and far; along with my co-workers have supported me in my educational endeavors. Their support and encouragement saw me through challenge and set-back, while their cheers helped me to celebrate milestones. For their patience, understanding, and inspiration, “thank you” does not seem to say enough. My friends and colleagues have often seen and sought out the potential within me that I used to struggle to find within myself; for those that have nurtured the confidence and skills to manifest my vision, I am so thankful. I am eternally grateful for the support and love my family have constantly bestowed upon me throughout my life as I continuously enrolled in school to chase a dream that continued to grow; this small-town, southern girl is well on her way. To my siblings, who always push me to go after what I want in life and believe I can accomplish anything, I am so appreciative for your support and unwavering love. All of you have been such a special part of my journey.
Finally, there is no way to adequately express the gratitude I have for my parents and partner. Derek, your kind heart, listening ear, and steadfast love are one of the greatest blessings in my life. I am so thankful for the time you spent listening to my lamenting about school and issues with my projects, but never once complained. I love you and am forever grateful for your love and support. As a first generation college student, the sacrifices my parents have made for my success have not gone unnoticed, although they are not recognized nearly enough. For teaching me the value of hard work, the importance of integrity, and instilling in me the knowledge that I could do and be anything I set my mind to, you are who made this degree possible. Your patience, understanding, and unconditional love have been the cornerstone in which I have always entrusted the foundation of the life I am building. Your love and support have made this challenging journey possible. Thank you, Mom and Deddy.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary………..3
Introduction……….…..5
Context and Problem………...7
A. Organization Context B. Problem of Practice Literature Review………....13
Theoretical Framework………....23
Questions………..31
Project Design………..32
A. Data Collection B. Data Analysis Findings……….40
Study Limitations………..……….63
Recommendations………..64
Conclusion………...73
References………...75
Appendices………..83
Executive Summary
High school graduation rates are consistently used as a measure of success among schools in the United States; as such decreasing dropout rates are consistently in the forefront of policy, practices, and programming in regards to the educational system. Numerous studies have been conducted to determine the factors contributing to dropout and best practices for
eliminating those factors. More importantly than just a measure of success for the educational system, not completing high school is noted had having the potential to tremendously impact a person’s life in a negative way. As Elizabeth Warren said, “A good education is a foundation for a better future” (Warren, 2013, p. 1). The lack of a good education in the United States can lead to a life more prone to violence, mental illness, poverty, and poorer physical health (Stearns &
Glennie, 2006; Wilkins & Bost, 2016).
As a result of attempting to understand and combat high school dropout, organizations across the country have formed to join in the cause of ending high school disengagement and dropout. The Center for Supportive Schools (CSS) in an organization committed to reengaging students and ending high school dropout. Established with the desire to see students from all walks of life graduate high school with the skills needed to live a fulfilled life, CSS founders created dropout prevention programming; the program of focus for this study is Peer Group Connection. Peer Group Connection is designed to instill leadership skills in staff and peer leaders, who will then facilitate outreach sessions to 6th or 9th graders and initiate a mentoring relationship among all participants with the hopes of engaging students in the school community.
However, bringing a program like PGC to a school is not always an easy task. This project will seek to determine facilitating conditions and organizational change capacity for a successful
partnership; what conditions determine sustainability; and finally, what impact Covid-19 closure and subsequent transition to remote and/or hybrid learning has had on sustainability.
Through a combination of existing literature; viewing the PGC program through the lens of the socio-ecological model and Coburn’s (2003) four dimensions of scale (depth, shift in ownership, spread, and sustainability); along with a mixed methods approach, where quantitative data was collected via survey and qualitative data from focus groups, the researched produced insightful findings and paved the way for recommendations for improvement. The study showed organizational change capacity and facilitating conditions were key components of reform efforts; of which leadership, trust, capable champions, and PGC training emerged from the data as areas of focus. There is evidence of commitment to the sustainability of PGC programs at the school and CSS level providing indications of a shift in ownership of the PGC program, while the importance of and a need for district and community leadership emerged as an important contributor to sustainability. In addition, the data indicated Covid-19 closure and virtual learning environment created new barriers to engagement and PGC sustainability.
Following an analysis of the findings, this project seeks to use positive practices
discovered in the literature review and promising practices of CSS identified in the data to offer recommendations for improvement; again recommendations will also align to creating
interventions across the levels of the socio-ecological model. One recommendation includes the creation and implementation of a Leadership Summit for district administrators and community level leaders. This summit will be designed with the goal of bringing district and community leaders together for a dedicated time to learn about all that PGC is and can accomplish, while also giving them the tools to ensure the success and sustainability of these programs within their districts and communities. Additionally, a PGC: Teach session is offered as a way to engage
more stakeholders and ensure the sustainability of the program by creating capable champions who are ready to keep the reform efforts moving forward in the face of faculty and/or leadership turnover. A guide to building community partnerships for sustainability will be recommended as a way to assist schools with finding funding and endearing community support will be proposed.
Finally, a case for digitizing the PGC curriculum will be outlined as a means to support adaptability and sustainability of PGC programs.
Introduction
“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”
-Nelson Mandela In 2018 there were an estimated 2.1 million status dropouts in the United States based on data collected by the American Community Survey (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020, May). According to the National Center for Education Statistics, “…dropout rate represents the percentage of 16 –to-24 year olds who are not enrolled in school and have not earned a high school credential (either a diploma or an equivalency credential such as a GED certificate)” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). Although the proportion to dropouts has declined by more than half since the late 1960s, there are still wide-spread disparities by race, Hispanic origin, and foreign-born status (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). The impact high school dropouts have on economic, societal, and healthcare systems in the United States are substantial. Thus, dropout prevention has consistently been a problem American schools have attempted to solve for decades. Many agencies have attempted to take on the challenge of decreasing the dropout rate, but there is still great work to be done in this area.
CSS is an organization who has taken on the charge of attempting to assist schools in tackling this problem. Beginning in the spring of 2020, I was afforded the opportunity to partner with CSS to study a problem of practice they would like to improve. CSS is an educational agency, which envisions an educational system where every school is safe, supportive, engaging, and inspiring (CSS, 2018). This organization seeks to create and implement programs into middle and high schools with the goal of supporting students to graduation and provide them with skills for a life of fulfillment. The Lancet (2021) notes the education system will prove more beneficial when they include programs “…that better support the cognitive and behavioral skills of children-self-reliance, decision making, anxiety management, communication, and assertiveness-will enable them to thrive” (p. 253). CSS programs are designed to meet the social- emotional needs of students in way most core content teachers are not able to as a result of attempting to meet curriculum constraints, or do not have the training necessary to meet such unique needs of students.
This study will seek to determine obstacles to program sustainability in regards to CSS’
PGC program. Each year CSS partners with middle and high schools to implement their PGC program; implementation process takes place over a two year period. Following the initial phases of the program, schools enter a sustaining phase where they receive less direct support from CSS and have to rely on their own human and fiscal resources. After entering the sustaining phase, about 30% of partnering Peer Group Connection schools will fail to sustain their program (L.
Shouldis, personal communication, February 12, 2021). The problem of schools not sustaining the program is two-fold. First, CSS invests a great deal of resources into planning and
implementing the program into partnering schools; those efforts seem wasteful when those programs are not sustained. Additionally, CSS needs long-term data to show program impact in
order to qualify for competitive funding and grants. Secondly, but most importantly, is the potential number of students lost to various dropout factors, when they could have received valuable training and experiences as part of PGC programming. The work that CSS does is valuable to students, schools, and our greater society, which is why this problem of practice is so important to study.
The purpose of this project is to determine if there are facilitating conditions that predict success in a partnering school; define factors influencing sustainability among partnering schools; and to understand the adaptability of the program, especially in the face of Covid-19 school closure. Better understanding these areas, will enable CSS to make smart partnering selections, understand factors influencing success and sustainability of PGC programs, and ultimately assist them in learning how to support schools in adapting to the unknown in order to preserve the program in their schools. Ultimately this work is important to CSS, because they believe their program can make the difference in a life of fulfilment and a life of struggle; their program has the potential to change the direction of a child’s life for the better. For students across our nation, “Education is the only ladder out of poverty for many children and
adolescents;” Peer Group Connection many be the very program that keeps a child engaged in school long enough to see graduation and provide them with to skills to build a successful life (The Lancet, 2021, p. 253).
Context and Problem
A. Organizational Context
CSS was founded in 1979 in Princeton, New Jersey; additional offices were later established in New York City, New York; Crofton, Maryland; and Wake Forest, North Carolina. Board leaders and staff of CSS include leaders in the fields of education, public health, public policy,
psychology, law, evaluation, and research. This organization focuses on social emotional learning that can demonstrate “…significant academic impact on students, educators, and schools.” (CSS, 2018). CSS has 500 partner schools and has implemented programming which has had an impact on over 425, 000 students along the east coast. Partnering schools are very diverse, ranging from high-poverty to affluent and rural to urban. CSS’ vision, “All children will thrive in schools that graduate them prepared for the rigors of college and lives filled with meaningful work, active citizenship, and personal fulfillment,” is the cornerstone of organizational operations; it is evident in CSS training techniques, curriculum, and overall demeanor of personnel, along with marketing and organizational documents (CSS, 2018).
CSS partners with schools in three areas: developing students into leaders; engaging entire school communities to improve how learning happens; and empowering teachers to collaborate with each other and students. The organization’s actions are guided by four enduring values: “All students should be empowered as positive change agents in their schools; diversity and equity are strengths; our work is data-informed and relationship-driven; and every student, every school”
(Our Values, 2019). CSS has five data and research-driven programs they have implemented in various schools: achieve mentoring, campaign connect, community schools, peer group
connections, and teen pep; they will also design programs to meet the unique needs of schools who feel those five programs do not suit their needs. The goal is for these programs to become ingrained in the culture of the school to make a long-lasting, sustainable impact that perseveres beyond the direct involvement of CSS. In order to accomplish this goal, CSS invests a great deal of time into developing strong stakeholder teams within the partnering school and supporting staff through intense train-the-trainer strategies, accessible curricula, and technical support (Our Solutions, 2019; J. Loveless, personal communication, November 4, 2020).
According to the CSS website, the organization seeks to be an antiracist, team-oriented organization that is devoted to helping schools become a place students want to be. The staff are passionate about assisting schools in building their capacity to provide their youth and families with effective programs that will positively impact participants’ experiences. CSS employees believe in constructing a society better than the one we know; a place where all students have equitable access to success. When speaking to staff members, they often reference their commitment to making a positive difference in the world (CSS, 2020; J. Loveless, personal communication, November 4, 2020). Stakeholders for this study include: the organization’s Director of Evaluation and Data Management; the North Carolina Executive Director; the New Jersey Executive Director; and North Carolina and New Jersey Senior Program Managers. This project will provide stakeholders with additional insight when selecting schools for developing partnerships; allocation of funding; and programming decisions.
This study will focus on one program designed and implemented by CSS in partnering schools in New Jersey and North Carolina: PGC. “Peer Group Connection is an evidence-based and school-based program that supports and eases students’ successful transition from middle to high school” (CSS, 2020). The PGC curriculum was designed by Dr. Sharon Rose Powell, the founder of CSS, and first implemented at Princeton High School of New Jersey in 1979. In the forty-one years since, PGC has been implemented in over 175 schools-public and private, urban to rural. Currently, there are thirty-three schools in New Jersey partnering for PGC; thirty-one of which are in the sustaining phase. In North Carolina there are twenty-six schools partnering for PGC and twenty-two in the sustaining phase. The program matches a group of ninth-graders with high school juniors and seniors trained in leadership and activity facilitation for a series of mentoring session, which take place weekly for one academic year. The goal of the program is
to increase engagement of ninth grades students with the school community and decrease dropout rates at partnering schools (“Powerful,” 2016). In more recent years, the program has been adapted to serve middle school students as an additional intervention to prevent
disengagement from school and eventual dropout. The program is designed to build on resources that already exist within the school community, such as teachers, students, and families to create a supportive environment for new high school students and encouraging them to make healthy decisions. The transition to high school has proven to be a difficult time for some students.
During this change, students can experience a sense of disengagement with school, decline in academic performance, engage in risky behavior, and increased absenteeism (Jenner, 2017, p.1).
Studying this program can inform decisions regarding the allocation of resources and program planning that could result in supporting numerous students through high school graduation.
PGC relies on a team of individuals, working together to ensure the program is implemented with fidelity. CSS implements the program through two phases: Phase One consists of preparing for program implementation and Phase Two is the launch of program implementation. As a key aspect of Phase One, a stakeholder team is created and it should include faculty members, parents, and students; this group will work to determine how to best incorporate the PGC program into the school and assist in making decisions about program specifics. CSS staff provide some training for the stakeholder team, along with offering support throughout the implementation process. The stakeholder team then participates in selecting the Faculty Advisors. These individuals are responsible for attending in-depth training to run the program within the school and teach the daily leadership class to peer leaders; they work directly with and rely heavily on CSS staff during both phases. The final piece of this network are the eighth grade for PGC middle school, or eleventh and twelfth grade for PGC high school peer leaders who
receive training in the leadership class to then serve as mentors for the selected ninth grade students. Phase Two is where the training and work should become action with the
implementation of PGC within the school. Targeted students are identified, parent permission is obtained, and they are scheduled in a way that will enable them to participate in outreach
sessions. The leadership class, taught by Faculty Advisors, begins and three weeks later mentors (eleventh and twelfth grade students) host their first outreach with ninth graders to begin the mentoring relationship. This two phase approach means a school would receive one to one-and- one-half year of comprehensive support from CSS. If the school happens to be involved in a multi-year, grant funded study they will typically receive between one and three years of comprehensive support (B. Brandy, personal communication, February 11, 2021).
B. Problem of Practice
CSS invests an immense amount resources into making the PGC programs a success within their partnering schools. Over the course of one to three years of planning and implementation, depending on the nature of the school implementing the program, thousands of dollars, intense training, along with an immeasurable amount of time and energy from staff are invested into that success. The problem the organization faces is how to ensure the sustainability of the PGC programs following the direct involvement of CSS and the two phases of implementation.
Currently, data collected by CSS shows an approximate sustainability rate of 70% following CSS support and the organization would like to see that increase (L. Shouldis, personal
communication, February, 12, 2021). Thus, this improvement research project will focus on identifying facilitating conditions for a successful partnership; discovering potential barriers to sustainability and methods through which CSS can better support sustainability efforts among
schools partnering with them for PGC, and an additional look into the impact Covid-19 closure has had on PGC sustainability efforts. .
Tackling the challenge of program sustainability is important for several reasons. To begin with, it is necessary for CSS to demonstrate their funds and distribution of additional resources are being put to effective use in order to continue qualifying for prized grant funding. Secondly, but most importantly, successful dropout intervention programs such as PGC are vital to the lives of the students who participate. Studies show that students who fail to graduate high school are subject to an array of obstacles throughout their lives: an increased likelihood of involvement in crime and eventual incarceration; lower earnings over their lifetimes; more dependence on government assistance; and significantly poorer health (Henry et al., 2010, p. 156). However, as Wang et al. (2019) states, “Active engagement in secondary school promotes the skills,
competencies, and values that allow adolescents to successfully transition into adulthood” (p.
592). Therefore, addressing the 30% of schools failing to sustain PGC following direct implementation support is of utmost significance to CSS, because their work could be the
difference in a life of fulfillment or a life of struggle for the youth participating in their programs.
Although it is unclear the root causes of the problem, there is speculation among organization members about barriers to sustainability. One challenge noted by CSS staff is finding a way to sustain funding for PGC following grant funding or the initial investment made by schools. Another obstacle speculated about is the impact site-based leadership has on the sustainability of the program. Part of this study will seek to better understand the challenges of sustainability among partner schools; along with an additional lens of obstacles to sustainability during the virtual and hybrid learning environment created by Covid-19 closure.
Literature Review
In order to better understand the problems of practice in theory, this section of the proposal will take a broad look into the literature of the relevant concepts and terms associated with the aforementioned problem of practice. Organizational theory is an important field of literature to start with in the process of understanding how organizations operate and facilitating conditions for successful partnerships and implementation of programs. Capacity and organizational change capacity will be a key factor in better understanding the problem of practice and determining methods through which CSS could better prepare schools for sustainability. To begin with, the review will take a look at why this problem of practice is an important one to study by including literature about dropout rates, effects, and current interventions to reduce dropout. Next, new literature around the impact Covid-19 closure has had on students and teachers will be reviewed to glean knowledge of the impact the move to virtual and/or hybrid learning environments could have had on the sustainability on PGC programming. Finally, literature around sustainability, along with indicators of program sustainability, will also be included to consider what is
important for sustainability and how to equip organizations for sustaining programs. Ultimately, the goal of this literature review is to provide insight into what is known about the concepts included and additional guidance in how they best operate within organizations.
A. Impact of High School Dropout and Importance of Intervention Programs
In order to understand the significance of the problem of practice and CSS’ motivation to pursue a higher overall sustainability rate, it is necessary to review literature about the inequities of high school dropout rates, factors contributing to dropout rates in the United States, and the impact high school dropouts have on society. The effects of a student dropping out of high
school do not begin and end with the individual choosing to not graduate, but can have an immeasurable impact on their lives and the lives of others.
In 1945 the United States graduation rate was around 50%, but by 2019 the graduation rate rose to 84.6% (Bustamante, 2019). Yet even with this significant achievement, as noted earlier, there were still an estimated 2.1 million status dropouts in the United States (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020, May). A report found Black and Hispanic students are more likely than white or Asian students to dropout. Although there has been a reduction in the percentage of dropouts among the black and Hispanic students, this decline is linked to an increase in
incarceration rates among young Black and Hispanic males; incarceration removes these individuals from the population base. Additionally, there is a major disparity between the ten percent of total population foreign-born students make up, but the 30% of dropouts they represent (High School Dropout Rates, 2015). It is evident that the United States Education system is not immune to the systemic inequities perpetuated in many institutions within the country; the disparity in high school dropout rates is evident of these inequities.
There are many contributing factors pushing and/or pulling students away from high school.
To begin with, school disengagement is one important factor to consider when learning more about why students leave school. Wang et al. (2019) suggests, “School disengagement is theorized to consist of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive dimensions; yet, the dimensions of school disengagement are not simply lower levels or the absence of factors that characterize engagement dimensions” (p. 593). Some have recently argued social disengagement is an additional category to consider. Other factors are noted as contributors to students’ decisions to dropout: work or family responsibilities; lack of parent education; troubled behavior; high absenteeism; attending a school with lower achievement scores; and making a school transition
in their freshman year (High School Dropout Rates, 2015; Wilkins & Bost, 2016). As a result, reengaging students in school and attempting to eliminate push and/or pull factors drawing students away will prove a powerful tool in lowering dropout rates.
The depth and breadth of the impact high school dropouts have on society is immense and long-lasting. It has been estimated that if the high school dropouts from the Class of 2011 had graduated, the United States economy would benefit by about $154 billion dollars over their lifetimes (High School Dropout Rates, 2015). High school dropouts are more likely to have poorer mental and physical health; while also being more likely to rely on government assistance. Dropouts are more susceptible to high-risk behaviors, which often result in higher rates of incarceration. The lack of high school diploma and subsequent college degree typically result in low-wage jobs with fewer opportunities for advancement. As a result, these conditions contribute to the overall societal cost of dropouts: years of government assistance, cost of years of incarceration, and lack of taxable income (Stearns & Glennie, 2006). Furthermore, the intangible costs of the lives lost as a condition of the mental and physical health associated with dropping out of school is an immeasurable loss.
B. Impacts of Covid-19 Closure on Students and Staff
The 2019 global pandemic, which none have seen in their lifetime and few anticipated, swept around the globe. In its wake millions of people’s lives were totally disrupted. Educators were left scrambling to move teaching and learning from in-person to virtual, while also balancing the personal stress of a global crisis and attempting to keep their families safe. Additionally, millions of students were faced with an unprecedented crisis and no outlet beyond their homes to process and analyze such catastrophe. The pandemic has not only had a great impact on the physical wellbeing of “…hundreds of thousands of people. With its spread, the economy has plummeted
to record lows, social issues such as domestic violence have increased…” (Hakovirta &
Denuwara, 2020, p. 2). The impact of Covid-19 and resulting school closure has had an immense impact on staff and students, which are not restricted to academic impacts; early studies show that impact may be far reaching.
Learning during Covid-19 closure was not something the educational system was prepared for. “Teachers, administrators, and parents have worked to keep learning alive; nevertheless, these efforts are not likely to provide the quality of education that’s delivered in the classroom”
(Dorn et al., 2020, p. 2). As a result of this need for an overnight reconfiguration of the educational system, school resources were stretched very thin; facilities, instructional
technology, teachers, and support for teachers were all in great demand. Educational budgets have been dramatically cut, even has the demands on school systems have grown; such a shortage in funds is forcing school districts across the country to make difficult monetary choices. Furthermore, this crisis further exemplified the inequities within our nation’s education system. Schools who were already using instructional technology and had greater access to technology devices saw a much easier transition to the virtual learning platform, compared to those who had not been able to invest in those educational tools yet (Lepp et al., 2021).
Arguably, those that have suffered the most from Covid-19 closure are the students and teachers. Several studies have noted a stark increase in the stress and difficulty of their jobs as a result of school closure to curb the deadly impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Richmond et al.
(2020) explain, “Meeting students’ socio-emotional and academic learning needs, likely in a blended or online environment, will require perhaps the steepest learning curve from educators that we have ever seen” (p. 376). Tackling this learning curve, along with attempting to balance their own emotional and physical health and that of their families has resulted in a very difficult
work environment. For students, the impact of Covid-19 related school closures seems immeasurable. Some students are leaving to help support families struggling financially, “…
others might be experiencing mental health problems such as loneliness and anxiety. In the long- term, there is a danger that hard-won progress in secondary school attendance in low-income and middle-income countries will be reversed” (The Lancet, 2021, p. 253). The combined struggle of teachers and students have made for a very trying year in education and one that has made teachers and students alike questions their value to the educational system. As a result, we have seen programs stop or dwindle, more students not return to traditional schooling, and teachers leaving the profession all together; this environment is not conducive to sustaining programs such as PGC.
C. Organizations and Capacity
One question CSS consistently mentioned during our initial meeting was the phenomenon of why the programs work in some schools and not others? As a result, it is important to learn more about organizations, capacity, organizational change capacity, and the probability of building capacity within an organization to allow for sustainability.
Jones (2013) defines organizational theory as “The study of how organizations function and how they affect and are affected by the environment in which they operate” (p. 8). At the core of organizational theory lies the central study of how organizations function, and how they can be made to better function in order to be better for various stakeholders (Perrow, 2000). There are three categories that underlie organizational theory and are equally important to understand:
organizational structure, organizational change and design, and organizational culture.
Organizational structure describes the formal system of relationships that control how people work together and use resources to attain the goals of the organization. Change and design refers
to the process by which leaders manage various aspect of organizational structure and culture in its pursuit of their goals; this allows the organization to continuously grow and adapt.
Organizational culture is the shared values and norms which guide interactions of members and behaviors of members within the organization; an organization’s culture is shaped by its people, the principles and ethics of the organization, and the organizational structure (Jones, 2013, pp. 8- 10). Based on the literature included, which noted the important role organizations and their members play in capacity and sustainability, it is necessary to include organizational theory as part of the conceptual framework. Furthermore, this framework provide additional insight into our questions of inquiry by providing insight into facilitating conditions for success, structures and conditions for sustainability, and ability to adapt to change.
Capacity is defined in many different ways across various fields of study. Morgan (2006), explains, “…the concept of capacity and its practice remain puzzling, confusing and even vacuous…” (p. 3). However, it is important to develop a working definition of capacity through the review of available literature. The Development Assistance Committee asserts capacity is
“…understood as the ability of people, organizations and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully” (Challenge of Capacity Development, 2006, p. 8). Morgan attempts to define the concept of capacity by identifying some the foundational elements of capacity:
culture, financial resources, information, location, structure, and values to name a few.
Additionally, his study identifies capacity as an overall ability for a system to create value (Morgan, 2006, pp. 7-8). Ultimately, it appears capacity resides in the ability to combine resources, tangible and intangible, in a manner that produces efficiency, effectiveness, a culture of growth, and an ability to fulfill goals. It is important to remember that capacity does not have to be stagnant. Rather, organizations can take strides to develop their capacity in various ways;
leadership of the organization and ownership of the process are noted as two key factors in developing capacity (Challenge of Capacity Development, 2006).
For the purposes of this project, it is important to delve into a relatively new theory:
organizational change capacity (OCC). The combination of managerial and organizational capabilities that allow an organization to quickly and effectively adapt to change is what is referred to as OCC. There are many factors that impact OCC, such as protocols, rules, policies, structural arrangements, and human abilities. The ability to revise existing capabilities, while also fostering new ones is vital to the growth and success of an organization. One study identifies eight dimensions of OCC: accountable culture, trusting followers, trustworthy leadership, effective communication, capable champions, innovative culture, system thinking, and an involved mid-management (Yasir et al., 2016, p 1-2). Judge and Douglas (2009) state,
“Studies have shown that approximately 70 percent of planned organizational change initiatives fail. One of the primary causes for these failures is the lack of reliable and valid diagnostic instruments to assess and track an organization’s capacity for change” (p. 635). OCC is difficult to measure, but tools for analyzing such capacity are highly sought after and consistently being designed. Such tools are valuable as they can equip organizations, and those potentially
partnering with other organizations, valuable insight in to the likelihood of success in adapting to change and/or implementing change initiatives; for CSS this knowledge could prove extremely helpful in identifying the partnering school’s OCC and developing their implementation plan in accordance to their findings from such an instrument.
Finally, it is necessary to look into the concept of capacity and organizational change capacity within schools. Thomas Hatch (2001) suggests “Under the right conditions,
improvement programs can help many schools become better in some ways. But we should not
assume that their widespread adoption will somehow solve the problems of a system in which far too many schools lack the capacity to change” (p. 47). Selecting schools with the capacity for change and/or including capacity building strategies into CSS’ training could prove beneficial in enhancing the programs and their sustainability among partnering schools. Hodgins, Kirk, and Asgeirsdottir (2010) describe capacity building as “…an approach to the development of sustainable skills, organizational structures, resources, and commitment to improvement…” (p.
62). King and Newmann (2001) suggest, “…school capacity includes the knowledge, skills, and dispositions or individual staff members” (p. 88). School leaders also play a major role in the capacity and potential for capacity within a school. Huggins (2017) advises, “…sustained educational reform can only occur when leadership is concerned with growing the social and academic capital of people within schools” (p. 4). Therefore, CSS can also take a closer look at the school leaders, along with their capacity for change, to determine if a partnership may prove successful.
D. Sustainability of Programming
Overall program sustainability is the primary obstacle CSS faces and has a difficult time determining which schools will be able to maintain the programs after the training and
implementation period end and which will not. Thus, the literature included will seek to define sustainability, while also uncovering challenges to and indicators of sustainability within an organization.
Although there are many definitions of sustainability, Villarruel (2017) defines sustainability as the “…long-term impact of a particular outcome or goal of the initial activity and, as such, may require modifications to adapt to changes in context, resources, and priorities” (pp. 5-6). In order for organizations to attain long-term impact, they must make a shift to a culture of
sustainability; that shift begins with developing a systematic approach to sustainability. As Galpin, Whittington, and Bell (2015) explicate, “Without a diligent effort to create an
organizational infrastructure that supports the development of a sustainability strategy, the firm’s efforts to successfully implement a sustainability strategy will be severely hindered” (p. 2). In addition to the infrastructure necessary to sustain change, it is also important to note the need for organization members to change in order for programs to become sustainable. Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo (1996) recognize the importance of this stating, “Organizations as we know them are the people in them; if the people do not change, there is no organizational change” (p. 7). Thus, it becomes evident changing the people an organization is necessary to build capacity for
sustainability within an organization.
Sustaining a program is not easily done, nor is it a simple organizational process. As Coburn (2003) suggests, “Schools that successfully implement reforms find it difficult to sustain them in the face of competing priorities, changing demands, and teacher and administrator turnover,”
thus PGC programs must overcome multiple obstacles to sustainability (p. 6). There are three stages of sustainability have been identified by researchers: establishment, maturation, and evolution (Sanders, 2012). Establishment is the introduction of a change initiative and foundation of the values associated with the change. Establishment is followed by maturation which is a period to stabilization following the implementation of the change. Finally, the evolution phase embodies a time when the change initiative grows and improves (Sanders, 2012, p. 846). As Coburn (2003) explains, “…reforms must effect deep and consequential change in classroom practice. By deep change, I mean change that goes beyond surface structures or procedures to alter teachers' beliefs, norms of social interaction, and pedagogical principles as enacted in the curriculum” (p. 4). Coburn also concluded there are four interrelated dimensions by which one
can scale successful organizational change: depth, sustainability, spread, and shift in reform ownership (2003, p. 4). Therefore, it is important to note that sustainability is one piece of successful organizational change and relies on the organization’s ability to make the change an integrated part of the organization and shift the ownership to organization members.
Additionally, there are key organization members who are identified as important factors to sustainability. School leaders and teachers are a vital part to sustaining change within a school as they are the individuals who will cultivate a culture of learners that will sustain change initiatives (Okilwa & Barnett, 2017; Sanders, 2012). As Sanders (2012) describes, educational leaders are
“…responsible for creating environments and opportunities where deep learning of reform content can take place and improvements in professional practice can be maintained over time”
(p. 847). Recognizing the role leaders and organization members play in sustainability will be paramount in CSS’ quest for improving sustainability efforts.
Research can often focus on the negative aspects of organizational practice, in order to seek to find solutions to poor practices. This deficit-based approach focuses effort on the negative, diagnosing, and spending time, energy, and other valuable resources on correcting problems.
However, it is equally beneficial to look at “…what encourages and sustains positive ethical decision-making and action at the personal, group, and organizational levels of analysis
(Sekerka, Comer, & Godwin, 2014, p. 435). There is much to learn about Positive Organization Behavior (POB) and how those behaviors and practices can be used replicated to sustain PGC programs in partnering schools. “POB targets cognitive and affective capacities that contribute to creativity and wisdom, and explores how favorable qualities such as self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resiliency enable individuals to cope with organizational demands and foster
exceptional performance” (Sekerka, Comer, & Godwin, 2014, p. 437). This literature suggests
that targeting the positive, effective, and meaningful attributes of organization members can be a powerful tool in creating POB that can assist schools with sustaining programs such as PGC. As Mekelburg (2005) suggests, there are “…two factors that most influenced the new practices’
sustainability are the practitioners’ abilities and motivations” (p. 5).
E. Conclusion
The literature indicates there are a multitude of mitigating factors which impact the capacity of a school to implement and sustain the PGC program. It has become evident there are
facilitating conditions, such as leadership and organizational change capacity, which indicate the potential success of an organization in partnering with CSS to undergo organization change and sustain such a change. The literature indicates school staff and leaders are key players in the organizational change capacity of their school and will be primary determinants of the
sustainability efforts in regards to PGC programs at their schools. Furthermore, organizational culture, self-efficacy of those involved, and attitudes toward expected behavior are additional facilitating conditions of a successful partnership for PGC. While examining literature around high school dropout rates and the long-lasting impacts on individuals and society, it became ever clearer the immense value of partnering with organizations like CSS to implement dropout prevention programs such as PGC. Finally, Covid-19 closures have had a grave impact on our world; with one of its greatest reaches being into the lives of hundreds of thousands of teachers and students lives. The current pandemic is an additional challenge, which threatens the
sustainability of PGC programs and ultimately much needed dropout prevention intervention.
Theoretical Framework
Following a review of the literature, it became evident there are many factors that
determine the facilitating conditions for a successful partnership, as well as the ability of a school
to sustain their PGC programs; these factors are further multiplied by the new challenges
introduced by Covid-19 school closures. The following portion of this paper will describe social cognitive theory and the socio-ecological model as a framework to begin building an
encompassing understanding of the multilayer influences shaping why some schools find success in sustaining their PGC programs and others struggle. This framework will also help continue to define key terms from the literature review, provide connection between the literature review and area of inquiry, and further identify facilitating conditions of success for schools partnering with CSS for PGC.
Socio-Ecological Model. The socio-ecological model (Figure 1) takes social cognitive theory and provides a framework for understanding how individuals interact with each other and how they are situated within larger social systems.
Ecological models add to the social cognitive theory in the notion these multilevel influences are not siloed, but entwined and reinforcing (Golden & Earp, 2012, p. 364). Originally developed by Bronfenbrenner in the 1970’s, the
Socio-ecological model (SEM) suggests we must look beyond solitary behaviors and limited interactions to “…multiperson systems of interaction not limited to a single setting and must take into account aspects of the environment beyond the immediate situation…” (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, p. 514). It is important to understand each level of this model and how the
interconnectedness shapes individuals’ behaviors and ultimately organizations.
The individual level is a microsystem containing the factors with the strongest influence and the relationships within the immediate surrounding (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Kilanowski,
Figure 1.Levels of the Socio-Ecological Model (CDC, 2021)
2017). This level attempts to discover the biological influences and personal history of an
individual in order to determine how they could potentially shape the behaviors of that individual (Dahlberg & Krug, 2006). These individual factors can include age, race, education, beliefs, trauma, and income, to name a few (CDC, 2021). Therefore, the socio-ecological model
recognizes the significance biological characteristics and background can have on the behaviors and actions of an individual as this is the central level of the model. When considering the school selection process, focusing on the stakeholders within the school at the individual level of the socio-ecological model could be an area for CSS to explore. For example, CSS could inquire about the experiences and perception of previous reform initiatives among individuals, especially in regards to programs like PGC. Understanding the impact of personal backgrounds and
characteristics of the stakeholders could assist CSS in understanding organization members’
actions, behaviors, attitudes, experiences, and decision-making process as mentioned in the literature about planned behavior, stakeholder theory, and sustainability (Greenwood & Van Buren, 2010; Jimmieson, 2008; Schneider et. al, 1996). This knowledge could provide insight into the training needs and potential sustainability of those within a partnering organization to ensure CSS builds the foundation for individuals to reshape their beliefs, attitudes, and self- efficacy which have been credited with facilitating the depth of organizational change at the individual level (Coburn, 2003; Sekerka et. al, 2014).
Next, the socio-ecological model recognizes the mesosystem which is “…comprises the interrelations among major settings containing the developing person at a particular point in his or her life” (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, p. 515). This level includes relationships and influences from social or interpersonal relationships such as family, neighbors, significant others, and/or peers, to name a few; this level has been described as a system of microsystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1977;
Kilanowski, 2017). An individual’s closest social relationships, typically including family, peers, and partners, can influence their actions, behaviors, and experiences (Bronfenbrenner, 1977;
CDC, 2021). The addition of this layer and the interconnectedness of the microsystems creates another layer of demands and needed resources, which helps us to recognize these are not siloed levels, but there is permeability between them (Pocock, Williams, and Skinner, 2012). If CSS examines the relationships and networks within the mesosystem they may find the ways in which interpersonal relationships of partnering school staff may impact a successful partnership and overall sustainability of PGC programs, while also learning about the best way to approach professional development and training of the school community. Stokes (1997) contends “…the reform must transition from “an externally understood and supported theory to an internally understood and supported theory-based practice” (as cited by Coburn, 2003, p. 7). This
awareness of the mesosystem and attention to interpersonal relationships could equip CSS with the ability to lead and effectively transition staff to knowledge holders through strategic training and continuous support; which contributes to an effective shift in ownership in regards to the PGC program; once this buy-in of stakeholders occurs sustainability becomes more probable (Coburn, 2003). This knowledge could also arm CSS with the knowledge the school may need some additional training, support, and/or resources to build a healthier mesosystem in order to be a beneficial partner for PGC.
The third level of the model, also known as the exosystem, includes the formal and informal communities in which social relationships are embedded. These social structures and/or communities can include, but are not limited to schools, workplaces, neighborhoods, and
religious organizations (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Dahlberg & Krug, 2006; Kilanowski, 2017).
Bronfenbrenner (1977) explains these social structures “…impinge upon or encompass the
immediate settings in which that person is found, and thereby influence, delimit, or even determine what goes on there” (p. 515). Essentially the exosystem is the external environment that affects the individual, but they are not a regular or active participant in that environment (Pocock, Williams, and Skinner, 2012. The exosystem can have positive and negative impacts on individuals, which the socio-ecological model seeks to understand how those settings effect individuals (CDC, 2021). CSS could find the exosystem a vital part of the socio-ecological model to understand in regards to the sustainability of PGC programs. Building an awareness of the community and the way the school and staff engage with the community could assist CSS employees with determining ways to sustain PGC programs at partnering schools. When programs are implemented externally there is a risk of failure, because the initial influx of resources, training, and support eventually end. Thus, finding ways and resources to continue supporting the program could be a determining factor in sustainability (Coburn, 2003, p. 6). As a result, if CSS were to seek to better understand the greater community and external stakeholders they could better assist partnering schools in building partnerships within the exosystem to ensure the resources necessary to sustain PGC following the implementation phases.
The final level of the socio-ecological model is the macrosystem, which include larger societal factors that tend to influence the actions and behaviors of individuals (Dahlberg & Krug, 2006). Kilanowski (2017) also suggests, “The macrosystem includes societal, religious, and cultural values and influences” (p. 295). Bronfenbrenner (1977) defines the macrosystem as “…
the overarching institutional patterns of the culture or subculture, such as the economic, social, educational, legal, and political systems, of which micro-, meso-, and exosystems are the
concrete manifestations” (p. 515). These larger societal influences can shape the norms, attitudes, behaviors, and actions of individuals. Although the socio-ecological model appears leveled, the
levels interact with one another and are cyclical at times. Therefore, building knowledge around the macrosystem can provide CSS with insight into the true spread of PGC programs beyond the classroom, into communities, and across larger societal influences that impact the actions and behaviors of individuals. True spread of an implemented program takes underlying beliefs, norms, and principles to other organizations. Moreover, the reform should spread to the point in impacts policy, norms, and procedures (Coburn, 2003, p. 7). Recognizing who makes policies, procedures, and set expectations for norms within the macrosystem can give CSS insight into who they should support partnering schools in getting the spread to reach; of course such a level of spread also helps to ensure sustainability of the reform program as well. This will be a
difficult and long-term area to build knowledge around. However, setting goals for spread early on could be a powerful tool in facilitating the spread of PGC impact. Figure 2 shows how CSS
can use the socio-
ecological model to think through Coburn’s (2003) elements of scale: depth, sustainability, spread, and shift in ownership;
recognizing sustainability is an element of each
dimension of the scale. For example, if the reform has depth and individuals have reshaped their beliefs, attitudes, and actions to best suit the program the likelihood for sustainability is
improved. The same is true for shift in ownership and spread; if PGC knowledge and decision- making becomes internally owned by the partnering school and spreads to change policies and
Figure 2.Levels of the Socio-Ecological Model with elements of scale and Organizational Change Capacity (CDC, 2021; Coburn, 2003, Yasir et al., 2016).
societal norms, then sustainability is probable. Furthermore, the model in Figure 2 also includes OCC and recognizes its role within Coburn’s four elements, as well as three levels of the SEM.
Several dimensions of OCC occur across the individual, relational, and community levels of SEM, while also impacting the depth, shift of ownership, spread, and overall sustainability of PGC programming. For example, trustworthy leadership begins with the leader at the individual level and is impacted by the depth to which the PGC reform changes that individual’s behaviors and attitudes toward leading change. Then the leader must build trust at the relational level in order to successfully guide trusting followers to assume ownership of the program to achieve the school’s PGC goals. Finally, that trust must permeate throughout the school and external
community level in order to build a successful reform effort by engaging and retaining capable champions to ensure the spread and overall sustainability of PGC (Coburn, 2003; Yasir et al., 2016).
The socio-ecological model is “…a theory-based framework for understanding the multifaceted and interactive effects of personal and environmental factors on individuals”
(Kilanowski, 2017, p. 295). Thus, it provides an excellent lens through which to understand the multifaceted approach PGC takes to improving the lives of students, but moreover for building knowledge around how CSS can use the model to determine the potential for partnering and sustainability; as well as determining areas to target with interventions for success prior to partnering. The curriculum of the program really targets the individual and relationship levels of the model, while the extension activities also seek to serve as interventions for improving the community and societal levels. The curriculum seeks to provide skills at the individual level to help improve the circumstances students face as a result of the biology and personal background.
For example, the self-esteem, self-advocacy, and other social-emotional learning strategies seek
to improve individuals and offer a more productive influence than students may have had up to entering PGC. At the relationship level the program seeks to provide a positive influence through well training mentors; focus on positive peer, family, and school staff relationships; conflict resolution skills; and active listening to describe a few. The program also seeks to improve the environment (school, family, community) in which students are participating by improving school culture, family dialogue, and community engagement through specific outreach activities.
Finally, the ultimate goal of the program is to positively impact the societal level by assisting young people to recognize healthy behaviors, actions, choices, etc. as participants in the PGC program.
Additionally, the socio-ecological model will assist in synthesizing the data collected and offering a mechanism through which meaning can be made and recommendations for
improvement can be formulated. The interconnectedness of this model is an important aspect of the theory, they each impact the other and are fluid in their influence (Bronfenbrenner, 1977;
Dahlberg & Krug, 2006; Kilanowski, 2017). As Figure 2 shows, the socio-ecological model provides a multifaceted lens through which to understand the impact of PGC inputs and the intended outcomes in regards to sustainability. This model will assist in building effective, targeted recommendations to overcome challenges to sustaining the PGC program, and quickly, efficient adaptation to major change like moving from the physical to virtual learning
environment.
Questions
CSS has partners with a diverse group of schools, which is ideal for their programming and research. However, they have limited interaction with schools prior to forming those
partnerships. Schools can partner with CSS for PGC through two avenues: they can seek out a partnership and pay for PGC or they can reach out to see if they qualify to participate in a grant- funded research study about PGC; grant recipients are given funds for the program,
implementation, and CSS supports for the duration of the implementation phase. Schools do have to meet the required parameters of the program study, which include specific
demographics, socio-economic information, and additional factors indicating the school serves a high needs population of students. Beyond the information submitted by the schools choosing to partner or those qualifying for the research study grant, CSS does not have additional insight into the capacity of the school for implementation and/or sustainability post the close of direct CSS involvement. Through the direct support and intense training, the goal is for schools to be able to continue the programs to support students after the CSS partnership has officially ended. As a result I am proposing to focus on the three following research questions:
1. What are facilitating conditions that would predict success in a school partnering for PGC?
a. Venkatesh (2003) explains facilitating conditions are, “…“the degree to which an individual believes that an organizational and technical infrastructure exists to support use of the system” (as cited by Venkatesh et al., 2008, p. 484).
Therefore, the study will look to see if existing organizational structures or practices, such as leadership and organizational change capacity, that support PGC programming and eventual sustainability emerge during data collection.
2. What are the organizational structures and/or conditions that predict sustainability of PGC programs?
3. How does our current environment of remote learning or hybrid models, as a result of Covid-19 closure, impact sustainability? How are schools adapting PGC to fit their current needs?
Answering the aforementioned questions will enable the organization in identifying strong partnering schools, support schools in building their capacity for sustainability, understanding the adaptability of the program.
Project Design
A. Data Collection
This study uses a mixed methods approach to engage in both quantitative and qualitative data analysis. The mixed method design is advantageous, because it allows for “…more
comprehensive data that will be collected and because it also removes the need to choose
between qualitative and quantitative approaches” (Patton, 2014, p. 85). First, I will administer a quantitative survey to members of the stakeholder teams for schools partnering with CSS for PGC in North Carolina and New Jersey. Surveys are rewarding data collection tool as they allow researchers to gather information efficiently and in a reliable manner. This format also allows the researcher to reach out to targeted responders, who have valuable insight and experiences, while also allowing the survey designer to ask questions geared toward finding out about respondents’
experiences and measure their attitudes and opinions; although reaching respondents can prove difficult (Newcomer & Triplett, 2004). To add depth and richness to responses from the
quantitative survey data, stakeholders will then engage in focus groups concentrated on their
experiences and self-reported capacity for implementation, sustainability, and impact of Covid- 19 closure on PGC programs.
Survey measure. As Hatch (2002) suggests, “Today, many schools may be trying to juggle the demands of implementing several improvement programs at the same time” (p. 627). Thus when collecting data to determine facilitating conditions that would predict success in a partnering school and the organizational structures and/or conditions that predict sustainability for CSS partnering schools, it is very important to explicitly identify the concepts to measure with the survey. For the purposes of this study, survey questions will focus on the scale of
implementation and sustainability in regards to the PGC program offered through CSS using Coburn’s (2003) conceptualization of scale which is “…comprised of four interrelated dimensions: depth, sustainability, spread, and shift in reform ownership” (p. 4). In order to understand how the concepts from the theoretical framework and Coburn dimensions of scale are connected to the research questions and ways data will be collected around those concepts, the reader can look to Table 1 below to view those connections.
Therefore survey questions will be designed to gauge changes in culture, routine, materials used, teachers’ assumptions, and expectations of students to name a few. The second category of questions will focus on sustainability, which is another challenge to successfully implementing reforms. These surveys will be administered to partnering schools who have been through the initial phases of implementation and are now sustaining PGC programs in their schools. Third, the survey will seek to identify the level of spread of the reform programs.
Coburn (2003) advises, “…recognizing this aspect of spread may be especially important given evidence of the key role of normative coherence at the school, in district, and in the broader environment in sustaining reform” (p. 7). Finally the survey will look to measure a shift in ownership, which Coburn (2003) describes as“…creating conditions to shift authority and knowledge of the reform from external actors to teachers, schools, and district” (p. 7).
Table 1. This table portrays the connections between research questions, data collection methods, and conceptual ideas.
Using Coburn’s (2003) four dimensions of scale, along with the concept of adaptability, I organized survey statements into four categories (See Appendix A): adaptability in the face of Covid-19, depth, spread and sustainability, and the shift of ownership in regards to the PGC program; I also added a question about the state the respondent lived in and the type of community they serve from rural to urban. The survey used a Likert Scale including strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree or disagree, agree, and strongly agree. The statements in the adaptability section were designed to assist in answering how schools are adapting PGC to fit their current needs. In the first section, the statements inquire about the respondents’ perception of adaptability; their opinion on adapting to the remote and/or hybrid learning environment; the availability of tools to make adaptation possible; and engagement during the remote and/or hybrid learning environment resulting from Covid-19 school closure. The next three sections focus on depth, spread and sustainability, along with the shift in ownership. These questions were designed using the information gleaned from the literature review to assist in learning more about the facilitating conditions predicting success in partnering schools and the organizational structure or conditions that predict sustainability. The statements in these sections centered on the knowledge of PGC across stakeholder groups; the degree to which PGC is ingrained in the campus or community culture; support of CSS personnel; and the knowledge of, support, and allocation of funds to PGC by school leadership. The questions about state and type of community were added to see if there was any significant difference in perception based on geographic location and/or type of community serve from rural, suburban, or urban.
In order to maximize the survey results and build a strong depth of knowledge about the partnering schools in the sustaining phase, the stakeholders from schools who are in the
sustaining phase of their PGC programs in North Carolina and New Jersey received the survey.
Figure 3. Survey participants by state
Figure 4. Survey participants by community type
The North Carolina CSS Executive Director facilitated the delivery of 140 surveys, via email link to a Qualtrics survey, to PGC Faculty Advisors, stakeholders, and stakeholder team coordinators. Stakeholders are school principals, counselors, other teachers, or any additional school staff who help to support the PGC program within the school. Overall, there were twenty- two survey responses collected. Survey responders represent a very small group of stakeholder team members from partnering schools in North Carolina and New Jersey. To offer further context to survey participants the last two questions inquired about the state and community the school they serve falls into. The study focused on partnering schools in New Jersey and North Carolina; as shown in Figure 3, the majority of participants are in North Carolina with sixteen of the twenty-two being from North Carolina. Additionally, the vast majority of participants serve rural communities as shown in Figure 4. In North Carolina the majority of partnering school are rural, while in New Jersey they are urban and suburban.
Additionally the Program Coordinators, along with stakeholder team members they would like to invite, from North Carolina and New Jersey schools in the sustaining phase of their PGC program will be asked to attend virtual focus group interviews. These were organized by region, at the request of the partnering organization to determine if there are geographic factors which influence the success of sustainability. CSS sent the survey to all stakeholder team
members at sustaining schools in New Jersey and North Carolina, as well as made initial contact with Stakeholder Team Coordinators to recruit focus group participants.
Focus Group. As a research technique, focus groups “…collect data through group interaction…
Thus, instead of asking everyone in the group a direct question, the group interaction is part of the method and data” (Rothwell, 2010, p. 176). This form of data collection is considered advantageous for several reasons: dominant voices can draw those less willing to participate to
