07-086756-Sailes.

qxd 2/5/2008 10:32 AM Page 74

ARTICLE

School culture audits: making a difference

in school improvement plans
Dr JaDora Sailes
Indiana University Indianapolis, USA

Abstract
The United States census data report that the nation is becoming more diverse at a rapid rate.
Schools reflect these demographical changes by representing multiracial and multiethnic
groups whose languages, religions, economics, and abilities are equally diverse. Educational
systems often struggle in their efforts to support the needs of culturally different students.
Consequently, these students often do not fare well academically. This article examines those
factors which contribute to the achievement gap between culturally different and majority stu-
dents, and describes how the cultural audit process can serve as a mechanism for addressing
academic disparities.

Keywords: cultural competency, diversity, teacher education

A quote by the late Jamake Highwater, a famous Native American choreographer, author
and lecturer describes how culture presents a barrier in our interactions with others in
our diverse society. He stated, ‘The greatest distance between people is not space . . .
the greatest distance between people is culture’. This quote is very representative of
the struggles schools in the United States are increasingly encountering as they move
towards proficiency by 2014, required by the re-authorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Act of 1965, commonly known as ‘No Child Left Behind’. There are myriad
approaches and strategies schools and districts are utilizing to reach this difficult but
obtainable goal. Despite the fact that instructional leaders at the school and district level
have an unwavering focus on curriculum alignment, assessment, differentiated instruc-
tion, classroom management, and other academic approaches, transforming school cul-
ture is critical in the area of school improvement. This article does not suggest that
transforming culture at the school or district level is the panacea to raise student achieve-
ment; however it is an integral part in the school improvement process.
Understanding culture and its complex dimensions are critical to the creation of cultur-
ally competent schools. School culture is not a demographic description related to race,
socio-economic or geographical factors and nor is it the school climate which typically
represents appearance and outward indicators (e.g. inside and outside attractiveness of
the school, displays of student work, a safe and welcoming entrance to the school, etc.)
(Wagner, 2005). School culture is an organized set of thoughts, beliefs, and norms for

Improving Schools © SAGE Publications

Volume 11 Number 1 March 2008 74–82
ISSN 1365-4802 DOI: 10.1177/1365480207086756

Downloaded from imp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on May 31, 2015

07-086756-Sailes.qxd 2/5/2008 10:32 AM Page 75

Sailes: School culture audits 75

interaction and communication; it is about how people treat each other, how they value
one another, how school staff work together and get along together in a professional and
personal sense, it is the consensus about what is important, and it is the way everyone
in the school does business all of which may influence cognitions, behaviors, percep-
tions and expectations (Ingraham, 2000; Richardson, 2002; Wagner, 2005). Every school
has its own culture that is embedded in the rituals and traditions of the school’s history
and practices which permeate throughout the entire learning community including its
constituencies (Wagner, 2005).

What are culturally competent schools and

why are they needed?
A culturally competent school effectively responds to the needs of its students repre-
senting various cultures by honoring, respecting, valuing and preserving the dignity of
cultural differences and similarities between individual differences in theory and in
practice where teaching and learning are made relevant and meaningful for all students
(Bodley, 2000; Klotz, 2006). The recognition of cultural differences and its relationship
to student achievement is a vital component to any school improvement plan. Research
indicates that culturally competent schools benefit students from culturally and linguis-
tically diverse backgrounds who often do not fare well in school and are often plagued
by problems such as the achievement gap, overrepresentation in special education, sus-
pension and expulsion rates and high drop-outs (Klotz, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 2001).
Unfortunately, the failure to link school culture to school improvement plans inhibits
educational innovations (Phillips & Wagner, 2003; Sizer, 1998; Wagner and Masden-
Copas, 2002). Many educators are discovering this ‘missing link’ (Wagner and Hall-
O’Phelan, 1998). Commentary from a high school principal illustrates this point. She states:

We were working so hard on curriculum alignment, instructional practices, assessment

strategies and selecting add-on programs that would meet our students’ needs that we sim-
ply forgot about our people. (Wagner, 2005: 11)

This discovery made by the high school principal reiterates the importance of improv-
ing the school culture as the first priority instead of implementing layers of school
improvement plans without consideration students (Wagner, 2005). But it also brings to
light the role of principals and other school administrators in creating culturally com-
petent schools. Richards et al. (2004) outlined three specific areas that administrators
must address to ensure that a school is culturally responsive. First, the principal should
consider the organization of the school and the way it relates to diversity. In this respect,
considerations might include the hours the building is open, whether the building and
the staff are accessible, and whether the building’s physical appearance is respectful of
different cultural groups. Second, school policies and procedures are examined to deter-
mine how they affect the delivery of services to students from diverse backgrounds.
Throughout this process, principals may ask questions about their school’s special edu-
cation referral rates, identification procedures and access to honors and AP classes,
decisions made on which students get instruction from most experienced teachers, and
how school resources are allocated. Third, the level of community involvement with
neighborhoods and community outreach efforts are considered. Outreach efforts might
include hiring parent liaisons or a staff member who speaks the language of a student
group and who understands their cultural background, establishing partnerships with

Downloaded from imp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on May 31, 2015

07-086756-Sailes.qxd 2/5/2008 10:32 AM Page 76

76 Improving Schools 11(1)

local businesses, and including parents and community representatives in the decision-
making process. Most important, principals of culturally competent schools encourage
understanding and respect for individual differences and strive for high educational
standards and levels of achievement for all students (Klotz, 2006).
Individual classrooms should also be reflective of school-wide culturally competent prac-
tices. The culturally competent classroom is a place where individuality is honored, dif-
ferent experiences are respected and a place where everyone feels safe, comfortable, and
valued (OPB: Teacher Resource Service, 2006). Further, Ladson-Billings (2001) posits
that culturally relevant pedagogy means making sure that students achieve, develop a pos-
itive sense of self, and develop a commitment to larger social and community concerns.
Unfortunately, a cultural audit of most schools would reveal pedagogical practices which
do not embrace diversity. In these instances, students are taught from the middle class,
Eurocentric framework (Gay, 2000). This framework is based on the notions that: 1)
education has nothing to do with cultures and heritages; 2) teachers are insufficiently
informed about the cultures of different ethnic groups; 3) teachers believe that to treat stu-
dents because of their cultural orientations is racial discrimination; 4) there is a belief that
good teaching is transcendent; it is identical for all students and under all circumstances;
5) and there is a claim that education is an effective doorway of assimilation into main-
stream society where students need to forget about being different and learn to adapt to
the US society which perpetuates the idea that the best way to facilitate assimilation is to
provide all students with the same school experiences (Gay, 2000). In order to transform
these educational practices and beliefs, it is critical that teachers engage in reflective prac-
tice to examine their personal biases and stereotypical beliefs. Delpit (1995) expresses
these sentiments with this assertion by explaining:

If we are to successfully educate all our children, we must work to remove the blinders built of
stereotypes, monoculture instructional methodologies, ignorance, social distance, biased
research, and racism. We must work to destroy those blinders so that it is possible to really
see, to really know the students we must teach. Yes, if we are to be successful at educating
diverse children, we must accomplish the Herculean feat of developing this clear-sightedness,
for in the words of a wonderful Native Alaskan educator: ‘In order to teach you, I must know
you’. (pp.182–3)

The journey to becoming a cultural competent educator often requires one to overcome
obstacles and barriers which necessitate a paradigm shift in how one views others’ cul-
ture and their own. To promote this process, guiding state and national principles and
standards have been created to facilitate the understanding of culture and its relation-
ship to teaching and learning through teacher preparation programs. Although teacher
education programs purport to offer preparation for meeting the needs of racially, eth-
nically, culturally, and linguistically diverse students, scholars have documented the fact
that these efforts are uneven and unproved (Ladson-Billings, 1997).

Cultural competency and teacher education programs

Institutions of higher education, specifically teacher education programs, are responsi-
ble for developing a curriculum and field experiences which result in a cultural compe-
tent educator. This responsibility lies within the realm of administrators and faculty who
often are not culturally competent. Gloria Ladson-Billings (2001) describes a factor
which contributes to the inability of teacher education programs to prepare pre-service

Downloaded from imp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on May 31, 2015

07-086756-Sailes.qxd 2/5/2008 10:32 AM Page 77

Sailes: School culture audits 77

teachers to meet the needs of racially, ethically, culturally, and linguistically diverse
students. She states:

. . . there are approximately 35,000 faculty in the United States; 88 percent of the full-time edu-
cation faculty are white; 81 percent are between the ages of 45 and 60 (or older). These num-
bers alone do not prove anything about the ability of the teacher education faculty. However,
they may cause us to wonder about the incentive of teacher education programs to ensure
that all of its graduates are prepared to teach all students. (in Rethinking Schools Online, 2001)

As Ladson-Billings (2001) points out, white faculty ability to address and teach multi-
cultural issues is not being called into question. However, the perceptions about those
who are culturally different than themselves may sway their beliefs about addressing the
needs of all students. Subsequently, their curriculum may perpetuate ‘color blindness’ or
‘White privilege’. According to Pritchy Smith (2000), no teacher candidate should grad-
uate without foundational knowledge in racism and how ‘White norms’ skew meanings
of ‘achievement’. Further, by not recognizing the negative effects of a ‘color blind’ cur-
riculum, faculty will mainly be focused on monoculturalist interpretations (Smith, 2000).
Federal legislation has influenced governing bodies of teacher education programs on
how they address ‘diversity’. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that ‘no per-
son in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin be excluded
from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimina-
tion’ under any federally supported program. The enactment of this legislation provided
the fundamental standards for agencies responsible for teacher accreditation. The National
Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards and the Interstate
New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) principles and standards
guide state teacher licensing agencies and influence the governance responsibility of a
teacher education program’s curriculum, pedagogy and the evaluation through articulation
of educational goals into standards (Vavrus, 2002).
Cultural competency is addressed in NCATE and INTASC standards. NCATE’s
Standard 4: Diversity states:

The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and experiences for candidates to
acquire and apply knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn.
These experiences include working with diverse higher education and school faculty, diverse
candidates, and diverse students in P-12 schools.

INTASC provides a list of ten outcomes required of all accredited programs. Standard
3: Diverse Learners specifically addresses the issue of cultural competency. It states:

The teacher understands how learners differ in approaches to learning and creates instruc-
tional opportunities that are adapted to learners from diverse cultural backgrounds and with
exceptionalities.

The manner in which NCATE and INTASC addresses cultural competency is limited
and unclear thereby making it difficult to assess knowledge, dispositions, and perform-
ances that are necessary for transformative multicultural education across a teacher edu-
cation programs (Vavrus, 2002). This lack of clarity is further complicated by a recent
NCATE decision to drop the language ‘social justice’ which appears in the glossary for
the definition of ‘dispositions’ as one of several illustrative examples of professional

Downloaded from imp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on May 31, 2015

07-086756-Sailes.qxd 2/5/2008 10:32 AM Page 78

78 Improving Schools 11(1)

disposition (Wasley, 2006). The phrase ‘social justice’ connotes the preparation of future
educators who are reflective, moral, caring and active citizens (Banks, 2004). Opponents
who lobbied for this action contends that the language ‘social justice’ has political over-
tones and can be used by institutions to weed out would-be teachers based on their social
and political beliefs (Wasley, 2006). This decision has serious implications. For most, the
absence of this language fractures and minimizes the role of the teacher in their ability
to educate students with the knowledge, skills, and values that will enable them to live,
interact, and make decisions with fellow citizens from different racial, ethnic, cultural,
language, and religious groups (Banks, 2006). Further, it perpetuates and cultivates the
existence of ‘White privilege’ and negates the need to affirm cultural identity in the learn-
ing process (Vavrus, 2002). In short, until governing accreditation agencies revise stan-
dards so that diversity knowledge bases are made explicit in teacher education programs,
it will be critical to implement school cultural audits to address inequities among stu-
dents who are typically disenfranchised because of monolithic classroom practices.

The roles of the federal government (No Child Left Behind)

and state laws
Teacher training and quality has also been addressed in the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB). A major objective of NCLB is to ensure high-quality teachers for all students,
regardless of race, ethnicity or income, because a well-prepared teacher is vitally impor-
tant to a child’s education (US Department of Education, 2001). This federal law
requires local school districts to ensure that all teachers hired to teach core academic
subjects to be highly qualified by having full certification, a bachelor’s degree, and
demonstrated knowledge and teaching. Further NCLB (ESEA, Title II) provides federal
funding to states and districts for activities that will strengthen teacher quality in all
schools, especially those with a high proportion of children in poverty.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 was signed into law by President Bush.
The law provides a framework on how to improve the performance of America’s ele-
mentary and secondary schools while at the same time ensuring that no child is trapped
in a failing school (US Department of Education, 2001). This legislation is based on a
potentially revolutionary premise – the explicit, direct commitment of the federal gov-
ernment that the achievement gaps that have long existed between the academic success
of White and middle- and upper-income children and that of children of color and chil-
dren from low-income homes are unacceptable and must be eliminated (Skrla et al.,
2004). Since the enactment of this law, according to the Nation’s Report Card, the
achievement gaps in reading and math between White and African American nine-year-
olds are at all-time lows. Similar results were found for White and Hispanic nine-year-
olds (US Department of Education, 2001). However, despite these modest gains, given
the terrible racial and class histories of this country and the deeply rooted inequality and
injustice that continues to exist in the public educational system, it is not surprising that
there is strong suspicion among many – scholars, policy-makers, community activists,
and practitioners alike – that the NCLB act may be rhetorical at best or a sham at worst
(Scheurich et al., 2000; Skrla et al., 2004).
Increased accountability as mandated by the NCLB Act requires states to implement
statewide accountability systems covering all public schools where systems must be based
on challenging state standards in reading and mathematics, annual testing for all students
in grades 3–8, and annual statewide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students

Downloaded from imp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on May 31, 2015

07-086756-Sailes.qxd 2/5/2008 10:32 AM Page 79

Sailes: School culture audits 79

reach proficiency within 12 years (US Department of Education, 2001). Further, assess-
ment results and state progress objectives must be disaggregated by poverty, race, ethnic-
ity, disability, and limited English proficiency to ensure that no group is left behind.
Given the diversity of students as noted earlier, many states have begun to address the
issue of cultural competence for teacher licensure in order to reduce achievement gaps
which exist between White students and racially and ethnically diverse students. An ini-
tial review of these guidelines has revealed a lack of consistency on how states address
cultural competency. In 2001, Zaneville and Duncan initiated a survey of teacher certi-
fication requirements in states to ascertain their ‘cultural competence’ requirements for
licensure. Their preliminary findings included 24 states. These findings suggested that
the references to cultural diversity can be divided into two categories which were iden-
tified as ‘generic’ and ‘specific’. They found that a state’s generic requirements are
viewed to be those that incorporate cultural competence into a general statement
(Zaneville and Duncan, 2001). An example of this loosely defined language states:

. . . the ability to understand and respect the broad range of human potential and cultural
expression, and to incorporate that knowledge in a sensitive and humane manner to promote
understanding and concord among people of differing economic, social, cultural, racial, eth-
nic, gender, and religious backgrounds . . . (p. 2)

Conversely, a state’s specific requirements are viewed to be those that have a well devel-
oped, clearly specified set of requirements (Zaneville and Duncan, 2001). These
requirements reference specific courses or clearly articulated ‘knowledge, disposition,
and or/performance standards’.
Given the guidance or lack there of in the area cultural competency at the state level, it
is critical that schools, elementary through high school, examine their methods for
achieving success for all students. A cultural audit can serve this purpose. Findings from
an audit can help principals work collaboratively with school staff members, parents
and the community to accomplish goals that include closing the achievement gap, pro-
moting pro-social behavior, preventing academic failure, reducing dropouts, and engag-
ing students and their families in the school community (Klotz, 2006).

Design and implementation of a school cultural audit

A positive aspect of the NCLB Act is that it has brought to the forefront the inequities
which exist in our nation’s schools. Teachers, administrators, school board members,
community members, and policy-makers may be aware of these inequities in various
aspects of their schools, but they rarely have systematically examined these areas and
then devised ways to eliminate the inequities (Skrla et al., 2004). Historically, equity
audits have been used to examine inequitable practices relevant to civil rights, curricu-
lum, and state accountability policy systems (Skrla, et al., 2004). Diaz et al. (2006)
define equitable treatment as providing instruction and support that meet the needs of
the student(s) and refutes the notion ‘one size fits all’ education. As such, equitable
treatment is decidedly more difficult to achieve than equal treatment and therefore it is
often a road less traveled compared to ‘equal treatment’ in the realm of education (Diaz
et al., 2006). The benefits of an equitable audit are numerous and noteworthy. However,
a cultural audit can reveal those beliefs and ideas that are tightly woven within the fab-
ric of the school’s culture that are not visible through the lenses of an equity audit. A
culture audit is an examination of the operational elements of an organization to deter-
mine its level of cultural proficiency whereby education is a personalized experience

Downloaded from imp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on May 31, 2015

07-086756-Sailes.qxd 2/5/2008 10:32 AM Page 80

80 Improving Schools 11(1)

designed to support students in identifying and capitalizing on their strengths, identify-

ing and addressing their challenges, with the aim of cultivating a community of lifelong
learners. Most importantly, students are ‘subjected to a curriculum that is characterized
by rigor, relevance, relationships, and a representation of diversity’ (Cleveland, 2007).
Researchers agree that school culture and cultural audits are important, yet often over-
looked, components of school improvement (Freiberg, 1998; Peterson and Deal, 1998;
Lindsey et al., 2003). Culture audits examine how diverse cultural perspectives are reflected
in the values and behaviors manifested in the overall school culture (National Center for
Cultural Competence, 2005). In order to improve school culture, four steps have been sug-
gested by the Center for Improving School Culture (2005): 1) assess the current culture;
2) analyze the findings; 3) select areas for improvement; and 4) continue to monitor and
adjust. However, the format and the focus of a culture audit depend upon on the specific
school, school system, or type of educational institution (Bustamante, 2005). Typically,
for a school or school district, the audit focuses on curriculum and instruction, evaluation
and assessment, school climate, leadership, professional growth and development, and
stakeholders (i.e. students, parents/families, teachers, school staff, and community mem-
bers) (Bustamante, 2006). The assessment of school culture would ideally include mixed
methods that combine traditional quantitative and qualitative methodology to triangulate
data. Researchers, Bustamante (2006), Wagner (2005), and Wagner and Madsen-Copas
(2002) suggest these methods may include but are not limited to:

• examining school documents (e.g. school improvement plan, achievement data,

written curriculum)
• administering surveys (e.g. surveys which measure perceptions)
• conducting observations (e.g. classrooms, meetings, social events)
• facilitating focus groups/interviews of stakeholders (e.g. students, parents, teachers,
staff, community members).

An analysis of the data collected from the assessment of the school culture will reveal
those cultural practices which contribute to the achievement gap and academic failure
and give recognition to practices which celebrate cultural diversity (Wagner, 2005).
By identifying those areas which need improvement (e.g. differentiating instruction,
academic expectations, professional collegiality and collaboration, school climate, etc.),
school personnel can engage in meaningful dialogue and formulate educational change
by making paradigm shifts in professional development, early intervention and assess-
ment, instruction and curriculum selection, and community and parent involvement and
in other areas which recognize the role of culture in human existence and its influence
on organizational and individual values, attitudes, and behaviors (Bustamante, 2006;
Klotz, 2006; Wagner, 2005). Further, these changes will need to be monitored and
adjusted as needed to promote the enculturation of newly adopted philosophies
(Wagner, 2005). For in any culturally competent school, a primary importance is the
teacher’s philosophical belief that children from culturally diverse backgrounds want to
and can learn (Montgomery, 2001).

Final thoughts
The importance of a healthy school culture is finally being recognized by many administra-
tors as the cornerstone of the school improvement process (Wagner, 2005). Researcher and
author Geneva Gay (2000: 25) stresses the significance of school culture when she states:

Downloaded from imp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on May 31, 2015

07-086756-Sailes.qxd 2/5/2008 10:32 AM Page 81

Sailes: School culture audits 81

if educators continue to be ignorant of, ignore, impugn, and silence the cultural orientations,
values, and performance styles of ethnically different students, they will persist in imposing
cultural hegemony, personal denigration, educational inequity, and academic upon them . . .
however, by accepting the validity of these students’ cultural socialization and prior experi-
ences will help to reverse achievement trends; therefore it is incumbent upon teachers,
administrators, and evaluators to deliberately create cultural continuity in educating ethnically
diverse students.
The author can be contacted by email at: jsailes@iupui.edu

References
Banks, J. (2004) Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives, 5th edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Banks, J. (2006) Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives, 6th edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bustamante, R. (2006) The ‘culture audit’: a leadership tool for assessment and strategic planning in diverse
schools and colleges. Online: www.cmx.org/Content/m13691/latest/.
Bodley, J. (2000) Cultural Anthropology: Tribes, States, and the Global System, 3rd edn. Mountain View,
CA: Mayfield.
Center for Improving School Culture (2005) The school culture assessment process. Online: www.schoolcul-
ture.net/process.html.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 601 78 Stat 252 (42 USC 2000d) (1964).
Cleveland, R. (2007) Cultural competency and organizational culture: connecting the dots. Submitted for pub-
lication.
Delpit, L. (1995) Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: The New Press.
Diaz, C., Pelletier, C. & Provenzo, E. (2006) Touch the Future . . . Teach! Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Freiberg, H. J. (1998) Measuring school climate: let me count the ways. Educational Leadership, 56(1), 22–6.
Gay, G. (2000) Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Ingraham, C. L. (2000) Consultation through a multicultural lens: multicultural and cross-cultural consulta-
tion in schools. School Psychology Review, 29, 320–43.
Klotz, M. B. (2006) Culturally competent schools: guidelines for secondary school principals. National
Association of School Psychologist Journal. March, 11–14.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1997) The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2001) Teaching and cultural competence: what does it take to be a successful teacher in
a diverse classroom? Online: www.rethinkingschools.org/archieve/15_04/Glb154.shtml.
Lindsey, R., Robins, K. & Terrell, R. (2003) Cultural Proficiency: A Manual for School Leaders, 2nd edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Montgomery, W. (2001) Creating culturally responsive, inclusive classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children,
33(4), 4–9.
National Center for Cultural Competence (2005) Cultural and linguistic competence: definitions, frameworks,
and implications. Online: www.nccccurricula.info/culturalcompetence.html.
OPB: Teacher Resource Center (2006) Passports: crossing cultural borders. Online: www.opb.org/educa-
tion/minisites/culturalcompetence/teachers.html
Peterson, K. D. & Deal, T. E. (1998) How leaders influence culture of schools. Educational Leadership,
56(1), 28–30.
Phillips, G. & Wagner, C. (2003) School Culture Assessment: A Manual for Assessing and Transforming
School and Classroom Culture. Vancouver, BC: Eduserv, British Columbia School of Trustee Publishing.
Pritchy Smith, G. (2000) The minority teacher shortage and testing. Multicultural Perspectives, 2(3), 34–38.
Richards, H., Brown, A. & Forde, T. (2004) Practitioner brief: addressing diversity in schools: culturally
responsive pedagogy. Online: www.nccrest.org/Briefs/Diversity_Brief.pdf.
Richardson, J. (2002) Share Culture: A Consensus of Individual Values. Results. Oxford, OH: National Staff
Development Council.

Downloaded from imp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on May 31, 2015

07-086756-Sailes.qxd 2/5/2008 10:32 AM Page 82

82 Improving Schools 11(1)

Scheurich, J. J., Skrla, L. & Johnson, J. F. (2000) Thinking carefully about equity and accountability. Phi
Delta Kappan, 82(4), 293–9.
Sizer, T. J. (1998) A visit to an ‘Essential’ school. School Administrator, 45(10), 18–19.
Skrla, L., Scheurich, J., Garcia, J. & Nolly, G. (2004) Equity audits: A practical leadership tool for develop-
ing equitable and excellent school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 133–61.
US Department of Education (2001) Executive Summary: NCLB. Online: www.ed.gov/print/nclb/overview/
intro/execsumm.html.
Vavrus, M. (2002) Transforming the Multicultural Education of Teachers: Theory, Research, and Practice.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Wagner, C. (2005) Leadership for an improved school culture: How to assess and improve the culture of your
school. Kentucky School Leader, Fall/Winter, 9–16.
Wagner, C. & Hall-O’Phelan, P. (1998) Improving schools through the administration and analysis of school
culture audits. Paper presented at the Midsouth Educational Research Association Annual Conference, New
Orleans, LA.
Wagner, C. & Madsen-Copas, P. (2002) An audit of the culture starts with two handy tools. Journal of Staff
Development, Summer, 42–53.
Wasley, P. (2006) Accreditor of education schools drops controversial ‘social justice’ language. The Chronicle
of Higher Education, 52(41), A13–14.
Zaneville, H. & Duncan, A. (2001) Cultural competence for teachers: a preliminary report on approaches in
other states. Online: www.ous.edu/aca/cultcomp.htm.

Downloaded from imp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF GEORGIA LIBRARIES on May 31, 2015