University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The formation and implementation of a regional achievement collaborative

(USC Thesis Other)

The formation and implementation of a regional achievement collaborative

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content i
Running head: FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE

THE FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT
COLLABORATIVE

by

Timothy Chip Dale
______________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2014

FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE

ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Arlet, who has loved me unconditionally,
shouldering many things so that this work could be possible. Thank you for your love,
encouragement and support throughout this process. You inspire me each day. I love you.

FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Larry Picus for chairing my dissertation
committee and guiding me through this great challenge, your patience, humor and expertise have
been invaluable to me through this endeavor. I would also like to thank Dr. Rudy Crew whose
words of wisdom both on this committee and in the many classes that I took from you have been
a well from which I continually draw. Lastly, thank you also to Dr. Michael Seelig who also
graciously agreed to serve on my committee giving me support and feedback along the way.

FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION…………………………………………………………………………………….ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………iii
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………...v
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………..vii
CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………...1
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….....1
Statement of the Problem………………….………………………………………………7
Purpose of the Study…………………….………………………………………………...9
Importance of the Study………………………………………………………………....10
Summary of Methodology……………………………………………………………….11
Limitations…………………………………………………………………………….....11
Delimitations……………………………………………………………………………..12
Assumptions………………………………………………………………………….......12
Definitions……………………………………………………………………………......13
CHAPTER 2- LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………..16
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….......16
Oregon School Reform History……………………………………………………….....16
Implementation Theory…………………………………………………………………..23
Partnerships……………………………………………………………………………....28
Summary……………………………………………………………………………........33
CHAPTER 3 – METHODS……………………………………………………………………..34
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………...34
Research Questions……………………………………………………………………....37
Purposeful Sample…………………………………………………………………….....37
Instrumentation…………………………….…………………………………………….40
Data Collection………………………………………………………..………………....40
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE

v
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………….....42
Summary……………………………………..……………………………………….….42

CHAPTER 4- FINDINGS…………………………………… ………………………..............43
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………...43
Regional Demographics………………………………………………………………….43
Research Questions……………………………………………………………………....47
Summary and Conclusion………………………………………………………………..55
CHAPTER 5-DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………56
Overview of the Study………………………………………………………………......56
Summary of Findings………………………………………………………………........58
Limitations…………………………………………………………………………….....61
Recommendations for Future Research………………………………………………....62
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….........63
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………….65
APPENDIX A- Open ended interview questions………………………………………………..75
APPENDIX B- Revised Interview Questions……………………………………………...........77

FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Key Attributes of Successful Policy Implementation……………………...35
Table 3.2: Characteristics of Successful Partnerships………………………………...36
Table 3.3: Cod Regional Educational Attributes…………….……………………….38
Table 4.1- Regional Pre-Requisite Data for Participating in Case Study…………….44
Table 4.2- Cod Regional Data………………………….……………………………..44
Table 4.3- Interviewees Institutional Affiliation….........……...………………….......46
Table 4.4 Interviewees Committee Membership…………….………………………..46

FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE

vii
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to study how one region in Oregon formed and began
implementing a statewide pilot known as the Regional Achievement Collaborative. This
research utilized the research around policy implementation theory and the work around
collective action and multi-organizational partnership theory as a lens from which to study one
region’s adoption and implementation of a state initiative. This study found that the region’s
success of this initiative was rooted in the connection of the policy to previous partnered work in
the area. Additional findings suggested that the participation of top leaders, time for relationship
building, trust and common visioning were critical success factors. The data suggested that the
expansion of the partnership created challenges to building trust and buy-in between some new
participants while at the same time moving to implement ideas. Additionally the need for an
intermediary support organization to manage large multi-organizational partnerships was
evident.

1
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Chapter 1- Introduction
Introduction
The United States has for over a century dominated the globe as an economic superpower
built in part on the quality of its’ educational system (Hanushek & Woessman, 2011). America’s
past global advantage in its’ education was built upon the free access it afforded to so many of
its’ citizens to an education. The notion of widespread access to a free education began in the
19
th
Century with elementary education for all and extended to a secondary education for all in
the 20
th
Century (Goldin & Katz, 2008). The mass of children taking advantage of a secondary
education boomed early in the 20
th
Century increasing from 18% of the youth enrolled in 1910 to
71% enrollment in secondary schools by1940 (Goldin & Katz, 2008). This increase in the
education level of the U.S populace offered the U.S. economy more highly skilled workforce
than ever before, setting the U.S. economy up for prosperity through much of the 20
th
Century
(Goldin & Katz, 2008).
The dawn of the 21
st
Century has revealed a world that is much different than the one
previously dominated by the United States. Developments in technology, particularly in the
world of telecommunications via the internet, coupled with the lessening of trade barriers have
“flattened the world” into a globalized economy (Carnoy, 2000; Freidman, 2006; Kirsch, Braun,
Yamamoto & Sum, 2007). Carnoy (2000) defines a global economy as “one whose strategic
core activities, including innovation, finance and corporate management, function on a planetary
scale in real time.” Today’s world economy demands goods and services that require highly
skilled workers that require a knowledge base beyond that of a secondary education (Carnoy,
2000; Kirsch et al, 2007). The United States between 1984 and 2000 saw two thirds of its’ job
2
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
growth come from employment related with a college level education (Kirsch et al, 2007). It is
clear that in today’s global economy a nation’s economic strength will be built on its’ post-
secondary educational system.
As economies become more and more dependent on highly skilled labor the quality of
their higher educational system becomes increasingly critical for long term economic growth and
stability (Kirsch et al, 2007). The United States at first glance appears to have the global
advantage when it comes to the vastness and quality of its’ post-secondary educational system.
U.S. universities make up 75% of the top 40 universities in the world, 58% of the top 100
(Galama & Hosek, 2008). In the fields of science and technology 63% of all highly cited works
come from U.S. universities and colleges (Galama & Hosek, 2008).
Though the U.S. higher education continues to lead the world, the gap is closing. In 1970
the U.S. produced 29% of all college graduates in the world, by 2006 this number had slipped to
12 % (West, 2012). In 2006 China had 23.6 million students enrolled in a postsecondary
program, roughly 6 million more than the U.S. (West, 2012). U.S. dependence on highly trained
foreign born workers in the science and technology workforce doubled from 6% in 1994 to 12%
in 2006 (Galama & Hosek, 2008). The Bureau of Labor and Statistics estimates that in 2012 the
U.S. will create 120,000 new jobs requiring a bachelor’s degree in computer science, yet only
40,000 bachelor degrees in computer science are given out each year in the U.S. (Smith, 2012).
Filling these vacancies in the 21
st
Century’s “flattened” globalized economy is easier than
ever. Companies are no longer dependent on the human capital of a given nation or region.
Today’s technological advances allow industries to hire highly skilled workers from across the
globe, where many can work from their home countries, collaborating electronically in real time.
3
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
The globalization of human capital without the previous necessity of immigrating employees to
a home headquarters has allowed companies to reduce labor costs avoiding having to pay the
prevailing wages in a more expensive country such as the U.S.(Friedman, 2006; Carnoy, 2000;
Kirsch et al, 2007). Thus the U.S. education system is challenged to graduate students who can
not only having adequate skills but superior skills in order to justify earning higher wages than
their counterparts in China and India (Friedman, 2006). Without educational improvement the
trend of outsourcing of high paying jobs will only continue posing a threat to the U.S. long term
economic growth and by extension the well-being of the nation as a whole (Kirsch et al 2007,
Friedman, 2005).
The United States response to building an improved educational system has largely been
centered on K-12 compulsory education. In 2001 the federal government passed the No Child
Left Behind Act, NCLB. NCLB amended the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
ESEA, requiring that states adopt rigorous standards, improve the quality of teachers and hold
Local Education Agencies, LEAs, and the individual schools situated in them accountable for
student achievement. Accountability came largely through high stakes testing in each level of
the K-12 system. With the goal that all subgroups make Adequate Yearly Progress, AYP,
leading up to 2014 when each subgroup, ethnic and economic, would be 100% proficient (NCLB
Act of 2001, Pub L. No 107-110).
Despite NCLB, student achievement has made very little progress within the K-12
system of the U.S. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, a federal test
assessing reading and math has shown only limited progress being made. 4
th
and 8th math
achievement rose only 6 points from 2003-2011 and reading achievement has remained
relatively flat, with 4
th
grade achievement rising only two points from 2002-2011, and 8
th
grade
4
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
reading rising only one point between 2002-2011 (US Department of Education, 2012a; US
Department of Education, 2012b).
When looking at achievement during NCLB from an international perspective the results
are mixed. The Trend in International Mathematics and Science Study, TIMSS, is given to 57
nations and other educational systems to assess progress in math and science. In 2011 the U.S.
performance in 4
th
and 8
th
grade math was in the above average range with the U.S placing in the
top 15 for 4
th
grade math, and top 24 for 8
th
grade math achievement. Science performance also
was above average with the U.S. placing top 10 in 4
th
grade achievement and top 23 in 8
th
grade
science achievement (U.S. Department of Education, NCES 2013).
TIMSS U.S. results though above the total average also showed the U.S. is falling
significantly behind top performing countries. U.S. 4
th
grade math achievement on the TIMSS
was an average score of 541, compared to top performing Singapore’s 606 average score. U.S.
8
th
grade math had an above average score of 509, trailing by one hundred points the top three
performing nations of Korea, Singapore and Chinese-Taipei. U.S. science achievement also fell
far below top performing countries. 4
th
graders averaged 544 in science as compared to Korea’s
587 average, Singapore’s 583 and Finland’s 570 average. US eighth grade science achievement
was a 525 average, far behind Singapore’s average of 509 and Chinese Taipei’s 564 average
(U.S. Department of Education, NCES 2013). TIMSS data also shows the U.S. lacking when
analyzing the percentage of student scoring in the top tier, advanced. Only 13% of US 4
th

graders received an advanced score in math. Singapore had 43% of its’ 4
th
grade math students
scoring advanced. In Science 15% of US fourth graders were advanced, as compared to
Singapore’s 33%. Only 7% of 8
th
grade US math students scored advanced in math, whereas
5
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
49% of Chinese-Taipei 8
th
grade students were advanced. U.S. 8
th
graders had only 10% scoring
advanced in Science versus 40% in Singapore (U.S. Dept. of Education, NCES 2013).
US performance on an international scale drops as students reach high school. The
Program for International Student Assessment, PISA, in 2009 assessed literacy, math and science
achievement of 15 year olds in OECD countries. U.S. PISA results found students scoring no
longer in the above average range average range in literacy and science, and below average range
in math. And just as was the case on TIMSS many countries significantly outperformed the US
in all sections of the PISA (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2011a).
NCLB has failed to significantly improve the state of education in the United States.
After a decade of minimal progress it has become clear that states will not be able to meet the
original goal of 100% proficient by 2014. As a result more and more districts and states have
fallen into Program Improvement status for failing to make appropriate progress among all of its’
subgroups and thus had flexibility for solving problems restricted (EdSource, 2013). NCLB
restrictions have in turn stifled individual reform efforts of individual state (Duncan, 2011). In
an effort to give states more flexibility in creating reforms keeping with NCLB priorities of
curricular rigor, accountability and teacher quality, the federal government in 2011 allowed
states to apply for waivers from pieces of NCLB. Oregon, along with 33 other states, was been
granted a waiver from NCLB to pursue their own reform initiatives (U.S. Dept. of Education,
2012c).
Oregon’s decision to apply for a waiver was predicated by Oregon’s lack of student
achievement during NCLB. NAEP results from 2011 revealed that Oregon 4
th
graders scored
below average in math and reading when compared to other states, while 8
th
graders performed
6
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
at the national average in math and reading (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2012d). Oregon’s own
achievement test, Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, OAKS, 2011-12 data revealed
that only 63% of its total students were proficient in math, 72% were proficient in reading and
66% proficient in Science (Oregon Dept. of Ed, 2012). With insufficient progress being made
state lawmakers in Oregon began a series of legislation to reform its’ public education system.
In 2011 the state legislator passed Bill 253, commonly referred to as 40/40/20. This bill set the
highest high school and college completion goals in the nation, setting the goal that by 2025 40%
of Oregon students would graduate from college, 40% would graduate with at least an
associate’s degree, and 20% would graduate with a high school diploma, commonly referred to
as 40/40/20 (Oregon Education Investment Board, 2011).
Bill 909 was also passed in 2011, creating the Oregon Education Investment Board,
OEIB, as the body in charge of fulfilling the 40/40/20 vision. OEIB was given the specific
duties of recommending strategic investments in public schools to achieve state goals, hiring a
Chief Education Officer to supervise the entire public education system, creating a statewide
preK-20 student database to improve accountability, improve and connect pre-K services with K-
12 and post-secondary education including establishing an Early Learning Council, and report
progress to the Oregon Legislature (Senate Bill 909, 2011). Additionally, Bill 1581 was passed
in 2012 authorizing the OEIB to develop achievement compacts for all public education
agencies, pre-K, K-12, community colleges, and universities. (Senate Bill 1581, 2012). The
achievement compacts required institutional goal setting around key markers for student
progress, with particular attention to ethnic and socioeconomic subgroups. Furthermore the
compacts were to be a tool to foster system improvement through embracing best practices
around teaching, policies and use of funds, as well as bolster collaboration with other entities in
7
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
the preK-20 education system to promote student achievement (Oregon.gov, 2013; Oregon
Education Investment Board, 2012). Tangentially in 2013 to further develop collaboration
across the prek-20 continuum the OEIB initiated the Regional Achievement Compacts, whereby
prek-20 educational leaders within a region would be able to voluntarily set regional goals for
student achievement, and unite resources to addressing a Prek-20 educational obstacles in the
community (Oregon Education Investment Board, 2013).
Statement of the Problem
The United States strength is predicated on its’ economic ability to grow (Friedman,
2005; Hanushek & Woessman; 2011). Today’s globalized economy has placed an increasing
demand for countries, including the U.S. to improve their educational system so as to produce
highly skilled labor to create the goods and services demanded of in today’s economy (OECD,
2012; Carnoy, 2000; West, 2012). Despite the being the second highest investor in public
education of all OECD countries the US public education system has made limited progress,
falling behind a host of other nations (West, 2012). NAEP scores show U.S. 17 year olds have
made little achievement progress over the past 40 years, with gains of only 1 and 2 points in
reading and math since 1970 (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Internationally the U.S. is
being far outdistanced by countries such as China, Singapore, Finland and South Korea (U.S.
Department of Education, 2011a; U.S. Department of Education, 2013). This lack of
performance has cost the US economy dearly. Hanushek and Woessman (2011) estimated that if
the U.S. performed as the top educational countries the US economy’s annual growth rate would
rise by a full 1%, totaling trillions of dollars over the long term.
8
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Today’s high school graduates are realizing that a high school diploma is not enough. In
2010 people 25-34 years old holding a bachelor made 50% more than those with only a high
school diploma, and 22 % more than those with an associate’s degree (Aud, Johnson, Kena,
Roth, Manning… Yoth, 2012). As a result college enrollment in the US has risen in the past
decade by 37%, and is projected to continue to rise (Aud et al, 2012). Though the U.S. has more
students than ever graduating from college too many are leaving unprepared for the workplace
(Aud et al 2012; Cassner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006). In 2010 more than half of the 1.7 million
bachelor’s degrees were awarded in the areas of business, management, marketing, personal and
culinary services (Aud et al, 2012), not in the key economic growth sectors of math, science and
computer engineering (Smith, 2012; Friedman, 2005; Carnoy, 2000). According to the Bureau
of Labor Statistics report the US created an estimated 120,000 jobs requiring at least a bachelor’s
in computer science, yet only 40,000 computer science degrees were awarded in the US last year
(Smith, 2012).
Despite the economic dependence on highly skilled workers (Carnoy, 2000; West, 2012)
the US in the past has approached its’ public education system in sectors, specifically
compulsory and higher education, centering much of its’ reform initiative around compulsory
education ((NCLB Act of 2001, Pub L. No 107-110). This bifurcated approach has fit well with
the isolationistic culture in education whereby classrooms, schools, districts, and universities
work in isolated silos (Elmore, 2000; OEIB, 2012; Collin; unknown). One bi-product of this
culture of individualism has been the increased need for remediation as students move between
systems. 43% of students enrolled in a community college will need some remedial instruction
college, and universities will see 34% of their students enroll in at least one remedial class
(Strong American Schools, 2008). Among those taking remedial classes over 75% will drop out
9
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
leaving them significantly underprepared to earn a living in the 21
st
Century (Bailey, 2009;
Kirsch et al, 2007).
Oregon’s recent legislative reform initiatives created the 40/40/20 vision, the OEIB and
achievement compacts recast the problem as a prek-20 educational issue, seeking to create a
pipeline that results in producing a skilled an employable citizenry that increases economic
prosperity for the state over the long term (Crew, personal notes). Though the idea of K-20
unification in governance and oversight is not novel, Florida and New York have established
prek-20 systems, the concept of holding each educational entity accountable for student progress
to encourage cross-entity collaboration is. OEIB documents clear state that the practice of
educational entities working on issues of student achievement in isolation, commonly referred to
as “siloing” is one that cannot continue if the goals of 40/40/20 are to be reached (Oregon.gov,
2013, Oregon Education Investment Board, 2013). OEIB’s introduction of Regional
Achievement Collaboratives, whereby K-12 districts, community colleges and regional
universities would voluntarily set regional goals from which to work together to solve and be
held accountable for clearly signal OEIB’s concern for “siloing” and there plan to encourage and
hold accountable entities working together as opposed to competitively against each other
(Oregon Education Investment Board, 2013).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to research how Oregon’s public education system, K-20, is
collaborating to develop a continuous pipeline that results in a network of human capital that is
viable in the 21
st
Century’s globalized economy. More specifically this study will look at the
achievement compacts, particularly the Regional Achievement Collaboratives and the effect that
10
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
these compacts are having on student achievement. Data collection and analysis will center in on
one of the five regional compacts, namely the compact among the University of Oregon, Lane
Community College, Springfield School District, Eugene School District and Bethel School
District. The research questions for this study are:
• What led to individual institutions volunteering to be part of the Regional
Collaborative?
• How were regional compact goals selected?
• What strategies were taken to achieve these goals?
• What impact has participation had on individual institutions?
Importance of the Study
The U.S. Department of Education has granted 34 states waivers from NCLB, setting the
stage for a new form of reform initiatives across the United States (US Dept. of Education,
2012c). Oregon’s string of legislative initiatives have sought to redefine the educational problem
beyond NCLB’s K-12 perspective and towards an economic one predicated on the efficiency and
quality of its’ preK-20 educational continuum (Oregon Education Investment Board, 2013b;
Crew, 2013). In service of this Oregon has progressively moved towards a coupling of a top
down accountability model through individual educational entity’s achievement compacts, with a
bottom up model, the voluntary Regional Achievement Compacts (OEIB, 2012; OEIB, 2013).
Oregon is unique in fashioning public accountability around the goals set by the partnership,
coupling voluntary partnerships with high stakes accountability measures.
Researchers will gain insight from this study in areas pertaining to accountability
mechanisms, motivation, goal setting, and change theory within a K-20 public education system.
11
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Policy makers will gain valuable information with regards to the effects of K-20 collaboration
and the usefulness of voluntary versus mandatory accountability policies. Practitioners,
particularly educational leaders will benefit from understanding the processes and strategies used
to collectively identify and solve a larger educational problem.
Summary of Methodology
This research provides in-depth data collection and analysis around the formation and
implementation of the Regional Achievement Collaborative in Lane County between Oregon
University, Lane Community College, Springfield School District, Eugene School District, and
Bethel School District. The Lane County Regional Achievement Collaborative was selected
because it contained Oregon University the highest performing public university in the state, as
well as one large K-12 school district, sixth largest in the state, Eugene 4J, thus giving this
regional compact the largest span of K-20 learners. Data collection largely consisted of in-depth
interviews from various leaders of participating institutions that regularly attended the Regional
Collaborative meetings. A review of public records including institutional meeting minutes,
budget documents and previously submitted individual achievement compacts was also
conducted. Observation of two compact meetings was also conducted to further triangulate data
collection.
Limitations
The following limitations are a factor in this research:
• Findings are not generalizable to other regions given the uniqueness in regional student
populations, funding and culture
12
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
• Data collection from interviews was limited to members of the regional compact
committee and may not be representative of other key institutional leader perspectives
• Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured process with possibility of data
collection being subjectively biased
• Some member of the Regional Collaborative have previously worked together skewing
perspectives and actions taken.
Delimitations
This study has the following delimitations:
• The study focused on only 1 of the Regional Achievement Collaboratives, the Lane
County Collaborative
• Pre-K leaders were not incorporated into this study
• Data collection was limited to the first half of the 2013-14 school year as opposed to the
entire year
• Interviewees chosen were limited to those regularly attending compact meetings

Assumptions
The following assumptions have been made:
• Subjects who participated in interviews gave truthful and complete responses
• All documents reviewed were complete and accurate
• Coordinating interviewee contacts with Regional Achievement Collaborative Staff did
not influence interviewee interview
13
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Definitions
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)- mandated series of goals under NCLB for all states, districts
and schools receiving Title 1 funding to show set academic performance targets for each
significant subgroup towards the goal of 100% proficient by 2014 (California Department of
Education, 2009).
Achievement Compacts- requirement for every school district, community college and
universities in Oregon to annually show measures of student progress towards becoming
prepared to contribute to the workforce, economy and society in general (Oregon Education
Investment Board, 2012)
Educational Entity-can be any of the following: a school district, educational service district,
community college, the Oregon University System, a public university in the Oregon University
System, or health professions and graduate science programs in the Oregon Health and Science
University (Oregon Education Investment Board, 2012b)
Flat World- term coined by Friedman whereby as a result of changes in world politics and
technological advances barriers to trade have broken down allowing for work to be done all of
the world in real time creating a globalized economy where skilled labor can compete and fill
jobs from anywhere on the globe (Friedman, 2006)
Globalized Economy- the world’s “strategic core activities, including innovation, finance and
corporate management, function on a planetary scale in real time.” (Carnoy, 2000).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)- Established in 2001 requiring all state and local public
education agencies to meet preset yearly benchmarks to improve teacher and administrator
14
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
quality, rigor in teaching standards, and continued student improvement for all (ethnic,
economic, special education) with the goal of 100% proficiency by 2014 (NCLB Act of 2001,
Pub L. No 107-110).
Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS) - Oregon’s yearly statewide
examination of student learning with regards to state standards beginning in third grade and
continuing through high school (Oregon Dept. of Education, 2013)
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)-34 countries have
membership, along with 6 other countries applying for or in regular attendance (Brazil, China,
India, Indonesia, South Africa, Russia) who meet to identify, analyze, problem solve and
promote policies pertaining to global economic issues, with education being one of the recurring
topics (OECD, 2013).
Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) - established in 2011 by Bill 909 the 12 person
committee chaired by the governor and comprised of educational and community representatives
is tasked with developing an investment strategy to improve outcomes preK- university levels,
developing a statewide database for accountability across the educational continuum, forming an
Early Learning Council, and reporting to the Legislature (Oregon Education Investment Board,
2012)
Program Improvement (PI)- intervention required by NCLB when schools and districts for
two consecutive years fails to make adequate yearly progress for all significant subgroup
populations towards the goal of 100% proficient in 2013-14. Sanctions are required dictating
busing students out of schools, required use of funds for professional development, and
restructuring schools (EdSource, 2013).
15
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Regional Achievement Collaboratives- piloted program to encourage collaborative efforts
within a region among institutions to ensure all students are on the pathway to post-secondary
success consisting of student academic growth targets across prek-20 continuum as well as
targeting challenges outside of the classroom that effect school culture. (Oregon Education
Investment Board, 2013)
Silos- the practice of institutions to solve problems within an institution without collaborating
and sharing knowledge and ideas with others outside of the institution (Oregon Education
Investment Board, 2013).

16
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Chapter 2- Literature Review
Introduction
This chapter summarizes the research related to the Oregon Education Investment
Board’s 2013 initiative known as the Regional Achievement Collaboratives, originally named
the Regional Achievement Compacts. The chapter has been divided into the following three
sections:
1. Oregon’s history of school reform - a summary of the significant state education
policies over the past two decades: A) Education Act; B)Database Initiative Project;
C) Measure 5; D) Oregon Quality Education Model; E) Gov. Kulongoski initiatives;
F) 40/40/20 and OEIB; G)Achievement Compacts; H) Regional Achievement
Compacts
2. Implementation theory- an overview of implementation theory including: A)obstacles
to implementation; B) supports for implementation; C) supports and obstacles in the
era of standards based policy making; D) NCLB implementation and effects
3. Educational partnerships- a review of: A) the processes of effective partnerships; B)
obstacles to success; C) effect of partnership work; D) Effective models- Collective
action and P-20.
Oregon School Reform History
The State of Oregon has for over 20 years been working to improve its’ educational
system. Oregon’s reform movement began as a response to many stakeholders feeling
economically uncertain in a changing, increasingly globalized economy. Seeing the increased
need for a more educated citizenry in a knowledge based economy the legislature in 1991
17
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
adopted The Oregon Educational Act for the 21
st
Century, better known as The Education Act
(Oregon Business Council, 2000).
The Education Act
Oregon’s Education Act, enacted in 1991, had two ambitious goals. The first was for
Oregon to become the best K-12 educational system in the United States by 2000. Second was
for Oregon to have the best educational system in the world by 2010. To meet this goal the
legislation called for the development of a set of rigorous standards and accountability measures
(Oregon Business Council, 2000). After several years of development Oregon established a new
set of standards and assessments for grades 3, 5, 8 and 10 (Conley & Picus, 2003). Additionally
high school assessments known as the Certificate of Initial Mastery, CIM, for 10
th
graders and
the Certificate of Advanced Mastery, CAM, for 12
th
graders were developed. These standards for
high school proficiency were then used to help make the Proficiency-Based Admission Standards
System, to link K-12 learning with college readiness (Venezia et al, 2005; Kirst & Venezia,
2006).
Database Initiative Project
Standards and accountability were further heightened by the passage in 1997 of the
Database Initiative Project, DBI. DBI standardized the reporting of educational expenditures
across all schools in Oregon. DBI created a state database, comparing the amount and usage of
funds for initiatives and projects such as class size reduction programs (Conley & Picus, 2003).
As a result DBI created financial transparency and accountability, in addition to sharing best
practices (Venezia et al 2005; Oregon Business Council, 2000).

18
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Measure 5
The standards and assessment movement was slowed in the nineties due to limits in
school funding. In 1990 Measure 5, an act that limited the amount of property tax that could be
collected, shifting the primary funding of education from local property taxes to state general
revenue, was passed (Conley & Picus, 2003). Measure 5 specifically called for the state to make
up for lost revenue from the caps on property taxes, a requirement the state struggled to do,
resulting in an overall decline in educational funding during the nineties (Oregon Business
Council, 2000). Additionally with the state in control of funding it moved to equalize funding
between districts. This effort resulting in previously higher funded districts having their
resources frozen until the state was able to raise lower income districts up to equal funding levels
(Conley & Picus, 2003).
The Education Act, Measure 5 and DBI legislation in the nineties created consistency
throughout the state with uniformity in standards, assessments, finances and improved
accountability to measure student achievement and use of dollars (Conley & Picus, 2003).
Despite these developments it was clear that The Education Act’s aspiration to be the best K-12
state in the nation by 2000 would go unfulfilled. The state had succeeded in redefining
curriculum and assessments but not in empowering districts to meet these more rigorous
standards with increase educational funding (Kirst & Venezia, 2006; Oregon Business Council,
2000).
Oregon Quality Education Model
Addressing the issue of funding, the state in 1999 developed the Oregon Quality
Education Model, OQEM, to delineate what levels of resources were necessary to achieve
19
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
various levels of school performance (Oregon Business Council, 2000). OQEM was modeled
after Governor Kitzhaber’s health plan that tied funding levels to levels of treatment available.
OQEM spelled out what certain levels of educational funding meant for the services possible that
K-12 districts could provide. These levels of funding were represented by three prototype
schools funded at different levels. The first prototype, a Current Service Level model school,
illustrated what was possible with funding remaining steady. The second and third models were
an idealized model known as Full Implementation and a Phased Implementation model. Both
prototypes were built on the presuppositions of experts combined with some research to support
what services were necessary for schools to ensure academic success for 90% their students.
OQEM allowed for the legislature to make more informed budgeting decisions with regards to
education (Conley & Picus, 2003).
Governor Kulongoski Initiatives
Governor Kitzhaber’s governorship ended in 2003. He was succeeded by Governor
Kulongoski. Kulongoski’s educational agenda targeted higher education leading him to overhaul
the State Board of Higher Education, and calling for greater coordination between community
colleges and state universities, as well as championing increased funding for higher education to
help bring down the cost of attendance for residents (Steves & Bolt, 2003). However
Kulongoski’s plans to reform higher education became side tracked by a scandal involving his
appointed President of the State Board of Higher Education. Budget shortfalls due to economic
declines also derailed educational reform efforts. What started out as potential large scale
reform ended with only the accomplishments of increased scholarships for students of need, and
improved funding for preschool education (Esteve, 2011).
20
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
40/40/20 and the OEIB
Governor Kulongoski left office in 2011, succeeded by Governor Kitzhaber who
inherited an educational system that was underperforming. 2011 NAEP results showed Oregon’s
4
th
grade students were below average in reading and math (US Dept. of Education, 2012d).
State test results in 2010-11 revealed that only 63% of students in grades 3-12 were proficient in
mathematics (Oregon Dept. of Ed, 2012). And high school students’ 4 and 5 year graduation
rates in 2011 showed 1/3 of students unable to graduate with a regular diploma (Oregon
Education Investment Board, 2011).
Recognizing the need for reform, Kitzhaber set out to transform Oregon’s educational
system into a 21
st
Century model. Kitzhaber criticized the current educational structure in
Oregon as fragmented with pre-kinder, k-12 and higher education operating independently with
their own individual educational bureaucracies (Cooper, 2011).
In 2011 two significant pieces of educational legislation were passed. Bill 253, otherwise
known as 40/40/20, established the goal and vision for the state in terms of its’ educational
system. This legislation set the most ambitious educational goals in the nation, targeting the goal
of having 40% of Oregon students graduating from college, 40% graduating with at least an
associate’s degree, and 20% completing high school by the year 2025 (Oregon Education
Investment Board, 2011). Second, to bring this vision to fruition the legislator adopted Bill 909
which created the Oregon Education Investment Board, OEIB, to oversee the entire educational
system pre-K-higher education. In addition to supervisory powers the board was charged with
hiring a Chief Education Officer to oversee the system, creating a statewide prek-20 student
database for purposes of accountability and collaboration, establishing an Early Learning
21
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Council to assist with improving the linkage between early education and K-12 education, and
reporting to the Oregon Legislature, including making funding recommendations (Senate Bill
909, 2011).
Achievement Compacts
Education centered legislation in 2012 continued with the passage of Bill 1581. This bill
established the requirement that all public education agencies, Pre-K, K-12 districts, community
colleges and public universities, annually complete an achievement compact (Senate Bill 1581,
2012). Achievement compacts were conceived of as mechanisms to align the educational
system, improve the ability to target funding, foster collaboration around successful strategies,
and replace NCLB accountability structures with a more helpful and flexible system (Nesbitt,
2012). Achievement compacts were organized into four general themes: college and career
readiness, progression towards college and career readiness, equity of success/progress for all
populations and local priorities. Within these themes educational entities were required to
submit annual goals that centered on specific achievement markers, such as graduation rates, that
indicated significant progress being made towards 40/40/20 in 2025. As an example K-12 district
compacts set goals for four and five year graduation percentages, post-secondary enrollment,
third grade math and reading proficiency, attendance percentages in sixth grade, and ninth grade
attendance and credit completion data, and number of schools in Title 1 improvement status
(Nesbitt, 2012). In addition to setting targets educational entities were required to show how
budgets aligned towards achieving these annual goals. Thus the compacts would reveal not only
who was achieving but what was the cost. These numbers could then be compared to OQEM’s
recommended funding levels, as well as help struggling entities realign how they used funds to
emulate more successful educational entities and their funded strategies (CoSA, 2012).
22
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Achievement compacts were launched in April of 2012 with the deadline of July 2 for
submission to the OEIB (Nesbitt, 2012). However, many of the K-12 districts submitted flat or
in some cases declining student achievement, blaming inadequate funding as the cause for
limited to no progress. As a result OEIB’s Chief Education Officer, Rudy Crew, sent back for
revision many of these compacts, citing that with strong leadership academic success can be
achieved regardless of resource levels (Hammond, 2012).
In August 2012 Crew outlined five objectives for the OEIB to obtain in the next three
years. The first priority being to develop and implement a Prek-20 education design through
retooling governance and organizational support, creating a prek-20 data system, and developing
uniform learning standards and assessments. The second objective was to design high impact
achievement initiatives that focused on literacy, STEM, early childhood education, technology,
linking high school and post-secondary opportunities and bridging the transitions between
educational levels, as well as the betterment of achievement compacts in terms of their usage for
accountability and support purposes. Third was a premium on the development of strongly
supportive achievement centered policies centered on pedagogy, student learning, equity,
funding and decision making, as well as strengthening of a climate of high accountability/ high
freedom, loose/tight structure. The fourth objective was to design an outcomes based budget.
And lastly the fifth objective was to inform, motivate and engage the public at large through
improved communication and use of flexible and transparent accountability by way of the
achievement compacts (OEIB, 2012b).

23
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Regional Achievement Collaboratives
Building on the theme of collaboration the OEIB announced in 2013 a voluntary
compact known as the Regional Achievement Compact, later changed to Regional Achievement
Collaborative. The Regional Collaboratives were modeled after a statewide infrastructure
program that called for regions to work together around joint use infrastructure problems (Seelig,
personal communication, April 2013). Regional Collaboratives called for educational
institutions within a region to join together, voluntarily, to solve shared problems that effect
education within a specific region. Collaboratives consisted of two parts. The first part
comprised of academic measures as seen in the traditional single entity achievement compacts.
The second part expanded the scope looking at regional issues that affected education, i.e. drug
usage. Regions would then merge resources, government and private sector, to address these
issues and in so doing improve educational outcomes across a given region in Oregon (Oregon
Education Investment Board, 2013).
Implementation Theory
Educational policies such as those enacted by the OEIB must be put in place at the local
level in order to produce their intended effect. Implementation theory involves the study of why
a policy carries out its’ intended effect or not (Hill, 2003). Researchers have debated
extensively many aspects of implementation theory. Central to the debate is whether policy is
best implemented from a top-down approach, allowing for greater control and consistency, or
bottom-up approach, giving local differentiation to meet contextual needs (Sabatier, 1986).

24
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Obstacles to implementation
Though much can be debated, it is clear that the effectiveness of implementation is
dependent on people. In the case of education policy, school officials, administrators and
teachers clearly shape how a policy is implemented (Bali, 2003). If policy conflicts with a local
leader’s opinion it can affect the extent to which the policy is implemented. Bali (2003) found
that leadership that did not believe in English only instruction failed to fully implement the
policy mandate. Furthermore, Bali found that the local community opinion of the policy also
influenced the degree to which it was implemented. Education reform history is replete with
examples of community rebellion and sabotage of policy efforts (Spillane, Reiser and Reimer,
2002). As a result Datnow (2000) warned that if locals were not given some control and input
around policy and implementation effective implementation would be thwarted.
However not all implementation efforts are undone through local sabotage (Spillane &
Callahan, 2000). Many implementation efforts fail because of individuals incorrectly
understanding a policy. A person’s sense making is based on one’s prior knowledge, beliefs and
experiences. New ideas are often interpreted in a manner that weds them to familiar ideas, a
tendency that can unintentionally distort a policy’s meaning. The more foreign a policy idea is
the more likely for distortion and less chance for comprehensive implementation (Spillane,
Reiser and Reimer, 2002; Spillane & Callahan, 2000).
Spillane and Zeuli (1999) studied math instruction after a change in policy mandating
instruction that promotes conceptual understanding. They found that though the majority of the
teachers they observed and interviewed believed they were teaching in line with the new policy
only four were comprehensively implementing it. Other individual case studies further reinforce
25
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
the idea that teachers will sometimes unknowingly substitute familiar ideas with unfamiliar ones
and believe they are fully understanding and implementing the new concept (Hill, 2003; Wilson,
1990).
Supports for implementation
Individuals’ tendency to misinterpret and misapply policy is a fundamental reason why
researchers have called for capacity building (Cohen, 1990; Hill, 2003). The support for learning
can come from expert training, materials, and collegial conversations (Chrispeels, 1997; Hill,
2003; Spillane, Reiser and Reimer, 2002; Coburn, 2001; Spillane & Zeuli, 1999; Spillane &
Callahan, 2000). And the relationships between practitioners and administrators involved with
implementation is fundamental to learning as well as key a key lever to the ability of a group to
be comprehensively implementing a policy (Mohammed, Pisapia and Walker, 2009).
Policy implementation can also be supported in other ways. Financial support for
implementation can be important (Hill, 2003). Time for learning about and designing effective
strategies for implementation is also important (Wilson, 1990; Hill, 2003). Leadership’s
endorsement of the policy is also critical. Bali (2003) found that leaders who did not have the
same opinion of the policy of English only instruction failed to fully implement it.
The local context also plays a part in the ability of a policy to be implemented. Bali
(2003) asserted that larger school districts with their extensive bureaucracies slowed the progress
of implementation. Furthermore, Bali found that local opinions of a policy, in her research it
was the idea of English only instruction, can affect the degree to which a policy is carried out.
Policy making itself is critical to implementation. Poorly written, vague policy, lacking
procedures and proper monitoring can affect implementation (Spillane, Reiser and Reimer,
26
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
2002). Chrispeels (1997) found that long term policy making, ten years of inter-related
curriculum and instruction, allowed for policy to take hold and be developed. Inter-related
policies over and extensive period of time created an informed network of administrators and
teachers to not only assist in the implementation but also work collaboratively with legislators to
inform further policy development. This top-down, bottom-up approach represented the best of
both worlds, top down control and consistency across groups and bottom up differentiation to
customize the policy to meet the contextual needs (Sabatier, 1986).
Supports and obstacles in an era of standards based policy making
Public K-12 education has a history of local autonomy in decision making. However
over the past thirty years state and federal policy have increasingly encroached on local
autonomy (McDermott, 2004). Policy has moved from an emphasis on inputs to an output
performance orientation rooted in the standards movement (Lee & Reeves, 2012; McDermott,
2004).
Research has watched closely the implementation of the standards movement.
Massachusetts in the 90s adopted the Massachusetts Education Reform Act (MERA). MERA
established a new set of standards and tied them to standardized testing with the goal of
increasing the academic proficiency for all students. McDermott (2004) found that MERA was
only partially successful, impacting high school but not elementary age achievement. This
failure was attributed to a weak incentive structure that gave everyone money regardless of
performance and failed to follow through on the threatened sanctions of state takeover, principal
removal and labeling schools underperforming.
27
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Incentives were also found to be important in high stakes standardized accountability
systems pre-NCLB (Hanushek & Raymond, 2005). States that had a strong system of
accountability, pairing sanctions and rewards to student performance on standards based
assessment had higher NAEP performance than states such as Oregon that had weak
accountability systems. Hanushek and Raymond (2005) found that not only did strong
accountability system states have better student achievement; they also managed to decrease the
achievement gap for Hispanic students. However African American students continued to lag
behind.
Curriculum and assessment form a key component of the standards movement. But
changing what and how people teach is a long process that requires a balance of guidance and
support, as well as local freedom for customization. Chrispeels (1997) noted that when a state
built policies over time that were connected and supported with increased money, materials and
professional development, and that through this process policy makers allowed for flexibility of
local communities to inform policy makers to build off local goals, comprehensive reform was
possible. Chrispeels however offered no data to show the impact of the reform on student
achievement.
NCLB- implementation and effects
In 2001 the passing of No Child Left Behind, NCLB, represented one of the largest
policy reform efforts in the last 40 years. NCLB required all states to close the achievement gaps
between subgroups and have all students proficient by 2014. Those who failed to make
Adequately Yearly Progress, AYP, were subject to sanctions such as state take-over, and loss of
students (Dee & Jacob, 2011).
28
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Researchers have studied whether the implementation of NCLB has raised student
achievement. In general the conclusion has been that NCLB has had a limited effect on student
achievement. Dee and Jacob (2011) asserted that NCLB’s implementation did effect math
achievement on the NAEP test in both fourth and eighth grade. However NCLB was not shown
to have any effect on reading. Lee and Reeves (2012) found that achievement results were a
mixed bag as a result of NCLB. Achievement gaps had not narrowed as a result of NCLB.
Furthermore they found that literacy performance had not improved despite evidence that more
training and teaching time had been devote to literacy instruction. Math performance however
did rise during the era of NCLB.
Partnerships
Kowalski (2010) defined a partnership as “a formal arrangement involving two or more
parties intended to benefit all collaborators.” Over the past thirty years there has been a steady
increase in the partnerships between schools, universities, businesses and community
organizations (Hoff, 2002). In 2000, partnerships just between schools and business totaled over
200,000 (Kowalski, 2010). Due to its’ prevalence there is an extensive body of research on
school partnerships.
The processes of effective partnerships
The bulk of research has focused on analyzing how partnerships work. This focus on
process has led to looking at the stages by which a given partnership evolves. Trubowitz (1986)
established that partnerships between schools and colleges began with a lack of trust and
skepticism between organizations. As the partnership progressed and experienced small
successes buy-in for the effort increased. Similarly Clarke and Fuller (2011) found that
29
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
partnerships develop, moving from an initial period of partners finding each other and
developing a common vision and plan, to implementing the plan, getting results, assessing and
adjusting accordingly.
The research around the processes of partnerships has been devoted to studying the
attributes of partnerships. Studies have shown that successful partnerships require commitment
and participation from the top leaders in each of the participating organizations (Goldring &
Sims, 2005; Zimpher & Howey, 2005; Peel, Peel and Baker, 2002; Hoffman-Johnson, 2007;
Kania & Kramer, 2011). Effective partnerships also appear to be built on trusting relationships
that grow over time (Goldring & Sims, 2005; Peel, Peel and Baker, 2002; Holland, 2005; Schulz,
Israel and Lantz, 2003; Collins, Weinbaum, Ramon and Vaughan, 2009; Kania & Kramer,
2011). The relational piece of partnerships is clearly fundamental to building trust leading some
researchers to advocate for partners to self-select so as to jump start the relationship (Eckel &
Hartley, 2008; Wei-Skillern & Silver, 2013). Viable partnerships do not occur over night and
planning stages when partnerships are forming must not be rushed so as to not only build
relationships but values, power and decision making, as well as create a clear vision, agreed upon
goals and roles each member will play (Shive, 1984; Goldring & Sims, 2005; Peel, Peel and
Baker 2002; McNail, Reed, Brown and Allen, 2008; Holland, 2005). Members also saw
participation as beneficial to their own organization as well as to the partnerships as a whole
(Shive, 1984; Holland, 2005) Successful collective efforts were also characterized by
participants openly communicating with each other, assisted at times by an intermediary person
sometimes from a position of the organizational partners infrastructure (Goldring & Sims,
2005; Holland, 2005; Shulz, Israel and Lantz, 2002; Strier, 2010; Collins, Weinbaum, Ramon
and Vaughan, 2009; Ross, 2013; Kania & Kramer, 2011). Sharing of resources between member
30
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
organizations for the common good of the partnership was also found to be a commonality
among successful collaborative educational efforts (McNail et al, 2008; Wei-Skillern & Silver,
2013). Additional effective partners see themselves as learning organizations continually
reflecting, evaluating and adjusting through agreed upon evaluative measures (Peel, Peel, and
Baker, 2002; McNail et al, 2008; Holland, 2005; Kania & Kramer, 2011).
Obstacles to success
Research has also identified obstacles to successful partnerships. Contrasting cultures of
participant organizations, such as high school and university cultures, have proven to be
inhibitors in creating a partnership with shared rules and vision (Zimpher & Howey, 2005;
Bullough & Kauchak, 1997). Additionally poor planning in the initial startup phase was
identified by several teams as detrimental to success (Strier, 2010; Peel, Peel and Baker, 2002).
Tangentially a lack of time, be that in planning or in meeting regularly, reduced the necessary
amount of communication among members and thus undermined partnership efforts (Peel, Peel
and Baker, 2002; Bullough & Kauchak,1997). Also instability from leadership turnover has
been shown to undermine the trust and relationship building needed for successful collective
efforts (Peel, Peel and Baker, 2002). Furthermore the differences in fundamental belief systems
between partners interfered with the vision, goal setting, strategic implementation and evaluation
of the partnership (Shulz, Israel and Lantz, 2002; Strier, 2010; Gray, 2004).
Research conflicts around the idea of top down versus bottom up leadership being the
most effective mechanism. Some studies have found that “top down” leadership, particularly
from universities, undermined the success of a partnership (Peel, Peel and Baker, 2002; Strier,
2010; Maurrasse, 2002). This imbalance of power between members undermined collegiality
31
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
and shared effort ultimately resulting in the partnerships failing to make a significant impact
(Hoff, 2002; Maurrasse, 2002; Strier, 2010). However elements of top down leadership have
also been shown to lead to successful partnerships across an entire city, be that in the form of the
Say Yes Program in Syracuse or the Strive Partnership in Cincinnati (Ross, 2013; Kania &
Kramer, 2011). Collins, Weinbaum, Ramon and Vaughan (2009) advocated for the nonprofit
leadership guiding a school university partnership.
The bottom-up partnership philosophy has also had a mixed set of reviews. Strier (2010)
found that bottom up structures left partnerships giving off an aura of chaos and disorganization.
However, Vigoda (2002) asserted a bottom up philosophy with partnerships taking on an attitude
of the community as owner as opposed to client, thereby empowering the community to own the
problem and work towards its’ resolution.
Effect of partnership work
Though the body of research around characteristics of successful partnerships is large,
much of it is significantly lacking in evidence that partnerships bring have successful outcomes.
Many partnerships have centered on providing resources, which have failed to produce any direct
effect on student achievement (Beabout, 2010). Of the myriad of partnerships, several hundred
thousand school-business partnerships are in existence, few have impacted student achievement
(Kowalski, 2010). Those studies that do find successful partnerships all too often fail to define
how success was measured (Goldring & Sims, 2005; Bullough & Kauchak, 1997; Wei-Skillern
& Silver, 2013) , let alone give evidence for the reported success (McNail et al, 2008; Zimpher &
Howey; 2005). Complicating matters of evaluation is the fact that many partnerships have not
been around long enough to be able to reach their end goals, thus evaluation must look at mid-
32
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
point benchmarks (Maurasse, 2002; Collins et al, 2009). However some benchmarks chosen fail
to be strong indicators of student achievement (Collins et al, 2009).
Effective models- Collective action and P-20
The research does point to one type of partnership being effective at raising student
achievement, large wide scale collective action partnerships whereby all stakeholders,
community members, business, university, schools, and government members, unite in a
collective partnership run by a top down intermediary organization. The Say Yes partnership, a
city-wide endeavor linking schools, universities, businesses and government agencies in
Syracuse showed growth in student achievement in high schools (Ross, 2013). Likewise the
Strive partnership in Cincinnati which involved participation from university members, school
districts, foundations, businesses and government agencies has shown higher graduation rates,
improved test scores in fourth grade and increased kinder readiness (Kania & Kramer, 2011).
Another type of effective partnership has been P-16/20 partnerships. Historically there
has been a divide between K-12 education and higher education. This divide has been
perpetuated by separate systems of governance and finance systems, as well as disconnected
academic standards and accountability structures. To address this lack of continuity states have
formed pre-k through higher education structures. These P-20 structures seek to align the
educational sectors, improve collaboration and problem solving and produce a student who is a
strong contributor to the workforce (Kirst & Usdan, 2009). Over 30 states, including Oregon,
currently have a prek-16 or prek-20 board to address educational issues across the continuum
(Krueger, 2006).
33
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Despite their prevalence P-16/P-20 partnerships have been largely neglected by
researchers. Currently there is only one study around the impact these partnerships have on
student achievement. Domina and Ruzek (2012) found that K-16 school- university
partnerships, when targeting wide scale comprehensive reform improved student achievement.
Furthermore they found that the effects of P-16 partnerships improved over time. Initial effects
of K-16 comprehensive reform resulted in increased community college enrollment. But after
several years of P-16 efforts the university enrollment was shown to increase.
Summary
In preparation for the study around Oregon’s Regional Achievement Collaboratives a
review of the literature was conducted, surveying the history of the school reform in Oregon, the
research around policy implementation theory and the literature dealing with effective
partnerships. The purpose of this study is to collect and analyze data around the development
and implementation of Oregon’s Regional Achievement Collaboratives in one region in Oregon.
The attributes of successful policy implementation will be combined with the characteristics of
successful partnerships to analyze the strengths and weakness of a Regional Collaborative’s
endeavor to raise student achievement. Results will provide needed data around how P-20
policy, both from a state and local perspective, can best support regional partnerships efforts to
improve student achievement.

34
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Chapter 3- Methods
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze data around the development and
implementation of Oregon’s Regional Achievement Collaborative in one region in Oregon. As
the majority of states now have some type of P-20 boards (Krueger, 2006) states with their new
found flexibility granted by NCLB waivers will clearly be looking to their P-20 efforts to inform
and enact policy that catalyzes student achievement across the educational continuum. However
policy has been shown to be dependent on local actors (McDermott, 2004; Hill, 2003; Bali,
2003; Chrispeels, 1997; Datnow, 2000; Mohammed, Pisapia and Walker, 2009).
Regional Achievement Collaboratives represent the intersection of collective action
partnerships and K-20 policy implementation in a regionalized context (OEIB, 2013). The
Regional Achievement Collaborative was developed by the Oregon Education Investment Board
as an extension of the local achievement compacts required of each state educational institution.
The Regional Achievement Collaboratives set academic goals for the region around key
achievement progress indicators such as graduation rates. Additionally the Regional
Achievement Compacts brought together a regional community (non-profits, government
agencies, parents, preschool, k-12 districts, higher education institutions) to identify and solve
regional issues related to educational achievement (OEIB, 2013; Crew, 2013; Seelig, personal
communication, April 2013),
Two frameworks were utilized in analyzing the efforts of a community around the
Regional Achievement Compact. The first framework was built upon policy implementation
theory that has noted that successful policy implementation had: 1) supports for capacity
35
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
building via expert training, finances, collegial conversations (Mohammed, Pisapia and Walker,
2009; Coburn, 2001), 2) was supported by and conducive to leadership views as well as the
opinions of the community at large (Bali, 2003) 3) was responsive to the local community needs
(Mohammed, Pisapia and Walker, 2009; McLaughlin, 1997), 4) was connected to previous work
(Chrispeels, 1997), and 5) it solicited and used input from stakeholders to inform implementation
(Chrispeels, 1997). Table 3.1 represents a summary of the key factors in effective policy
implementation.
Table 3.1 Key Attributes of Successful Policy Implementation
Key Attribute of Successful Policy Implementation
Supports capacity building through:
Professional development/training
Supportive leadership
Money and Resources
Time
Collegial conversations
Connected to:
Local community needs
Previous work of state and local community
Input from local stakeholders

The second framework used to analyze a community’s formation and implementation of
a Regional Achievement Compact is informed by the literature around successful partnerships.
These key attributes included: 1) commitment from top leaders (Goldring & Sims, 2006; Kania
36
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
& Kramer, 2011), 2)fostered trusting relationships that grew over time (Holland, 2005; Collins,
Weinbaum, Ramon and Vaughan, 2009; Kania & Kramer, 2011), 3) self-selection of members
into the partnership (Eckel & Hartle, 2008; Wei-Skillern & Silver, 2013), 4) ample time for
planning (Shive, 1984; Goldring & Sims, 2005), 5) clear set of agreed upon goals and roles each
member will play (Peel, 2002; McNail, Redd, Brown and Allen, 2008), 6) shared values, power
and decision making between members (Holland, 2005; Goldring & Sims, 2005), 7) open
communication (Goldring & Sims, 2005; Strier, 2010) 8) intermediary support (Kania &
Kramer, 2011), 9) resource sharing (Wei-Skillern & Silver 2013), and 10) reflective evaluation
that informs practice (Peel, 2002; McNail et al, 2008; Holland, 2005; Kania & Kramer, 2011).
Table 2 synthesizes the attributes of effective partnerships.
Table 3.2: Characteristics of Successful Partnerships
Characteristics of successful partnerships
1. Commitment from top leadership
2. Trusting relationships
3. Self-selected partners
4. Shared values, goals, decision making
5. Shared resources
6. Open communication
7. Time for planning and relationship building
8. Reflective evaluation
9. Support from external intermediary

37
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
This research analyzed how the different members of the Regional Achievement
Collaboratives understood the formation of the group and the compact itself as well as their
perceptions of the effectiveness of the efforts to implement the compact plan that was developed.
The methodology that was used in this study will be a qualitative case study, collecting data from
interviews with one set of Regional Achievement Collaborative committee members, as well as
gathering data through observation of one Regional Compact meeting. The qualitative design
was selected because of its’ ability to gather data around individual perspectives and
understandings in relation to the experience of the Regional Achievement Collaborative
formation and implementation (Merriam, 2009). Supporting documents were used to triangulate
the data gathered from the interviews.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study were:
1) What led to the formation of the Regional Compact Committee?
2) How were the goals of the Regional Compact formed?
3) What steps have been taken towards achieving the goals of the Regional Compact?
4) What impact has participation in the Regional Compact had on individual institutions
Purposeful Sample
This study focused on the Regional Achievement Collaborative formulated around one of
the urban cities of Oregon. Selection for a region was originally based on the following criteria:
1) One K-12 school district must have more than 30,000 students, 2) this large K-12 district
report card must show a higher percentage of struggling schools (focus and priority schools than
the state average 3) proximity to respected university or college (public/private), and 4) with an
38
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
established school-university partnership prior to the Regional Achievement Compact. However
this criterion was changed as a result of lack of availability from the largest urban cities. Criteria
one was changed to be a region that had one of the top ten school districts in the state. Criteria
two was eliminated, whereas criteria three and four were kept
Using the above criteria the Cod region was chosen. The Cod region is home to Bush
School District. Table 3.3 summarizes key educational attributes from Cod are:
Table 3.3: Cod Regional Educational Attributes
Cod Regional Educational Attributes
District Size: Over 16,000 students
Local University Green University
Blue Community College
Existing School Partnership Yes
(Oregon Department of Education, 2012)

This study investigated how the members of the Cod Regional Achievement Collaborative
formed a partnership and developed a Regional Collaborative to address the needs of the Cod
Region, including those challenges related to Bush School District. Additionally, the research
analyzed the implementation efforts of the partnership with regards to Cod’s Regional
Achievement Collaborative.

39
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Identifying partners
This study analyzed the perspectives of a variety of stakeholders within the Cod Regional
Achievement Collaborative. Research has shown that effective partnerships share power across
it’s’ membership (Hoff, 2002; Maurrasse, 2002; Strier, 2010). Policy implementation research
clearly identified that buy in and input must come from across the localized community in order
to have full scale implementation (Bali, 2003; Datnow, 2000). The Regional Achievement
Collaborative called for stakeholders from K-12 districts, community colleges, universities, pre-
schools and non-profit members to collaborate in establishing and implementing the compact
goals (Crew, 2013). Using Cod’s Regional Achievement Collaborative Application two
participating members from the non-profit sector, two business leader participants, a pre-school
leader, two K-12 district leaders, and two higher education leaders (community college and
university) were targeted for interviews. Interviewees had to be active participants in the
Regional Achievement Collaborative development and implementation. Since the Cod Region
had a pre-existing educational partnership, fifty percent of interviewees were to be chosen from
those who had previous experience working in the partnership, so as to allow for a cross section
of perspectives.
The plan for sampling changed as a result of the availability of Cod’s members. Four of
the seven members interviewed had spent significant time with the previous partnership. The
other three members joined the partnership at about the same time as the Regional Achievement
Collaborative was forming.

40
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Instrumentation
Qualitative data taken from interviews, an observation of a Salmon Regional
Achievement Compact meeting, and analysis of meeting minutes were to be gathered to assess
the perceptions of individual members around the formation of the Regional Achievement
Compact and the implementation of its’ goals. However the researcher was not granted access to
observe the meetings or read the minutes. Interviews were to be conducted using 13 open ended
questions around the four research questions (Appendix A). These questions were to be piloted
with peers prior to the interviews and adjusted as needs arise. However in lieu of this the
researcher vetted the questions with several members of Cod’s Regional Achievement
Collaborative. Given their input the questions were changed (Appendix B). The questions
explored the formation of the partnership, the development of the goals, the implementation of
the strategies to achieve the goals, and the impact of participation on the individual participants
themselves. Questions were developed to gather information to assess what made Cod’s
Collaborative successful using the literature around effective policy implementation, Table 3.1,
and effective partnerships, Table 3.2, as criteria for analysis.
Data Collection
Prior to conducting this research an application was filed with the Institutional Review
Board, IRB, to decide if this project was subject to the Human Subjects Review. The IRB
determined this study was exempt. After the review has been completed, Cod’s Regional
Achievement Collaborative members were contacted via email. It was originally intended to use
the purposeful sampling of two business members, two non-profit members, a preschool
member, two K-12 district members, and two higher education members. However this plan
41
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
changed, instead all the members of the Executive Steering Committee were contacted via email.
The initial contact introduced the researcher, the purpose of the study and why the member had
been chosen. However after initial contact Cod’s acting intermediary helped coordinate the
interviews to encompass members who had been on the original partnership, members who were
involved in early childhood, non-profits, community colleges, university education, and K-12
district leaders. Additionally the criteria of interviewing a cross section of members at the
various levels of organization, Executive Steering Committee members, Coordinating
Collaborative members and Bridge Collaborative members.
The interviews of Regional Achievement Compact members were based on open ended
questions. The interviews were conducted in March and April. Originally it was planned to do a
follow up observation of a Regional Achievement Collaborative meeting to triangulate
information from the interview. This however was not an option given the closed nature of the
Executive Steering Committee meetings. A document review was also done of previous
Regional Achievement Collaborative documents, which did not include Executive Steering
Committee minutes as they were not made available.
Interview preparation will be done through the use of the above mentioned successful
criteria for partnerships and policy implementation, Table 1 and 2. Data will be classified both
through the individual lenses of Table 1 and 2. Quantitative data will be collected from the
analysis of organizational documents to assess the support for Regional Compact goals.
The region and participating organizations were given fictitious names. Regional
Achievement Collaborative committee members were also given fictitious names to protect their
42
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
anonymity. Qualitative data gathered from interview was transcribed and uploaded to a
password protected document on the Internet.
Data Analysis
The data analysis took place a short time after the interview was conducted. All data was
transcribed in detail and coded using Hyper RESEARCH (Research Are). There were no points
of clarification needed. Each organizational member’s interview was analyzed using the
frameworks in Table 1 and 2. Additional information that did not fall under the categories in the
tables was listed separately. Responses were then compared to the framework and each other to
develop consistent strengths or weaknesses of the group as it developed as a partnership and
applied policy via the Regional Achievement Collaborative. The veracity of data collected
from the interviews will be triangulated through a records review. An in person observation of
the Executive Steering Committee was not possible as the meetings are closed. The results are
discussed in detail in chapter four, and in chapter five a final summary with future
recommendations was composed.
Summary
This chapter discussed the purpose of this study. Information was given about the
selection of the sample to be studied. A framework was developed as an instrument to gather
data. Processes for data collection and analysis were then described in detail.

43
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
CHAPTER 4- FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter begins with a description of the characteristics of the region chosen for the
case study as well as the background of individuals chosen to participate in the qualitative
interviews. Following the review of the context from which the data were derived this chapter
will report on the qualitative findings discovered through a series of interviews with individual
members involved in the Regional Achievement Collaborative, RAC. The data from these
interviews helped to build the answers to the 4 research questions:
1) What led to the formation of the Regional Achievement Collaborative?
2) How were the goals of the RAC formed?
3) What steps have been taken toward achieving the goals?
4) What impact has participation in the RAC had on individual institutions?
Regional Demographics
As part of the study design the Cod Region had to host one of the top ten largest school
districts within the state, have previous experience in educational partnerships between K-12 and
higher education, and have within its’ boundaries a major university. In meeting this criterion
the Cod Region has the following characteristics:

44
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Table 4.1- Regional Pre-requisite data for participating in case study
Largest School
Dist.
Regional University Established K-12/Higher Ed Partnership
Bush District:
16,000 students
(6
th
largest)
Green Univ.: 22,000 students
Blue Comm. College:
36,000 students
Est. 2010
(3 districts, Community College and
University
Source: Oregon Department of Education, 2013
Table 4.2- Cod Regional Data
Cod County Oregon
Population 356,212 3,930,000
Caucasian 84% 77.8%
Hispanic 7.8% 12.2%
Asian 2.7% 4.0%
African American 1.1% 2.0%
BA or higher 27.5% 29.2%
Persons living below the
poverty line
18.8% 15.5%
Source: US Census Bureau, 2013
The Cod Regional Achievement Collaborative, RAC, is a complex infrastructure with
three layers of committees. The Executive Steering Committee is in charge of oversight of the
RAC. The next layer down of oversight is the Coordinating Collaborative, which aligns the
work of the individual Bridge Committees who are tasked with implementing strategies. The
45
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Bridge Committees consist of the Data Collaborative (P-22), the Early Learning Bridge
Committee (Prenatal –age 8), the Elementary to Mid Bridge Committee (age 6-14), the Mid to
High Bridge (age 12-18), the High School to College/Career Bridge (age 16-22) and the
Transition Committee. Each of these Bridge Committees is tasked with coordinating and
developing strategies to accelerate achievement of children within a designated age group
(Regional Achievement Collaborative Self-Assessment: Connected Lane County, July 12, 2013;
Lane County Education Achievement Measurement: Leading Indicators and Metrics, July 8,
2013).
In order to gain a fuller picture of the Cod County RAC a purposeful sample was selected
for interviews. The sampling looked to interview a cross section of active participants in Cod
County’s RAC. In order to gain a variety of perspectives interviewees affiliation with various
levels of the infrastructure, the Steering Committee, Coordinating Collaborative Committee and
Bridge Committees was considered as well as members who represented a cross section of the
individual institutions involved in the partnership, higher education, K-12 districts, early
learning, and government/non-profits, and the amount of time members had been involved with
the partnership. Table 4.2 and 4.3 summarizes the background of interview subjects.

46
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Table 4.3- Interviewees Institutional Affiliation
Institution University Community
College
K-12 Government Non-Profit/
Early
Childhood
Number of
People
Interviewed
2 1 2 1 2

Table 4.4: Interviewees Committee Membership
Executive Steering
Committee
Coordinating
Collaborative
Committee
Bridge Committee
Interviewee 1 Yes Yes Yes
Interviewee 2 Yes No Yes
Interviewee 3 Yes Yes Yes
Interviewee 4 Former member Yes Yes
Interviewee 5 Yes Yes Yes
Interviewee 6 Yes Yes Yes
Interviewee 7 No Yes Yes

47
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Research Questions
The study of the formation and early implementation of the Cod Regional Achievement
Collaborative looked at the question of what factors contributed to the success of the Cod RAC?
To answer this question four individual research questions were formulated.
Question 1- What led to the formation of the Cod RAC?
The Cod RAC was established in 2013. However leading up to the formation of the Cod
RAC was a previously established partnership between Cod’s three largest districts, Green
University and Blue Community College. This partnership was established in 2010 and became
known as the Educational Partnership.
The two Educational Partnership charter members interviewed both noted that the
partnership originally formed because of increased awareness that other regions were beginning
to collaborate between K-12 and higher education. Four of the five members of the Educational
Partnership that were interviewed credited the leadership of Blue Community College’s
president as the one who formally invited the leaders of the three largest school districts and the
president of Green University to come together. This practice of members self-selecting to
participate in a partnership is one attribute that Eckel and Hartle (2008) and Wie-Skillern and
Silver (2013) have identified as a common practice of successful partnerships.
The support, involvement and on-going commitment of top leadership to a partnership is
critical for successful partnerships (Goldring & Sims, 2006; Kania & Kramer, 2011). All seven
of the subjects interviewed spoke to the importance and involvement of top leadership who
regularly attend meetings and encourage others in their organization to be involved at various
levels. One example of this commitment from leaders is that Green University’s President, there
48
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
have been three since 2010, have missed only a few of the monthly meetings since the group
formed.
Trust is a key component of successful partnerships (Holland, 2005; Collins, Weinbaum,
Ramon and Vaughan, 2009; Kania & Kramer, 2011). Members of the original Educational
Partnership interviewed all felt that the partnership began with a pre-established level of trust due
to the fact that members knew each other prior to becoming part of the Educational Partnership.
As one original member of the Educational Partnership put it “It’s a small enough community
that all the public agency heads know each other for a variety of reasons. So it’s not necessarily
folks getting to know each other, its’ just a new way of working together.”
Another characteristic of successful partnerships is that individual members have a
shared set of values and use those values to develop shared goals (Holland, 2005; Goldring &
Sims, 2005). This was easily established in the Educational Partnership where members’
involvement in educational institutions all shared a common interest in increasing the number of
students who were successful in higher education. Coordinating efforts to improve the number
of students who successfully transitioned from high school to college quickly became the goal.
One member of the Educational Partnership stated, “I think that each of the school districts knew
that not enough of each of our students were taking advantage of having these two institutions of
higher education in our own community and we wanted to see more of our kids move on to two
and four year institutions and there is a prime opportunity right here. So that was the empotice
for us connecting… when we got together and talked about it everybody realized that that was a
shared goal.”
49
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
The literature around policy implementation theory and successful partnerships both
point to the importance of members spending time together having open, collegial conversations
(Mohammed, Pisapia and Walker, 2009; Coburn, 2001; Goldring &Sims, 2005; Strier, 2010).
The early meetings focused on the leaders of the educational institutions spending time together
having open ended conversations. All the leaders saw immediate value in gathering together to
discuss related issues with recognition early on for the need to work on the problem of increasing
the amount of students transitioning from high school to Blue Community College or Green
University. As one leader articulated, “I think everybody felt there was value sitting in the room
and having time together without some of the other agendas everyone has to be dealing with at
the same time”
The Educational Partnership that began in spring of 2010 with Green University, Blue
Community College and the three largest K-12 districts in Cod grew over time to add a
superintendent working with the 13 smaller K-12 districts. Additionally the Educational
Partnership brought in a national organization that had worked in various states on P-20 pipeline
issues to strengthen the work. These new members had previous relationships with individual
Executive Steering Committee members and were invited to attend, keeping with the original
model of self-selection of partners. The vision also began to expand incorporating middle school
into the work.
Question 2- How were the goals of the RAC formed?
Cod’s focus prior to the OEIB’s introduction of the RAC had largely been on improving
the rates of students transitioning from high school to a two or four year higher education
program. The choice to expand the work to prenatal to age 20,working on transitions throughout
50
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
the P20 pipeline was one that came around the same time as the OEIB’s call for RACs. Two
partners stated that the decision for expanding the goals to encompass transitions across the P20
pipeline happened before the OEIB introduced the idea of a RAC as the group came to its’ own
conclusion that the work needed to be pushed down further. Two other members noted that the
OEIB’s conversation about a P20 system were formative in leading the group to consider
expanding their goals and visions and consider becoming a RAC. The confusion as to what
caused the change in vision and goals to look at transitions starting at age zero is best
characterized by what an Executive Steering Committee member stated “ I don’t remember that
it was the OEIB that said get early childhood involved. I think we got there a little bit before
that, but I think that there was definitely some external processes helping us figure that out.”
Effective policy implementation is founded on policy that is built on previous work from
the local community and solicits and uses input from stakeholders to inform implementation
(Chrispeels, 1997). Four of the Educational Partnership members expressed that the OEIB’s
RAC concept was one that fit closely with Cod’s Educational Partnership. Two people even went
so far as to say that the RAC idea partially stemmed from educational leaders in Cod working
with and advising Governor Kitzhaber. Conversely, two members stated that the OEIB was the
genesis for the Educational Partnership expanding its’ vision to look at the transitions occurring
throughout the P20 continuum.
Though the influence behind the expansion of the goal to incorporate transitions all the
way to early childhood/prenatal is unclear from conflicting interview data the belief to focus on
transitions P20 was clearly one that interviewees unanimously viewed as something that was
unilaterally accepted by all members. As one executive steering committee explained “…we
recognized that one transition, which really was our focus in the beginning, college readiness and
51
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
the transition between high school and college…we knew that all the other transitions have
something to do with that, in order to get to the 40-40-20 goals of the state and our goal, that we
have to think about the whole pipeline…” Two members who were not originally part of the
Educational Partnership stated that though they had existing relationships with other members
the expansion of to P20 created a shared vision that increased the depth of relationships and
ability to work more closely together.
Question 3- What steps have been taken towards achieving the goals of the RAC?
Cod’s RAC has a goal of improving the transitions throughoutP-20 to increase the
number of students becoming successful in higher education. All five of the Executive Steering
Committee members saw the development of Cod’s infrastructure into a three tiered system
comprised of the Executive Steering Committee, the Coordinating Collaborative and the Bridge
Collaboratives as the first step taken to achieve the goals of the RAC. One Executive Steering
Committee member said, “We needed to penetrate this project more deeply into each of our
organizations so we created the Bridge Committee structure where we… cross those barriers and
assign staff from each of our institutions to work on key projects. Half of the RAC members
made mention of the overlap between the ages of children targeted in individual bridges as a
critical piece to breaking down “the siloed effects,” breaking down the barriers and getting
people to work together across traditional age groupings.
Another step that the RAC has taken to achieve its’ goals is to create a common data
system with agreed upon indicators that allow the region to assess progress in meeting the
RAC’s goals. This concept had always been dismissed in the past. However because the top
leaders were involved and the project was properly funded the data project was successful. This
52
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
idea of sharing resources, people and money, is a key attribute of both successful policy
implementation and successful partnerships (Wei-Skillern & Silver, 2013; Mohammed, Pisapia
and Walker, 2009) which Cod showed it had through the work of the Data Collaborative.
Challenges
Consensus among most of the RAC leaders was that Bridge Collaboratives were not all
effective. The majority of members felt that Bridge Collaboratives struggled if they did not have
strong leaders. Members acknowledged that getting the right people on the right Bridge
Collaborative was a challenge.
The struggles of some Bridge Collaboratives stand in stark contrast to the success of the
Educational Partnership and the Executive Steering Committee. Unlike Executive Steering
Committee members, Bridge members did not self-select to be part of the RAC. Instead they
were assigned to participate by their boss. Furthermore Bridge members did not all know each
other prior to joining, as Executive Steering Committee members did. Thus members of the
Bridge had less trust and openness of communication then the Executive Steering Committee
members started off with. The Bridges to some extent are being asked to make decisions and
implement change without having the time to build relationships and trust, two critical
components of successful collective partnerships. Individual members on the Bridge
Collaboratives also varied in their degree of understanding of the RAC’s vision and their
purpose. One Bridge committee member shared that she didn’t know what the purpose of the
committee was and originally felt that it was “a waste of time.” Additionally, the effectiveness
of Bridge Collaboratives was also influenced by the lack of resources given by participating
entities to implement the strategies. The sharing of resources was easy for Executive Steering
53
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
members to do since they could dictate what people in their organizations would do. Green
University for instance assigned two people to regularly work on RAC issues. However at the
Bridge level these members did not have access to people or financial resources. Instead they
were largely dependent on getting grants to fund their work. Money and shared resources are
cited by Mohammed, Pipsapia and Walker (2009) and Wei-Skillern & Silver (2013) as critical
factors in successful policy implementation and effective partnerships, neither of which most
Bridges have access to.
Cod’s vision of improving student participation and success in higher education programs
has expanded from an exclusive focus on the high school to college transition to the current RAC
vision of improving the transitions across the P20 pathway. A common theme from RAC
members was that the current vision needed expansion beyond the educational frame
incorporating a workforce preparation outlook. Members also expressed a desire to incorporate
business, minority groups, and government agencies into the RAC.
Communication has also been a challenge as the RAC has developed. Communication
with outside stakeholders has largely been dependent on word of mouth from RAC committee
members to their organizations, creating some larger organizations, such as Green University
with many staffers unaware of the work. The educational focus of the group has left some
groups in business and government outside of the loop limiting potential for the RAC to grow in
various areas.
The RAC’s expansion has forced the Cod members to grapple with the need for an
effective intermediary. All seven members of the RAC made mention of the work of one Blue
University staffer who has coordinated the work, setting up meetings, and facilitating
54
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
communication between members and committees. Graciously Blue University has shared two
staffers to do the work of an intermediary; however these two people work only part time on the
Cod RAC. Individual institutions have joined Blue University by assigning their own people to
help write grants, and participate on committees. However it is widely believed that without
permanent staffing and financial support from individual institutions to fund an intermediary
organization to run the Cod RAC the partnership not be sustainable. The sharing of money and
resources is clearly in the forefront of the RAC’s future. Strong partnerships do pool funds
together to better the collective good; the soliciting of dues to be paid to the RAC will be the first
real test for the Cod County RAC.
Question 4- What impact has participation in the RAC had on individual institutions?
The impact on participating institutions as a result of their work with the RAC was
clearly articulated by the majority of partners interviewed. The biggest impact has been to
change individual institutions mission to encompass the entire P20 pipeline not just a given
piece, i.e. K-12. Another commonly cited benefit was a raised awareness of the perspective of
others as well as increased awareness around what others are doing which then has increased
opportunities for partnership. Several members noted the increased awareness of the issues
facing rural K-12 districts trying to offer early college credit. Partners have also gained tangible
things such as high school on the campus of Blue Community College, an increase from two to
fifty students enrolling in Green University from River K-12 District, and the establishment of a
common data system

55
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Summary and Conclusion
The data suggest that Cod’s RAC has many of the indicators of successful partnerships
and policy implementation. The RAC has involvement and commitment from the leaders of its’
participant organization. The partnership has been built on self-selected leaders who had
existing, trusting relationship. Cod’s RAC established a P20 vision focused on the transitions
throughout the pipeline that created buy in for all members
Cod’s RAC has built a strong infrastructure to fulfill the mission. However as the
infrastructure grew from a singular committee to a three tiered system of committees the number
of people involved have created challenges for effective communication, trust building, and
overall understanding and buy in to the goals and vision of Cod County’s RAC. Additionally the
need for the RAC to improve its’ sustainability through a greater investment of money and
people is an area of concern. Lastly the need for an expanded vision that incorporates workforce
preparation and involves key stakeholders in business, government and minority organizations is
clearly a need. However sustaining another expansion having undergone the recent expansion to
age zero as called for by the RAC is perhaps unrealistic given the lack of intermediary support, a
critical missing component (Kania & Kramer, 2011).

56
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Chapter 5- Discussion
This fifth and final chapter presents an overview of the study, then summarizes the
findings, transitions to a discussion on the limitations of the study, makes recommendations for
future research, and ends with a final conclusion.
Overview of the Study
This study explored the formation and implementation of a Regional Achievement
Collaborative within one county in Oregon. The study analyzed the perspectives of participants
involved in taking the OEIB’s idea of forming a Regional Achievement Collaboratives and
actualizing it within a region. The primary importance of this study is to look at what made Cod
County’s RAC successful through using the lens of collective partnership theory and policy
implementation theory. An examination of the findings will provide others with key actions and
characteristics of successful collective partnerships. Additionally, government agencies looking
to develop policy that can be successfully implemented will gain insight around key attributes of
effective policy implementation. And on a more practical level, other RACs within Oregon will
gain an understanding of the key processes of forming and implementing a Regional
Achievement Collaborative.
The study used a purposeful sampling methodology in selecting the region for it’s’ case
study. The selection of Cod County was determined by the following criteria: The region had to
have a major university or college within its boundaries. Cod County hosts Green University
with an undergraduate population of over 22,000 students. Furthermore, Cod County has a large
community college, Blue Community College. Another criterion for selecting Cod’s RAC was
that the region had to have a least one large urban K-12 school district. Cod’s Bush School
57
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
District had the sixth largest student population in the state, 16,000 students (Oregon Department
of Education, 2013). Additionally, the region had to have a functioning educational partnership
prior to the formation of its’ RAC. Cod’s partnership, known as the Educational Partnership,
was formed in spring of 2010, two and a half years before the formed a RAC. This partnership
consisted originally of members from the three largest school districts, Blue Community College,
Green University and later added a representative from the rural K-12 districts.
Upon selecting the region a purposeful sample of participants within Cod’s RAC was
selected to gain a variety of perspectives. Seven active participants in the RAC were interviewed
with attention to gaining a representation from early childhood, K-12, community college, four
year university, government and non-profit entities. Furthermore members were selected who
had a previous history with the Educational Partnership, as well as members who joined more
recently under the RAC. Additionally members were chosen based on the level of participation
they had with the infrastructure. A large sampling was taken from those on the Executive
Steering Committee, with smaller samples from those who are participating solely in a Bridge
Collaborative and/or Coordinating Committee.
The purpose of this study was to determine what made Cod’s Regional Achievement
Collaborative successful. In order to measure the level of success it was necessary to look at the
various stages of development of the RAC. First it was necessary to see what led to the
formation of Cod’s RAC. This involved researching the perspectives of four leaders who were
involved with the original Educational Partnership. In addition interviews were conducted to
assess how the RAC developed its’ vision and goals. Next data was collected around the steps
the RAC had taken to achieve the goals and vision. And lastly interview questions were asked
to assess the impact that participating in the RAC had had on the individual organizations.
58
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Summary of Findings
The research questions for this study are:
1) What led to the formation of the Regional Achievement Collaborative?
2) How were the goals of the RAC formed?
3) What steps have been taken toward achieving the goals?
4) What impact has participation in the RAC had on individual institutions?
The first research question focused on what led Cod County to decide to form a Regional
Achievement Collaborative. Clearly Cod’s decision to form a RAC was rooted in the history
they had previously had with the Educational Partnership. This partnership between the three
largest K-12 districts in the county, Blue Community College and Green University developed a
foundation of educational leaders working together around a common purpose, namely
increasing the amount of students transitioning to higher education.
An analysis of the key attributes of the Educational Partnership underscored several
findings from previous research around successful partnerships. One key attribute of the
Educational Partnership was the commitment to it from top leaders. The president of Blue
Community College originated the call for the county’s leaders to begin meeting. The president
of Green University hosted the meetings, gave staff time to help facilitate the meetings and
regularly attended the monthly conversations. Likewise the Superintendents from each of the
three largest school districts committed to regularly attend the Partnership meetings.
Another key attribute of the Educational Partnership was the presence of trusting
relationships. Trust was accelerated through the use of self-selecting partners. Cod County is a
59
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
“close knit, small community,” despite its’ size. Leaders had previous experience working with
each other and through self-selection the ability to build on these relationships was catalyzed.
Time was another essential ingredient in developing relationships between partners.
Educational Partnership meetings were held each month, originally over a meal. Members were
committed to attending. Members sitting down together on a regular basis allowed for collegial
conversations that led to open communication and discovery of common areas of work and
opportunities for increased partnership.
With an established partnership that had built strong relationships in place, when the
OEIB proposed the concept of the RAC, the idea had support from the outset. Members saw the
RAC as the evolution of the current partnership. Furthermore two leaders involved in the
Educational Partnership had been advising the state around educational issues and speaking of
their own collaborative work in the county. The influence of local input on state policy that is
connected to previous work and local community needs are key ingredients of successful policy
implementation and clearly caused the RAC idea to have buy-in from all stakeholders.
The second research question focused on how the goals of the RAC were formed. The
Cod RAC built on the previous work of the Educational Partnership which had developed the
goal of increasing the numbers of students going to Green University and/or Blue Community
College. This original focus on the transition from high school to college was realized by
Executive Steering Committee members as too narrow in scope. This expansion of the vision to
focus on transitions across the P20 continuum was influenced both through internal discovery
and the work of the OEIB. The lack of clarity around the origin of the P20 shift in the goal
indicates the organic process as well as the two way communication and influence of state and
60
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
local agencies, a critical component of effective policy implementation (Mohammed, Pisapia and
Walker, 2009; Chrispeels, 1997).
The third research question looked at what steps Cod’s RAC took towards achieving its
goal. The data clearly showed that the RAC had largely focused on building the infrastructure to
implement strategies. The development of Bridge Collaboratives to bring people together to
implement strategies targeted at specific transitions along the continuum was a key step towards
achieving the goal. Additionally creating Bridges that spanned previously existing age related
breaks (i.e. age 0-4 was expanded to age 0-8) helped to prevent siloing and work on problems in
across traditional educational sectors.
The effectiveness of Bridge Collaboratives varied. Bridges that had strong leaders, had
members that knew each other, understood their goal and how it related to the overall mission of
the RAC, and were given the resources of time and money to achieve it were successful. The
Data Collaborative was one such example of a successful Bridge.
The several unsuccessful Bridges struggled because they were not strong partnerships.
They lacked strong leaderships. Relationships between members were not well developed and
need time to develop trust, open communication and shared values; however finding time to
build relationships while at the same time doing the work being asked of Bridges is a challenge.
More work is also needed in building understanding and buy in for the mission and goals of the
RAC and communicating that to all stakeholders both inside and outside of participating
organizations.
The final research question dealt with the impact of the RAC on individual institutions.
The data reveals that the RAC has clearly increased awareness of what other institutions are
61
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
doing. Additionally improved dialogue between institutions is occurring. Rural districts are in
on the conversation along with larger districts. College professors are thinking with high school
teachers. An understanding of a variety of perspectives has been built. There also is an increase
in the opportunities for institutions to partner with each other, developing projects such as the
creation of a high school on the campus of Blue Community College. Enrollment rates in Green
University have gone up from participating districts. And more money through co-authored
grants has come to the county.
Limitations
This study has several limitations:
• The method of data collection was based on using a semi-structured interview process
with questions being tailored to address the individual’s area of work, i.e. Bridge
Collaborative, charter member of the Educational Partnership. This semi-structured
approach allows for the greater possibility of subjectivity.
• The data gathered was limited to only seven individuals (two Superintendents, three
higher education people, one early childhood/non-profit and one government employee).
This limited sample size may not have accurately represented the collective views of the
groups these individuals represented.
• The interviewees were not randomly chosen and the study was limited to the willingness
of individual members to participate; therefore the data is not generalizable to other
regions or partnerships.
62
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
• The OEIB introduced the Regional Achievement Compact in the summer of 2013. Cod’s
RAC is in its’ first year of implementation thus there is little data to measure the
effectiveness of its efforts towards improving the transitions along the P20 pipeline.
• The data collected is influenced by the demographics and culture specific to the region
and the state and therefore is not generalizable to other regions, states or partnerships.
• Interviewees self-selected to participate in this study which may influence the sample to
be skewed in their view, positively or negatively, of the RAC.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study adds to the body of work around collective partnerships and successful policy
implementation. Additionally this research provides new data on how OEIB’s Regional
Achievement Collaborative is being taken on at a local level. Based on this study the following
areas for future research are recommended:
• Because the Regional Achievement Compacts are in year one of their implementation
little data is available on student outcomes as a result of RAC efforts. It would be
advantageous to look at student outcomes over time to measure the impact of the RAC.
• Another area for further research is investigating how the size of a partnership affects the
strength of a partnership. This study clearly shows that size creates new challenges for a
partnership that must be addressed in order to progress.
• This study focused on a RAC that had the benefit of previously working together in a
partnership. Another area of study would be to study a new RAC partnership without any
previous work history and see how they develop over a period of time.
63
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
• There are many regions in Oregon doing RACs with many different goals. A look at the
variance in goals between Region’s and the advantages to broad or narrow goals in
effectively preparing students for success would be beneficial.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to understand the development of the RAC within one region
in Oregon, and comparing that development to what the research says are characteristics of
successful both successful policy implementation and collective partnerships. The body of
research has found that successful partnerships have a commitment from top leadership (Kania &
Kramer, 2013), foster trusting relationships that are developed over time (Holland, 2005; Collins,
Weinbaum, Ramon and Vaughan, 2009), involve members who self-select into the partnership
(Shive, 1984; Goldring & Sims, 2005), have a common set of shared goals and values ( Peel,
2002; McNail, Reed, Brown and Allen, 2008; Goldring & Sims, 2005), and have open
communicate between each other (Goldring & Sims, 2005 ). These characteristics were
repeatedly shared by members of the Cod County RAC as present in the collaborative.
The data suggests that commitment from leadership and strong trusting relationships between
members are the building blocks for effective partnerships. Conversely when leadership waned,
and relationships between members were not well developed, as seen in some of the Bridge
Collaboratives, the effectiveness of a committee was lowered. Time to build relationships prior
to making decisions and actualizing plans is one key for successful relationship development.
Those groups who did not take time to get to know one another through regularly scheduled
discussion and subsequently struggle to be effective.
64
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
One particular challenge that was a recurring theme revolved around the challenges of the
collective’s size. As more and more members joined the RAC the ability of the collective to
sustain itself without a given intermediary organization became an issue. As partnerships expand
so too must the infrastructure around it to coordinate the complexities of larger partnerships.
This in effect tests the partnership forcing it to prove it’s’ commitment to the shared vision
through a larger contribution from individual entities in terms of resources. Cod is clearly at this
point in terms of grappling with sustainability and the need for dedicated resources.
Cod County’s RAC also highlights the impact of policy on local communities. The OEIB’s
introduction of the RAC concept was clearly informed from input from local leaders, some of
whom were involved with Cod’s partnership work. Through listening to local stakeholders and
building on the previous work of partnerships the OEIB was able to introduce policy that had
immediate buy in at the local level, as well as allowing the OEIB to push the idea of partnerships
further towards a more comprehensive P20 strategy. Members contrasting views as to who came
up with the idea to look at P20 first is evidence of how thoughtful the OEIB was in policy
development.
It is the opinion of this researcher that Cod County’s Regional Achievement
Collaborative will continue to flourish. The strength of relationships and commitment from the
leaders involved around the vision of 40-40-20 is the core of this partnership. New members at
all levels of the infrastructure must be given though the time to develop relationships that
promote shared decision making and trust. The rush to “see the dial move” may undermine this
process and weaken what has previously been a strong relational framework. Patience in getting
the right people working on each committee and merging them into a collective unit will pay
benefits in the long term.
65
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
References
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth, E., Manning, E., ... & Yohn, C. (2012). The
condition of education 2012. National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of
Education.
Bailey, T., et al. (2009). Referral, enrollment, and completion in developmental education
sequences in community colleges. NY: Community College Research Center,
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Bali, V. A. (2003). Implementing Popular Initiatives: What Matters for Compliance?. Journal of
Politics, 65(4), 1130-1146.
Beabout, B. R. (2010). Urban school reform and the strange attractor of low-risk relationships.
The School Community Journal, 20(1), 9-30.
Bullough Jr, R. V., & Kauchak, D. (1997). Partnerships between higher education and secondary
schools: Some problems. Journal of Education for Teaching, 23(3), 215-234.
California Department of Education. (2009). 2008-09 Accountability Progress Reporting
System: 2008-09 Adequate Yearly Progress Report- Information Guide. Sacramento, CA:
Author. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/infoguide09.pdf
Carnoy, M. (2000). Globalization and educational reform. Globalization and education:
Integration and contestation across cultures, 43-61.
Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are They Really Ready to Work? Employers'
Perspectives on the Basic Knowledge and Applied Skills of New Entrants to the 21st
Century US Workforce. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. 1 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Suite 700, Washington, DC 20001.
Chrispeels, J. H. (1997). Educational policy implementation in a shifting political climate: The
California experience. American Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 453-481.
66
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Clarke, A., & Fuller, M. (2010). Collaborative strategic management: Strategy formulation and
implementation by multi-organizational cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of
Business Ethics, 94(1), 85-101.
Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sense making about reading: How teachers mediate reading
policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
23(2), 145-170.
Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311-329.
Collins, M. L. College: Ready or Not?. 21st- CENTURY COMMISSION On the Future of
Community Colleges, 43.
Collins, D. E., Weinbaum, A. T., Ramón, G., & Vaughan, D. (2009). Laying the Groundwork:
The Constant Gardening of Community—University—School Partnerships for
Postsecondary Access and Success. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8(4),
394-417.
CoSA (2012). Achievement Compact Steering Committee. Critical Questions. Retrieved from:
http://www.oregon.gov/gov/oeib/docs/03_29_12k-12implementationquestions.pdf
Conley, D. T., & Picus, L. O. (2003). Oregon's quality education model: Linking adequacy and
outcomes. Educational Policy, 17(5), 586-612.
Cooper, J. (2011). Gov. pushes for Oregon education overhaul. NNCN.
http://www.nwcn.com/news?fId=119270499&fPath=/news/local&fDomain=10202
Crew, R. (2013, February 10, 2013). (Discussion with USC OEIB Dissertation Group).
Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of school reform models. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 357-374.
67
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418-446.
Domina, T., & Ruzek, E. (2012). Paving the Way K-16 Partnerships for Higher Education
Diversity and High School Reform. Educational Policy, 26(2), 243-267.
Duncan, A, (2011). Letters from the Education Secretary. September 23, 2011. Retrieved from
http.//www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/secletter/110923.html on April 8, 2013.
Eckel, P. D., & Hartley, M. (2008). Developing academic strategic alliances: Reconciling
multiple institutional cultures, policies, and practices. The Journal of Higher Education,
79(6), 613-637.
EdSource. (2013). Program Improvement retrieved from http://www.edsource.org/1253.html on
April 9, 2013.
Esteve, H. (2011). Ted Kulongoski defends legacy as he bids good-bye to Oregon governor’s
office. Oregon Live.
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/01/ted_kulongoski_defends_legacy.ht
ml
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership (pp. 1-46). Washington,
DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
Friedman, B. (2005). Meltdown: A Case Study. The Atlantic Monthly, 296(1), 66-68.
Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat [updated and expanded]: A brief history of the twenty-
first century. Farrar Straus & Giroux.
Galama, T., & Hosek, J. (2008). US competitiveness in science and technology. Rand
Corporation.
Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (2008). The race between technology and education. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard.
68
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Goldring, E., & Sims, P. (2005). Modeling creative and courageous school leadership through
district-community-university partnerships. Educational Policy, 19(1), 223-249.
Gray, B. (2004). Strong opposition: framebased resistance to collaboration. Journal of
Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14(3), 166-176.
Hammond, B. (2012). Rudy Crew says one third of Oregon school districts must rewrite goals,
aim higher. Oregon Live.
http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2012/09/rudy_crew_says_one_third_of_o
r.html
Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved
student performance?. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297-327.
Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2011). How much do educational outcomes matter in
OECD countries? Economic Policy, 26(67), 427-491.
Hill, H. C. (2003). Understanding Implementation: Street Level Bureaucrats' Resources for
Reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(3), 265-282.
Hoff, D. L. (2002). School-Business Partnerships: It's the Schools' Turn to Raise the Grade!
School Community Journal, 12(2), 63-78.
Hoffman Johnson, G. (2007). Seamless transition in the twenty first century: Partnering to
survive and thrive. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2007(139), 17-27.
Holland, B. A. (2005). Reflections on community-campus partnerships: What has been learned?
What are the next challenges? Higher education collaboratives for community
engagement and improvement, 10-17.
69
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(1),
36-41.
Kirsch, I., Braun, H., Yamamoto, K., & Sum, A. (2007). America's Perfect Storm: Three Forces
Changing Our Nation's Future. Educational Testing Service.
Kirst, M. W., & Usdan, M. D. (2009). The Historical Context of the Divide between K–12 and
Higher Education. PM Callan, States, Schools and Colleges: Policies to Improve Student
Readiness for College and Strengthen Coordination between Schools and Colleges,
NCPPHE (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education), San Jose, 5.
Kowalski, T. J. (2010). Public-Private Partnerships, Civic Engagement, and School Reform.
Journal of Thought, 45(3-4), 71-93.
Krueger, C. (2006). The progress of P-16 collaboration in the states. Denver, CO: Education
Commission of the States.
Lee, J., & Reeves, T. (2012). Revisiting the Impact of NCLB High-Stakes School
Accountability, Capacity, and Resources State NAEP 1990–2009 Reading and Math
Achievement Gaps and Trends. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(2), 209-
231.
Maurrasse, D. J. (2002). Higher education-community partnerships: Assessing progress in the
field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 131-139.
McDermott K. (2004). Incentives Capacity, and Implementation: Evidence from
Massachusetts Education Reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory. 16, 45-65.
McNall, M., Reed, C. S., Brown, R., & Allen, A. (2009). Brokering community–university
engagement. Innovative Higher Education, 33(5), 317-331.
70
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Mohammed, S. F., Pisapia, J., & Walker, D. A. (2009). Optimizing state policy implementation:
The case of the scientific based research components of the NCLB Act. Current Issues in
Education, 11(8), 1-20.
NCLB Act of 2001, Pub L. No 107-110
Nesbitt, T. (2012) Guidance for Completion of Achievement Compacts for 2012-13. Retrieved
from: http://www.oregon.gov/gov/oeib/docs/acguidancedoc.pdf
OECD, (2012) Education at a Glance.
OECD (2013) History retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/about/history/ on April 9, 2013.
Oregon.gov. (2013). Achievement Compacts retrieved from
http://www.orgeon.gov/Gov/Page/oeib/OregonEductaionInvestmentBoard.aspx
Oregon Business Council (2000). An Assessment of Oregon’s K-12 Assessment Reform
(Portland, OR: The Education Task Force, June 2000).
Oregon Department of Education (2012) 2011-12 Test Results retrieved from
http://www.ode.state.or.us/news/announcements/announcement.aspx?id=8530&typeid=5
on April 8, 2013.
Oregon Dept. of Education (2013). What is OAKS? Retrieved from
http://www.ode.state.or.us/serach/results/?id=169 on April 8, 2013.
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2011). Oregon Learns: Executive Summary Report to the
Legislature from the Oregon Education Investment Board.
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2012). Guidance for Completion of Achievement
Compacts for 2012-13.
Oregon Educational Investment Board (2012b) Division 10- Achievement Compacts:
705-010-0005 Definitions.
71
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2013). A Proposal for a Regional Achievement Compact
Pilot.
Oregon Education Investment Board (2013b). Chief Education Officer Strategic Plan Summary
Retrieved from www.oregon.gove/gov/docs/oeib/StrategicPlanPres.pdf on April 8 2013.
Peel, H. A., Peel, B. B., & Baker, M. E. (2002). School/university partnerships: A viable model.
International Journal of Educational Management, 16(7), 319-325.
Ross, S. M. (2013). It Takes a City to" Raise" a Systemic Reform: Early Outcomes from the Say
Yes City-wide Turnaround Strategy in Syracuse. Cypriot Journal of Educational
Sciences, 8(1).
Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: a
critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 21-48.
Schulz, A. J., Israel, B. A., & Lantz, P. (2003). Instrument for evaluating dimensions of group
dynamics within community-based participatory research partnerships. Evaluation and
Program Planning, 26(3), 249-262.
Seelig, M. (2013, April). Personal communication
Senate Bill 909-B. (2011). 76
th
Oregon Legislative Assembly.
Senate Bill 1581-B (2012). 76
th
Oregon Legislative Assembly.
Shive, R. J. (1984). School and university partnerships: Meeting common needs. Improving
college and university teaching, 32(3), 119-122.
Smith, Brad (October 18, 2012). How to reduce America’s talent deficit? The Wall Street
Journal.

72
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Spillane, J. P., & Callahan, K. A. (2000). Implementing state standards for science education:
What district policy makers make of the hoopla. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37(5), 401-425.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition:
Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research,
72(3), 387-431.
Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the
context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 21(1), 1-27.
Steves, D & Bolt, G. (2003, November 14). Kulongoski puts colleges on new path. Eugene
Register Guard. Retrieved from:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=20031114&id=5FJWAAAAIBAJ&s
jid=BOwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2962,3267363
Strier, R. (2011). The construction of university-community partnerships: entangled
perspectives. Higher Education, 62(1), 81-97.
Strong American Schools, Diploma to Nowhere (Washington D.C.: Strong American Schools,
2008).
Trubowitz, S. (1986). Stages in the development of school-college collaboration. Educational
Leadership, 43(5), 18-21.
U.S. Department of Education, NCES (2009-479). The Nation’s Report Card. NAEP 2008
Trends in Academic Progress: Reading 1971-2008/ Mathematics 1973-2008.

73
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
U.S. Department of Education, NCES (2011a-004). Highlights From PISA 2009: Performance
of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Reading, Mathematics, and Science Literacy in an
International Context.
US Department of Education, NCES (2012a). The Nation’s Report Card. Mathematics 2011:
National Assessment of Educational Progress at Grades 4 and 8.
US Department of Education, NCES (2012b). The Nation’s Report Card. Reading 2011:
National Assessment of Educational Progress at Grades 4 and 8.
U.S. Department of Education (2012c). ESEA Flexibility Policy Document retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html on April 8, 2013.
U.S. Department of Education, NCES(2012d). NAEP State Profiles retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/ on April 8, 2013.
US Department of Education, NCES (2013-009). Highlights From TIMSS 2011: Mathematics
and Science Achievement of U.S. Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students in an International
Context.
Venezia, A., Callan, P. M., Finney, J. E., Kirst, M. W., & Usdan, M. D. (2005). The Governance
Divide: A Report on a Four-State Study on Improving College Readiness and Success.
National Center Report# 05-3. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
Venezia, A., & Kirst, M. W. (2006). The Governance Divide: The Case Study for Oregon.
National Center Report# 05-7. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next
generation of public administration. Public administration review, 62(5), 527-540.
Wei-Skillern, J., & Silver, N. (2013). Four network principles for collaboration success. The
Foundation Review, 5(1), 121-129.
74
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
West, M. R. (2012). Education and Global Competitiveness: Lessons for the United States from
International Evidence.
Wilson, S. M. (1990). A conflict of interests: The case of Mark Black. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 293-310.
Zimpher, N. L., & Howey, K. R. (2005). The politics of partnerships for teacher education
redesign and school renewal. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 266-271.

75
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Appendix A: Open ended interview questions
What led to individual institutions joining the Regional Compact?
1. When you first heard about the Regional Compact Pilot what did you think? (Did this
differ from your view of the individual compacts?)

2. What motivated you to pilot the Regional Compact? (Previous relationships, common
problems, view of OEIB- Anything that made you hesitate? )

3. How did this group form? (How well did you know each other? Why not other entities?
Is there a connecting leader? Common problem?)

How were the goals of the Regional Compact formed?
1. You have set (x,y,z) as your goals. Help me understand why you choose these goals and
not others? (What ideas were considered but thrown out? Based on what? What was the
hardest thing in setting them?)

2. The process of setting goals can be complex, what steps were taken in forming these
goals (meetings- how often/ with whom, leader of meetings, input from leaders not in
attendance, data used and research used)

3. How did you get buy in from each entity for the goals? (what was key in doing this,
equal buy in- how do you know?

What steps have been taken towards achieving the Regional Compact goals?
1. What is the collaborative specifically doing to achieve these goals (steps taken as a group
+ taken individually) Anything new for your entity? Biggest challenge?-what is needed
to overcome it

2. How was this plan formulated (Research consulted? Data used? RC meetings- debated
what?, input from institutional leaders not in attendance, outside stakeholders)

3. Scale of 1-10 where are you in fulfilling the goals? Why(what is helping, holding back)

4. Describe a typical compact meeting (how are ideas shared, progress monitored, taken
back to communities and sites, dynamics changed- how and why)
What impact has participation in the Regional Compact Pilot had on individual entities?
1. How has your opinion of the Regional Compact Pilot changed now that you are
participating? What would strengthen it?

2. Tell me one thing that your entity has gotten out of participating in this pilot? (Created
any institutional changes?) What would you like to get more of? (Additionally, what
have you personally learned from this)
76
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE

3. This was a pilot, what advice would you give the OEIB around the Regional Compacts?
Would you do it again? How will your collaborative be different next year?

77
FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT COLLABORATIVE
Appendix B: Revised Interview Questions

What has made Lane County Connected a successful multi-organizational partnership?
Data analyzed through the frame of research around successful policy implementation and successful
partnerships.
Research Questions:
1) What led to individual institutions joining the RAC?
2) How were the goals of the RAC formed?
3) What steps have been taken towards achieving the RAC goals?
4) What impact has participation in the RAC Pilot had on individual entities?

1. What motivated the various stakeholders to join the Educational Partnership ?
(a common need/problem, what local stakeholders were involved, previous work, community
involvement, early obstacles)
2. During the early stages of the partnership, spring of 2010, what processes were used to
become a united partnership?
(Conversations early on were about what?, Trust?, Time, how well did all of the leaders involved
know each other)

• Have these processes changed as your collective grew and added new partners?
3. The vision in Lane Cty has always focused on transitions, how was this vision developed?
(processes used, a shared vision initially, how did you get buy-in)

• Why transitions?
• What caused the expansion to P-22 transitions ?
(OEIB RAC, process used to decide expansion)
4. How do you define what a high functioning collective partnership looks like?
( In what ways is Connected Lane County like this? Where do you see room for improvement?)

• What advice would you give to RACs just coming together to become a high functioning
partnership?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Oregon education policy implementation: a case study of the achievement compacts information dissemination of the Oregon Education Investment Board

PDF

An examination of Oregon’s implementation of literacy and common core state standards: preparing students to be college and career ready

PDF

An examination of Oregon's achievement compacts as it relates to disadvantaged students

PDF

The impact of principal leadership and model schools on state‐wide school reform: case studies of four Oregon elementary model schools

PDF

School accountability and reform in Oregon: effecting system change with Achievement Compacts

PDF

An examination of Oregon's achievement compacts as it relates to special education

PDF

The importance of being a global citizen: creating and implementing a global curriculum for the Cutting Edge Youth Summit

PDF

Culture, politics, and policy implementation: how practitioners interpret and implement the transfer policy in a technical college environment

PDF

Establishing the presence of Georgetown University's School of Continuing Studies in the Russian Federation: a gap analysis

PDF

Implementing organizational change in a medical school

PDF

Analysis of STEM programs in Oregon public high schools

PDF

Managing leadership transitions in an international school context

PDF

The reallocation of human resources to improve student achievement in a time of fiscal constraints

PDF

Allocation of resources and personnel to increase student achievement

PDF

Creating a climate for innovation in education: Reframing structure, culture, and leadership practices

PDF

A learning model of policy implementation: implementing technology in response to policy requirements

PDF

A faith-based nonprofit organization’s implementation of strategic planning: A qualitative study

PDF

Partnerships and nonprofit leadership: the influence of nonprofit managers on community partnerships

PDF

Analyzing effects of institutional design on student success outcomes between 2-year and 4-year institutions

PDF

An examination of the Oregon state college and career education investment and the Eastern Promise program

Asset Metadata

Creator Dale, Timothy Chip (author)

Core Title The formation and implementation of a regional achievement collaborative

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/20/2014

Defense Date 05/13/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag collective action,Education,multi‐organizational partnership theory,OAI-PMH Harvest,partnership theory,policy implementation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Crew, Rudolph (committee member), Seelig, Michael (committee member)

Creator Email timothy_dale@dpsk12.org

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-462595

Unique identifier UC11286889

Identifier etd-DaleTimoth-2835.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-462595 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DaleTimoth-2835.pdf

Dmrecord 462595

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Dale, Timothy Chip

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA