University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 1

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON’S IMPLEMENTATION OF LITERACY AND COMMON
CORE STATE STANDARDS: PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER
READY
by
Esther So Jung Kim Cho

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

August 2014

Copyright 2014 Esther So Jung Kim Cho
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 2

Dedication
I dedicate my dissertation to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. All things were
and are possible through you. Thank you for calling me your child, loving me
unconditionally, redeeming me from my sins, and blessing me to love you and others
around me.
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, parents, sister, and to my future children.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 3

Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I give honor to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. You treat
me better than I deserve. I thank you for grace, mercy, and presence every step of the way
in this journey. You are my rock, my refuge, and my cornerstone. I am nothing without
you Lord.
To my husband, Aaron, for your steadfast prayer and faith to carry me through
this journey. It was your great faith, despite being miles apart for several years and your
hectic lifestyle as a medical student that kept our marriage strong, healthy, and pleasing
to the Lord. Thank you for allowing me to vent but ultimately wisely counseling me to
fix my eyes on Jesus. I love you dearly and I am excited for things yet to come.
To my family, my mother and father, Danielle and Paul Kim, and my sister, Paris,
for your encouragement and love for me. Mom, thank you for always instilling me to
pursue bigger, wider, and higher dreams. Your sacrifice is not in vain.
To my church family at Gospel Life Mission Church, thank you for your many
prayers and support to help us finish strong.
To my friends Aimee Zo Kim, Cathy Roh, and Renee Chung Lee for praying and
cheering me on throughout this journey. I love you friends.
To Michelle Woody, a special thank you. I do not know where I would be without
you. I am beyond blessed to befriend an eternal friend. Your faith is contagious.
To Dr. David Conley for taking time after your presentation to network and
provide me contacts in Oregon. I thank you for your kind emails and allowing me to use
your new book as a vital part of my research. Your new book is insightful and powerful.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 4

To my Dissertation Committee Members, Dr. Rudy Crew, Dr. Mike Seelig,
and Dr. Lawrence Picus. Thank you for sharing your valuable wisdom and years of
expertise.
To the members of my cohort and dissertation thematic group. I thank you for
your support, encouragement, and assistance. I am honored to befriend talented, wise,
and compassionate educators.
To the parents, teachers, staff, and community of South Junior High School. A
special thanks to Carlos Hernandez for being a spiritual and educational mentor. I have
learned so much from you and you are a channel of blessing.
To the superintendent of District B and teachers at School A for taking the time to
share your candid responses about the new shift to Common Core and college and career
readiness.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 5

Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgement 3
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Appendices 9
Abstract 10
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 12
Introduction 12
Statement of the Problem 17
Purpose of the Study 18
Research Questions 18
Importance of the Study 19
Summary of Methodology 20
Limitations 21
Delimitations 22
Assumptions 23
Definition of Terms 23
Dissertation Organization 30
Chapter 2: Literature Review 31
Introduction 31
Oregon School Reform 32
Measure 5 32
The Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century 33
The Oregon Quality Education Model (OQEM) 34
Senate Bills 253, 909, and 1581 36
Oregon Education Investment Board 39
Literacy and Common Core State Standards 43
Literacy and Access to College and Career 43
Adoption and Implementation of Common Core State 47
Standards (CCSS) in Oregon
Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium 49
Response to Intervention 51
Resource Allocation 51
National Funding Trends 51
Oregon’s Funding 54
Literacy and Common Core Funds 60
Educational Adequacy 64
Professional Judgment Model 65
Successful Schools Model 66
Cost Function Analysis Model 67
Evidence-Based Model (EBM) 67
Chapter Summary 69
Chapter 3: Methods 70
Introduction 70
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 6

Research Questions 71
Purposeful Sample and Population 71
Instrumentation and Data Collection 73
Data Analysis 75
Summary 75
Chapter 4: Findings 76
Introduction 76
Achievement Compacts 77
College and Career readiness 78
Progression Toward College and Career Readiness 84
Findings by Research Question 92
Research Question 1 92
Research Question 2 97
Research Question 3 105
Research Question 4 111
Chapter Summary 120
Chapter Five: Discussion 121
Overview of the Study 121
Discussion of Findings Relative to the Literature Review 122
Common Core Connection to College and Career Readiness 126
Deeper Learning with Purpose and Foster Ownership of Learning 128
Effective Systems of Assessments and Evaluation 134
Effective Resource Allocation to Execute Educational Reforms 135
Limitations 137
Recommendations for Future Research 137
Conclusion 138
References 142
Appendices 156

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 7

List of Tables
Table 2.1: The Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation Act 46
Table 2.2: Educational Expenditure by Function 59
Table 2.3: OEIB’s Early Literacy Initiative Components 61
Table 2.4: Cost Comparisons for the Common Core Implementation 63
Table 4.1: District A’s Progression Toward College and Career Readiness 87
Targets (Percentages)
Table 4.2: District B’s Progression Toward College and Career Readiness 89
Targets (Percentages)
Table 4.3: Reading College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards 98
Table 4.4: Writing College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards 99
Table 4.5: Evaluation and Measurements for college and career readiness 111
Table 4.6: District A’s Budget Timeline 2013-2014 114
Table 4.7: District B Budget Process for 2012-2013 115
Table 5.1: Project Based Learning Essential Elements 131
Table 5.2: Habits of Mind identified by Costa and Kallick 132
Table 5.3: Examples of Student Profile Measurement 135
Table N.1: School A Demographics 2012-2013 174
Table N.2: School A’s State Test Score 2013 174
Table N.3: School and Community Organizations 177
Table N.4: Primary Years Programme Exhibit Explanation and Purpose 179
Table N.5: Project Based Learning Essential Elements 181

Table N.6: Habits of Mind identified by Costa and Kallick 182
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 8

List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Trajectory to Meet the 40/40/20 Goal 37
Figure 2.2: Achievement Compacts for 2012-213 P-20 41
Figure 2.3: K-12, ESD Achievement Compact Definitions 42
Figure 2.4: 12th-Grade Reading Achievement and Postsecondary Education 44
Required for Jobs

Figure 2.5: Elementary and Secondary Education Funding Fiscal Year 2010 53
Figure 2.6: OEM Total Operating Revenue 55
Figure 2.7: Projected Oregon School Funding Gap 55
Figure 2.8: The Evidence-Based Model 68
Figure 3.1: District Sample Demographic 72
Figure 4.1: District A’s Achievement Compact 81
Figure 4.2: District B’s Achievement Compact 82
Figure 4.3: Comparison Between 2025 goal and 2010 percentage 91
Figure 4.4: School A’s Approaches to learning (Transdisciplinary Skills) 103
Figure 4.5: Assessment Continuum 107
Figure 4.6: School A’s PYP Exhibit Criteria 109
Figure 4.7: The Evidence-Based Model 112
Figure 4.8: District A’s budget comparison from 2009-2014 116

Figure 4.9: District B’s Budget summary 2011-2013 119
Figure 5.1: Components of the Four Key Model for College and Career 127
Readiness
Figure 5.2: Competencies to be Developed and Assessed 129

Figure 5.3: Levels of Thinking in Bloom’s Taxonomy and Webb’s Depth of 130
Knowledge

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 9

Appendices
Appendix A: Introductory Letter 156
Appendix B: Information Fact Sheet for Exemption Non-Medical Research 157
Appendix C: Document Request 160
Appendix D: Open-ended Data Collection Protocol School Site 163
Appendix E: Depths of Knowledge Levels 165
Appendix F: Depths of Knowledge Question Stems 166
Appendix G: Hess’s Cognitive Rigor Metric and Curricular Examples 167
Math and Science
Appendix H: Hess’s Cognitive Rigor Metric and Curricular Examples Reading 168
Appendix I: Descriptors of Depths of Levels for Social Studies 1 of 3 169
Appendix J: Descriptors of Depths of Levels for Social Studies 2 of 3 170
Appendix K: Descriptors of Depths of Levels for Social Studies 3 of 3 171
Appendix L: P21 Framework for 21st Century Learning 172
Appendix M: P21 Skills 173
Appendix N: Case Study School A 174

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 10

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine two districts’ implementation and
evaluation of literacy programs in connection to the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) to prepare students to be college and career ready. CCSS has been adopted by 46
states nationwide to prepare students for college and careers. The State of Oregon has
sought to cultivate young Oregonians to become 21st global leaders by creating an
achievement compact across many school districts. A series of Oregon educational
reform initiatives have been aligned with the achievement compacts endeavor to achieve
the 40/40/20 goal. The aim of this study is to examine the implementation of literacy and
CCSS in the pursuit of preparing students to be college and career ready in the Oregon
Public School system.
Governor Kitzhaber, the Oregon Educational Investment Board (OEIB), and the
Educational Funding Team (EFT) have developed a comprehensive funding and
accountability plan to support the implementation of statewide educational reform to
foster productive citizenry through a rigorous educational system. The implementation of
literacy and beginning stages of CCSS, and resource allocations were examined through
the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) for educational adequacy.
Four themes emerged from the findings: (a) the Common Core connection to
college and career readiness, (b) the need to provide students opportunities for deeper
learning and foster ownership of learning to prepare them for college and career, (c) the
need for effective systems of assessments and evaluation to ensure success for all
students to be successful (d) the need for effective resource allocation to execute
educational reform.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 11

This study validated the conclusion that it is critical for all stakeholders to prepare
students for college and career readiness with strong foundations in literacy, effective
deeper learning strategies, comprehensive evaluation system, and resources which are all
essential elements confirmed by research. It is important for a state education system to
prioritize and align its goals by providing effective systems of implementation,
evaluation, and resources to live out its endeavors. The proper alignment can prepare
students to be college and career ready as global competitors in the 21st century.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 12

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization states that
education is a powerful tool by which economically and socially marginalized adults and
children can lift themselves out of poverty and participate fully as citizens (unesco.org,
2013). For centuries, most nations worldwide have prioritized education in the pursuit of
power, prestige, and posterity. However, for the majority of these nations, entitlement to
education has been granted to a privileged minority of with high socioeconomic status
(Vincent, 2000). In striving toward equality, the 15th amendment to the US constitution
granted African American men the right to vote. However, poll taxes, literacy tests, and
other measures continued to disenfranchise minorities until the passing of the Voting
Rights Act in 1965 (loc.gov, 2013).
The impetus for passing literacy tests goes beyond casting votes for the next
president. Exposure to quality education and literacy affects individuals’ access to data,
advancement, and full citizenship in a global society. Indeed, individuals are at a distinct
disadvantage if they lack the skills to find, understand, analyze, and evaluate written
information. Especially as technology advances, and the American economy becomes
increasingly knowledge based, students need higher literacy skills to understand written
texts, use information to solve problems, and write effectively. Large-scale survey data
reveal that direct measures of literacy appear to have a significant impact on per capita
gross domestic product, productivity, and economic growth well after schooling has been
completed (Kirsch, Braun, Yamamoto, & Sum, 2007). Education and a nation’s
prosperity positively correlate. According to Hanushek and Woessman (2011), the quality
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 13

of a nation’s education system is a key determinant of the future growth of its economy.
Little doubt exists about the connection between education and economic prosperity,
particularly when it comes to remaining competitive with other rapidly rising world
powers in a newly globalized economy.
The United States’s priority to educate its citizens as global competitors became
exigent during the Cold War, with the Soviet Union’s launch of the Sputnik spacecraft in
1957. To be competitive in technology, the American educational system had to improve.
Education reform became one of the priorities throughout the Truman, Eisenhower, and
Kennedy administrations (Spring, 2005). Carrying on Kennedy’s legacy of educational
progressivism, President Lyndon Johnson passed the Elementary and Secondary Act
(ESEA), which became a highlight of his legislative agenda for the “Great Society” and
“War on Poverty” programs. The core of ESEA emphasized equal access to education for
all students with high standards and accountability (ed.gov, 2013).
ESEA’s objective was to ensure that children in low-income schools had an equal
opportunity to access high quality education (Graham & Bridge, 2010). Since the ESEA
passed, Congress has been mandated to reauthorize this federal law—affecting K–12
education—every six years. The latest reauthorization with the most significant change
occurred in 2001 under President George W. Bush. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act was developed by the United States Department of Education, which was aligned to
Johnson’s initial endeavor to educate all students across the nation. NCLB mandates that
all students at select grade levels score proficient in English language arts and
mathematics on standardized state assessments by 2014. Individual schools are required
to meet their given state’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets for certain
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 14

demographic subgroups. Furthermore, schools are required to avail School
Accountability Report Cards (SARC), which contain disaggregated test score data by all
subgroups, to the public (edweek.org, 2011).
NCLB also enshrines into law a series of punitive sanctions when a school fails to
bring all students up to proficiency in core subjects. Sanctions may come in the form of
cutting federal school funding, being labeled a program improvement (PI) school, with
varying levels of accountabilities, and changing the school’s governance (Linn, 2004).
The government funds several federal programs to increase standards of accountability
for state, school districts, schools, and parents. Funding is divided into areas called titles.
Titles and subtitles support programs and resources for disadvantaged students by
recruiting highly qualified teachers and principals to foster safe learning environments for
academic success (NCLB Act of 2001, Pub L. No 107-110).
Despite the noble intentions of NCLB, the law’s rigorous accountability mandates
and overreliance on high stakes tests have jeopardized numerous schools because they
could not meet certain compliance requirements. The pressure to meet the targeted goals
has provoked some teachers and administrators to act unethically by “teaching to the test”
or blatantly bubbling in correct answers. To remedy the flaws of NCLB, schools were
given an option to request waivers from the provisions. Additionally, for some states, the
option to request the NCLB waiver was due to the lack of college- and career-readiness
plans (Ayers & Owen, 2012).
The chance to waive some requirements of the NCLB was enacted by President
Barack Obama in 2009. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA),
the Obama administration authorized the Race to the Top Assessment (RTTT) program.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 15

ARRA provided over $4 billion for the RTTT fund, which is a competitive grant program
constructed to promote and reward states to create innovative educational reform to
improve student achievement. The core education reform areas are (a) build data systems
that measure student growth and success; (b) recruit, develop, reward, and retain effective
teachers and principals; and (c) turn around lowest-achieving schools (ed.gov, 2013). In
exchange, states that request waivers are granted flexibility from the core tenants of the
law if they agree to adopt certain educational ideas, such as a teacher-evaluation system.
Oregon is one of the states that have been approved for the NCLB waiver. The
Oregon Education Association (OEA) requested a waiver and created alternative methods
for student achievement (Rasmussen & Vaandering, 2012). Prior to receiving approval
for the waiver, Oregon was a vanguard in school reform (OEIB, 2012). According to
Conley and Picus (2003), the Oregon Educational Act for the 21st century established
requirements for state standards and assessments in 1991, which predates the
implementation of NCLB. Oregon is one of the early adopters of state-level performance-
based education systems. The initiative to create a comprehensive and tailored system of
standards and accountability was spearheaded by the governor of Oregon, John
Kitzhaber.
In 2011, Governor Kitzhaber and the Oregon Legislation signed Senate Bill 909
(SB 909) to streamline a unified educational system. SB 909 created the Oregon
Education Investment Board (OEIB) and hired a Chief Education Officer, Dr. Rudy
Crew, to develop an education investment system strategy that covered prekindergarten
through postsecondary (P-20) to achieve the state’s educational outcomes (OEIA, 2012).
It also directed the OEIB to recommend strategic investments to guarantee that the public
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 16

education expenditure is integrated and targeted to achieve the educational outcomes for
the state.
In addition to SB 909, Oregon Legislation and Governor Kitzhaber signed Senate
Bill 253 (SB 253) to implement aggressive high school and college completion goals in
the country. SB 253 defines the goal of OEIB to ensure that by 2025, 40% of adult
Oregonians has earned a bachelor’s degree or higher; 40% has earned an associate’s
degree or postsecondary credential; and the remaining 20% or less has earned a high
school diploma or its equivalent. These targets are referred to as the “40/40/20” goal
(OEIB, 2011).
Subsequently, in 2012, the state signed Senate Bill 1581 (SB 1581), which
authorized all school districts, education service districts, community college districts,
and public universities in Oregon to partake in annual achievement compacts with OEIB,
beginning in the 2012–2013 school year (OEIB, 2012). Each district can create goals and
action plans, although they must be in accordance with the framework for K–12 and
education service districts (ESD) compacts. The data and target setting for each outcome
measure must include (a) College and career: four-year and five-year cohort graduation
rates, five-year completion rate, postsecondary enrollment, and earning nine or more
college credits; (b) Progression toward college and career readiness: kindergarten
readiness, third grade proficiency in math and reading, sixth grade on track in attendance,
and ninth grade on track that measures attendance and credits completed; (c) Equity: Title
I school improvement list and disadvantaged students (OEIB, 2012).
Alongside the mandated achievement compacts, OEIB piloted a voluntary
regional achievement compact in 2013. The regional achievement compact’s purpose is
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 17

to (a) engage Oregon’s P-20 institutions in ongoing problem-solving dialogue leading to
a culture of statewide continuous improvement; (b) focus, align, and measure the value of
state resources against models designed to increase student growth and decrease
historical gaps in student outcomes; and (c) transition away from institutional silos and
the isolation of best practice so that all stakeholders share knowledge, collaborate, and
build a statewide culture of collaboration rather than one of competition (OEIB, 2013).
Statement of the Problem
Federal mandates, such as the NCLB and state accountability proposals, are
ubiquitous in the field of education. However, even as some uncertainties about the
effectiveness of NCLB remain, the best US evidence indicates that strong state
accountability systems, in fact, lead to better student performance (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002;
Dee & Jacob, 2009; Hanushek & Raymond, 2005; Jacob, 2005). A sense of urgency
surrounds the need to increase student achievement because of the impact on a state’s or
country’s economy.
The design of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) addresses both the core
academic knowledge and complex thinking skills required for life and career in the 21st
century (p21.org, 2013). A total of 46 states have adopted CCSS, and school districts
across the state are strategizing new methods of integrating anchor standards that promote
critical thinking, collaboration, and literacy skills, such as speaking, listening, writing,
and reading. Critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and literacy are valuable assets to
being competitive in the global economy. As President Obama has stated, “[R]ather than
merely possessing data, we must also learn the skills necessary to acquire, collate, and
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 18

evaluate information for any situation. This new type of literacy also requires
competency with communication technologies” (whitehouse.gov, 2009).
Purpose of the Study
It is important to understand how schools in Oregon are equipping students with 21st-
century skills for the CCSS and literacy to cultivate college- and career-ready citizenry.
To this end, the purpose of this study is to research how Oregon public school districts, in
accordance with the achievement compact, are implementing college and career
readiness. The study will conduct a four-fold analysis of public school districts’
implementation of literacy and CCSS by: 1) how the Achievement Compact impacted
District A and District B’s implementation of its literacy program to help students
achieve Common Core grade level literacy skills; 2) how District A and District B are
supporting literacy program to help students achieve Common Core grade level literacy
skills; 3) how District A and District B are evaluating the progress of its literacy program
to prepare students for college and career; and 4) what resources are allocated to support
and to increase District A and District B’s literacy and the Common Core State Standards
for the 21st century.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study are:
• How did the Achievement Compact impacted District A and District B’s
implementation of its literacy program to help students achieve Common Core
grade level literacy skills?
• How are District A and District B are supporting literacy program to help students
achieve Common Core grade level literacy skills?
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 19

• How are District A and District B monitoring the progress of its literacy program
to prepare students for college and career?
• What resources are allocated to support and to increase District A and District
B’s literacy and the Common Core State Standards for the 21st century?
Importance of the Study
Literacy is the ability to read, write, speak, and listen in a way that empowers
people to communicate effectively and make sense of the world. As Vaca (2010) has
stated,
[A]dolescents entering the adult world in the 21st century will read and write
more than at any other time in human history. They will need advanced levels of
literacy to perform their jobs, run their households, act as citizens, and conduct
their personal lives.

To cultivate literate 21st-century citizens, the CCSS and Oregon’s achievement compacts
will play a vital role in terms of curriculum, instruction, accountability system, and
partnership to ensure that all students are literate at grade level and beyond.
The purpose of the study is to examine District A and District B’s implementation
and evaluation system of the literacy programs in light of the CCSS, achievement
compacts, and college and career readiness. The study will use the EBM to analyze the
impact of resource allocation and to meet its educational goal. The goal to empower and
educate students to be college and career ready is ubiquitous among various policymakers
and district and school leaders. Granted, each school district and schools are unique and
have differing demographics and socioeconomic characteristics; nonetheless, a range of
educational institutions can use positive deviance to glean various literacy
implementation strategies to help students thrive in the 21st century. Positive deviance is
based on behavioral and social change approach through observation that certain
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 20

individuals or groups to find better solutions to problems despite challenges, constraints,
and resource deprivation. The positive deviance approach is an asset-based, problem-
solving, and community-driven approach that enables the community to discover these
successful behaviors and strategies and develop a plan of action for success
(http://betterevaluation.org/plan/approach/positive_deviance).
Summary of Methodology
This study will conduct a case study of two model districts. District A in Oregon
was selected based on both its diverse student population and quest to prepare students as
global leaders in the 21st century. Both districts endeavors for all students to show
continuous progress toward their personal learning goals, to collaborate with teachers and
parents, and to be prepared for college and career.
District A is the third largest in Oregon, comprising of a total of 51 schools and
approximately 40,000 students. There are 33 traditional elementary schools, eight
traditional middle schools, five traditional high schools, five options schools, nineteen
options programs schools, and two charter schools. The graduation rate for the 2012-2013
school year is about 77% compared to 69% for the state’s average.
District B is the 24th largest of the 200 districts in Oregon. It is a growing school
with approximately 6,000 students. There are about 1,500 students in grades 9-12 and one
of its high schools has a graduation rate that is the highest among the large local public
schools near the state capitol. The district is also known for its collaboration with
University of Oregon’s College of Education. District B was recognized for its Literacy
Leadership Team that provides priorities closing the achievement gap for lower socio-
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 21

economic students. District B’s students outperformed the state average at nearly every
grade level on state exams.
The project was undertaken as a qualitative case study with the purpose of
examining the implementation of literacy programs in Oregon’s schools using the EBM.
The instrumentation was comprised of surveys, interviews, and documents. Qualitative
data were extracted from the interview process, survey analysis, and facts from the public
district-related documentation.
The interviews were primary sources of information with both open- and closed-
ended questions. Oregon’s public school superintendent, teachers, and business leaders
were interviewed for this study. Interview transcripts were organized using
HyperResearch to code and use frequency reports. Additionally, the following resources
were used for the study: (a) district mission and vision statements, (b) district strategic
initiatives, (c) school districts’ annual budget reports, (d) school mission and vision
statements, (e) school site council minutes, (f) parent involvement, and (g) community
resources. These sources were analyzed to determine the implementation of literacy and
CCSS in the effort to prepare students to be college and career ready.
Limitations
The following limitations are present in the study:
• A total of two public school districts were investigated; therefore the findings may
not be generalized to schools with different student demographics.
• The method of data collection was based upon structured and semi-structured
interviews, which are subjective views.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 22

• One Oregon public school superintendent was interviewed for this study. The
superintendent may not constitute a representative sample of other school
superintendents in the state.
• Two elementary teachers were interviewed for this study. The two teachers may
not constitute a representative sample of other schoolteachers in the district.
• Oregon’s SB 253, SB 909, and SB 1581 were passed in recent years. Schools had
four months from April 2012 to July 2012 to complete the plans of the
achievement. Almost a third of all districts were required to resubmit their
achievement compact due to unsatisfactory reviews. Thus, the outcome of this
study may be skewed as a result of the limited timeframe school leaders had to
implement literacy programs and CCSS strategies.
Delimitations
The following delimitations are present in the study:
• This study was directed at one Oregon public school superintendent and two
elementary teachers; these stakeholders were in different district reports provided
by ODE.
• The school leaders selected for this study were restricted to those who had been
assigned to an elementary school within the school and assigned district report
cards produced by the Oregon Department of Education.
• The interviews for this study were conducted with a superintendent and site
leaders
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 23

• Data were based on 2012–2013 school and district reports but the plans were for
the 2013–2014 school year, with a possibility of varying student demographics
and socioeconomic status.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in this study:
• The methods and procedures were appropriate for this study.
• The sample schools and school leaders would implement literacy programs and
Common Core State Standards for 2013–2014 school year.
• The school and district report cards created by the Oregon Department of
Education were assumed to contain accurate and complete information regarding
student achievement.
• ODE Assessment and Accountability are accurate measures of student
performance
• The school leaders interviewed for this study were accurate and candid in their
responses.
• The school district’s strategic plans contained strategies regarding literacy
programs and CCSS implementation.
• School sites had monitoring and evaluating systems for literacy and CCSS.
Definition of Terms
40/40/20 goal: Established by Oregon Senate Bill 253, this goal states that, by 2025, 40% of
adult Oregonians will have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher; 40% will have earned
an associate’s degree or postsecondary credential as its highest level of education
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 24

attainment, and 20% or less will have earned a high school diploma or its equivalent as
its highest level of educational attainment (OEIB, 2011).
Achievement compact: Documents designed to set targets for defined outcome measures that are
indicative of student success. The compacts are intended to connect a district’s plan for
student achievement to the allocation of resources needed to accomplish its plan. It also
represents a partnership agreement between the state and 197 school districts, 19
educational service districts, 17 community colleges, and the Oregon University System
and each of its seven universities and the Oregon Health and Science University (OEIB,
2012).
Achievement gap: A difference in scores on student achievement tests between groups of
students.
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs): Prior to the approval of its ESEA Flexibility Waiver,
Oregon was required under the No Child Left Behind Act to make annual determinations
of whether schools and districts met the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) to achieve the
goal of having all students meet rigorous state academic standards by the 2013–2014
school year. For the 2011–2012 reports, Oregon produced AMO reports, which are
unique yearly targets in reading and mathematics for each subgroup, in place of AYP
reports (Oregon Department of Education, 2013).
Common Core State Standards (CCSS): The goal of CCSS is to help all students become college
and career ready by the time they leave high school. The Oregon Department of
Education has been engaged in CCSS work since 2009 (ode, sate.or.us, 2013).
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 25

Common Outcome Measures for K–12 Compacts: The outcome measures in the achievement
compacts are identical and organized in the following categories:
o College and Career Ready
 Four-Year and five-year cohort graduation rates
 Five-year completion rate
 Postsecondary enrollment
 Earning nine or more college credits.
o Progression
 Ready for school, a kindergarten readiness assessment
 Third-grade proficiency in reading and math
 Sixth grade on track, an attendance measure
 Ninth grade on track, a compound measure of attendance and
credits completed
o Equity
 Currently, schools on federal Title I school improvement lists
 Oregon Department of Education defines as priority and focus
schools, pursuant to the final terms of the Oregon NCLB waiver
o Local priorities
 Three optional outcome measures that demonstrate the priorities of
a local community and district (OEIB, 2012).
Disadvantaged students: Referenced in Oregon Senate Bill 1581, this population is defined in
OEIB rule, consistent with federal law, as including K–12 students in the following
categories:
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 26

o socioeconomically disadvantaged
o limited English proficient
o students with disabilities
o Black students (not of Hispanic origin)
o Hispanic/Latino students
o American Indian or Alaska Native students
o Pacific Islander students (OEIB, 2012)
Education entity: Including K–12 school districts, education service districts, community college
districts, the Oregon University System (OUS), the seven public universities of OUS, and
the Oregon Health and Science University (OEIB, 2012).
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): The act was passed in 1965 as part of
President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” and "War on Poverty.” ESEA guarantees
equal access to education and establishes high standards and accountability. The law
authorizes federally funded education programs that are administered by the states. In
2002, Congress amended ESEA, reauthorizing it as the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB).
English language learner: Indicates a person who has a first language other than English and is
in the process of learning English.
Literacy: Literacy is both task-based (conceptual) and skills-based (operational). The tasked-
based definition is the ability to use printed and written information to function in
society, to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential. The skills-
based definition is the ability to successfully use printed materials to produce world-level
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 27

reading skills and higher-level literacy skills (nces.ed.gov, 2013). Literacy is reading,
writing, and oral skills (unesco.org, 2006).
Model schools: The final category of schools identified is 30 Model schools. These high-poverty
schools have been identified as examples of having successful student outcomes and will
serve as models and mentors to other schools around the state. These schools will share
best practices and guide other schools on the journey toward better student outcomes and
the state’s 40-40-20 Goal.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): NCLB is the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA); initiated during George W. Bush’s presidency, it
increased the federal government’s focus on assessment, accountability, and teacher
quality. It holds schools and education institutions accountable for increasing
achievement for all students, including minorities, English learners, students who are
socioeconomically disadvantaged, and students with disabilities through high quality
human capital and resource allocation (EdSource, 2010d).
Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB): The Oregon Education Investment Board, chaired
by the Governor of Oregon, is overseeing an effort to create a seamless, unified system
for investing in and delivering public education from early childhood through high school
and college so that all Oregonians are well prepared for college and careers in the Oregon
economy (Oregon.gov, 2013).
Outcome Measures: Outcome Measures are the elements in achievement compacts, which
require target testing. Pursuant to SB 1581, the outcome measures established by the
OEIB are limited to those that capture (a) completion rates for critical stages of learning;
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 28

(b) validations of the quality of knowledge and skills acquired by students; and (c) the
relevance of the knowledge and skills to the workforce, the economy, and society (OEIB,
2012).
Race to the Top (RTTT): Introduced by President Barack Obama’s administration, this initiative
offers incentives to states willing to spur systemic reform to improve teaching and
learning in America’s schools. RTTT has dedicated over $4 billion to 19 states; resources
are allocated to districts that apply and are selected. The goal is to;
o Develop rigorous standards and better assessment
o Adopt better data systems to provide schools, teachers, and parents
information about student progress
o Provide support for teacher and school leaders to become more effective
o Increase emphasis and resources for the rigorous interventions needed to
turn around the lowest performing schools (whitehouse.gov, 2013)
Senate Bill 253 (SB 253): Passed by the Oregon legislature in 2011, SB 253 established the
40/40/20 goal to be completed by 2025.
Senate Bill 909 (SB 909): Passed by the Oregon legislature in 2011, SB 909 called for the
creation of the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) “for the purpose of ensuring
that all public school students in Oregon reach the education outcomes established for
Oregon.” SB 909 directed the OEIB to oversee a unified public education system from
early childhood through postsecondary education (P-20). It also created the position of
Chief Education Officer, who would oversee the OEIB and recommend strategic
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 29

investments to ensure that the public education budget is integrated and targeted to
achieve the education outcomes established for the state (OEIB, 2012).
Senate Bill 1581 (SB 1581): Passed by the Oregon legislature in 2012, SB 1581 contains two
key recommendations of the OEIB related to the SB 253 and SB 909:
o Authorizes the Chief Education Officer to direct other state education
officials in designing and organizing the state’s unified public education
o Requires that all of Oregon’s education entities enter into annual
achievement compacts with the OEIB beginning with the 2012–2013
school year.
Socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED): A student neither of whose parents has received a
high school diploma, or who is eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program, also
known as the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) (ed.gov, 2013).
Title I: A federal program that provides financial assistance to education entities and schools
with high numbers and percentages of poor children to help all children meet state-
adopted academic standards (US Department of Education, 2010b).

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 30

Dissertation Organization
Chapter 1 of the study presented the introduction, statement of the problem,
purpose of the study, research questions, importance of the study, summary of the
methodology used, limitations, delimitations, assumptions, definition of terms, and the
organization of the dissertation.
Chapter 2 of the study presents a review of the literature in the following areas:
Oregon school reform, the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB), resource
allocation, literacy, Common Core State Standards (CCSS), and monitoring and
evaluating systems for student achievement.
Chapter 3 of the study presents the research methodology used, the data collection
process, and the methods used to perform the data analysis.
Chapter 4 reports the findings from the study, including a summary of the
achievement compacts; progression toward college and career readiness, the sample
districts’ and schools’ implementation of literacy across all content areas, deeper learning
with purpose, evaluation of student achievement; and analysis of resource allocations and
the impact on implementation of using the EBM.
Chapter 5 provides a summary of the study, research conclusions, and
implications from the study.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 31

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the literature related to Oregon school
reform, resource allocation, literacy through the Common Core State Standards, and
Educational Adequacy models in light of Oregon’s quest to increase student achievement
for the 21st century. The chapter has been organized into the following five sections:
1. Oregon School Reform: An overview of Oregon’s school reform: (a) Measure
5, (b) Oregon Educational Act for the 21st century, (c) Oregon Quality
Education Model (OQEM), (d) Oregon Senate Bills 909, 253, and 1581, and
(e) Oregon Education Investment Board.
2. Literacy/Common Core State Standards (CCSS) implementation and
evaluation: An overview of (a) literacy and access to college and career, (b)
CCSS adoption and implementation in Oregon, (c) Smarter Balance
Assessment Consortium, and (d) Response to Intervention (RTI).
3. Resource Allocation: A review of (a) national funding trends, (b) Oregon’s
educational funding trends, and (c) literacy and CCSS funding trend
4. Educational Adequacy: An examination funding adequacy models: (a)
Professional Judgment Model, (b) High-Performing or Successful
School/District Model, (c) Cost Function Analysis Model, and (d) Evidence-
Based Model (EBM).
5. Summary

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 32

Oregon School Reform
Oregon’s education reform is a process, not a finite product; and, in certain
respects, Oregon's experience can serve as a model for other states, while in other
respects, its reform is itself the result of unique shifting political and cultural
circumstances (Baylis, 1997). Oregon has been prioritizing education since the 1800s,
and continues to reform and improve its educational system. For the past two centuries,
zealous teachers, lawmakers, and national leaders have participated in several endeavors
to educate young Oregonians with the hope of cultivating future leaders.
These efforts first materialized in the passage of President Abraham Lincoln’s
Morril Land-Grant Act (establishing land-grant institutions to train teachers in 1862), a
compulsory education law in 1922, and the initiation of the state’s first school-support tax
in 1942, to list a few (oregoned.org, 2013). In more recent years, The Elementary and
Secondary Act (ESEA) in 1965 and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001 sought to
create equal access to education for all students across the nation. In light of these federal
educational laws, the following four events have changed the structure of the Oregon
education system: reform plans aligned with NCLB: voter-approval of Measure 5;
passage of the 1991 Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century; creation of the Oregon
Quality Education Model (OQEM); and passage of Oregon Senate Bills 909, 253, and
1581.
Measure 5
Oregonians were aware of the impact of funding on education. Prior to 1990,
Oregon had a history of locally funded and controlled schools. At the time, local taxes
provided approximately 70% of school funding, and state revenue delivered
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 33

approximately 30% (Conley & Picus, 2003). The two court cases, Olsen v. State in 1976,
whereby the Oregon Supreme Court acknowledged disparities and the impact of reduced
educational opportunities and lower spending on students, and the Coalition for Equitable
School Funding v. State, 811 P.2d 116 in 1991, which challenged the then-current state
education finance system on equity grounds, were part of the initiative and referendum
process used to pass Measure 5 (schoolfunding.info, 2013).
Measure 5 had two goals: 1) cap the local property tax rate at $5 per $1000 of
assessed valuation; and 2) equalize funding between high-property-value and low-
property-value districts. Once implemented, school districts received anywhere from 5%
to 90% of their funding from the state (Conley & Picus, 2003; Figlio, 1998). Equalization
was implemented over seven years by holding high-spending districts in place, increasing
per pupil funding for low-spending districts, unifying separate elementary and secondary
districts, and consolidating small districts (Baylis, 1998; Conley & Picus, 2003).
The Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century
Concurrently, the Oregon legislature adopted another legislation and drafted the
Oregon Educational Act for the 21st century. This legislation focused on improving
schools by raising standards, encouraging local innovation and community partnerships,
and focusing on student performance outcomes (Baylis, 1998; Conley & Picus, 2003;
Louis et al., 2008; Thorne et al., 1997; Venezia & Kirst, 2006). The goals of the
legislation progressed from creating the best K–12 educational system in the United
States by 2000 to generating the best educational system in the world by 2010. According
to Thorne et al. (1997), two key concepts to education improvement in Oregon are that
students must meet high standards, and that students should be prepared for making a
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 34

successful transition to postsecondary education, or the job market if they choose, as a
result of their 12 years of schooling.
The key mechanism for ensuring high standards of learning for Oregon students
was the certificates of mastery—initial mastery and advanced mastery. Oregon schools
were required to shift from awarding diplomas when students passed courses to awarding
a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) or Certificate of Advanced Mastery (CAM) to
those who achieved rigorous academic standards and assessments. The CIM was awarded
to students who achieved rigorous academic standards in English, mathematics, science,
social sciences, the arts, and a second language. In addition, students pursuing a CIM had
to meet knowledge and skill benchmarks as measured through state and local
assessments. Student progress toward the CIM was assessed at 3rd, 5th, and 8th grade.
Those who did not pass all or parts of the CIM assessments by the end of 10th grade were
given opportunities to try again. CAM represented the next level of achievement for 12th
graders and was awarded to those who achieved 12th-grade local and state benchmarks.
These certificates included career-related standards to cultivate career and life skills that
were pertinent to the real world (Baylis, 1998; Thorne et al., 1997; Venezia & Kirst,
2006).
The Oregon Quality Education Model (OQEM)
Measure 5 and the Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century were the
prerequisites to implementing the Oregon Quality Education Model (OQEM). OQEM
was the product of numerous converging policy streams and the efforts of key
stakeholders with varying motives to create bipartisan support for a new way to
determine adequacy and create connections between funding and expected academic
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 35

performance (Conley & Picus, 2003). In addition, the authorization of the Database
Initiative Project (DBI) in 1997 mandated all Oregon school districts to develop a
common system for both the districts and schools to report financial data, educational
programs, and expenditures (Picus, 1999). Hence, the formula for OQEM model is as
follows:
OQEM = Quality education goals + Elements and components of prototype schools +
Quality indicators + Predicted performance (Conley & Picus, 2003).
The OQEM was created after all of these pertinent variables converged. The
OQEM came to fruition in 1999, when the governor of the state, John Kitzhaber, a former
emergency room physician, formulated the Oregon Health Plan (OHP). The OHP granted
low-income citizens unique state health insurance. Kitzhaber’s goal was to create a
similar model for education, whereby the state would know how much money it needed
to allocate to K–12 education, and the local districts would determine which programs to
fund and which programs to terminate. Three prototype schools were funded at different
levels to capture the total costs of the K–12 budget: a Current Service Level model
school, a Full Implementation model school, and a Phased Implementation model school
(Conley & Picus, 2003). These prototypes were not used to distribute funds but to
determine state budget allocations.
Conley and Picus (2003) have delineated the OQEM through seven key
characteristics: (a) Model defines Oregon’s quality education; (b) Model establishes
schools, not districts, are the unit of analysis; (c) Model explains key elements and
components of a quality education in enough detail to allow for relatively fine-grained
distinctions about the effects on schools of increases or decreases in state funding; (d)
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 36

Model captures and allocates the entire K–12 education budget; (e) Model configures in
various ways to define adequacy in different ways; (f) Model identifies nonmonetary
factors that affect the efficiency with which schools are assumed to be operating; and (g)
Model establishes a relationship between the resources allocated, programs provided, and
projected student learning outcomes. These indicia demonstrate the relationship among
resource allocation, implemented programs, and expected learning results (Conley &
Picus, 2003).
Senate Bills 253, 909, and 1581
Governor Kitzhaber’s quest to build Oregon’s educational system continued
beyond the Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century and the OQEM (OEIB, 2011).
The Oregon Legislature passed two Senate Bills that had been recommended by
Governor Kitzhaber in 2011. Senate Bill 253 (SB 253) and Senate Bill 909 (SB 909)
were passed in 2011. The following year, Governor Kitzhaber signed Senate Bill 1581
(SB 1581), which enshrined a customized accountability system for Oregon education
into law. In Oregon, adults ranging from 25 to 34 years old are less educated than their
parents’ generation, with fewer earning certificates or degrees beyond high school.
Almost a third of Oregon students are failing to graduate with a regular diploma after
four or even five years in high school (Oregon Blue Book, 2013).
The first piece of educational legislation, SB 253, states that the goal of Oregon's
education system is to ensure that, by 2025, (a) 40% of all adult Oregonians have earned
a bachelor's degree or higher; (b) 40% have earned an associate's degree or postsecondary
credential; and (c) 20% or less have a high school diploma or the equivalent (Graves,
2011; OEIB, 2012; SB 253, 2011). SB 253 created an aggressive high school and college
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 37

completion goal in the nation. The figure below depicts a disparity in Oregon’s 2010
status and the 40/40/20 goal. The sense of urgency to achieve the 40/40/20 goal
motivated the governor and legislature to establish a tailored and more effective system
of accountability (ESEA Flexibility Request, 2012).
Figure 2.1. Trajectory to meet the 40/40/20 goal.

Note. Adapted from ESEA Flexibility Request (2012). Copyright 2012 by United States
Department of Education, Washington DC.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 38

Concurrent with SB 253, Senate Bill 909 (SB 909) created the Oregon Education
Investment Board (OEIB) to develop an education investment system from
prekindergarten through postsecondary (P-20) to achieve the goals of SB 253 (OEIB,
2012; SB 253, 2011; SB 909, 2011). Board members were charged to ensure that all
public school students in Oregon reach the educational outcomes established by the state.
A Chief Education Officer was hired to oversee the plan and report to the Oregon
Legislature (OEIB, 2012; SB 909, 2011).
A decisive proposal from the OEIB to the Oregon Legislature crystallized in the
establishment of achievement compacts. In 2012, the state signed Senate Bill 1581 (SB
1581), which required every K–12 school district, education service district, community
college district, and public university to participate in annual achievement compacts
beginning with the 2012–13 school year (OEIB, 2012; SB 1581, 2012). The data and
target setting for each outcome measure must include (a) College and career: four-year
and five-year cohort graduation rates, five-year completion rate, postsecondary
enrollment, and earning nine or more college credits. (b) Progression toward college and
career readiness: kindergarten readiness, third-grade proficiency in math and reading,
sixth grade on track in attendance, and ninth grade on track that measures attendance and
credits completed. (c) Equity: Title I school improvement list and disadvantaged students
(OEIB, 2012).

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 39

Oregon Education Investment Board
In 2011, SB 909 created The Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB). It is
chaired by the governor and assisted by a Chief Education Officer (CEdO). SB 909
contained methods that included the development of a unified public education system
from early childhood to postsecondary education and targeted investments to achieve the
state’s education outcomes (ous.edu, 2013). SB 909 established the following charges
(ODE, 2013; Oregon.gov, 2013):
• Developing an education investment strategy to improve defined learning
outcomes from early childhood through public schools, colleges, and universities.
• Hiring a Chief Education Officer to oversee the unified public education system.
• Establishing a statewide student database—from early childhood through higher
education—that encourages accountability for outcomes, and provides better
information for policymakers, educators, students, and their families to ensure
progress along the entire educational path.
• Establishing Early Learning Council to streamline and strengthen early childhood
services for at-risk youth to ensure all children are ready to learn when they enter
kindergarten.
• Reporting back to the Oregon Legislature, on progress and legislation for 2012.
The 12 education and community leaders that comprise the OEIB are currently
collaborating with the Oregon Education Investment Team (OEIT) to ensure various
entities are implementing strategic plans to accomplish the charges (OEIB, 2011; OEIT,
2011).
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 40

SB 253 defined the outcomes to stipulate that, by 2025, 100% of Oregonians
would earn a high school diploma or its equivalent, 40% would earn a postsecondary
credential, and 40% would obtain a bachelor’s degree or higher, which is the 40/40/20
goal. To be successful in the 21st century, Oregon’s public education system must change
to achieve better results for students, more resources for teachers, and greater return for
the taxpayer investments.
The strategic plans evolved into the formation of Senate Bill 1581 (SB 1581),
which mandated that local school districts enter into achievement compacts with the
OEIB, beginning with the 2012–2013 school year. SB 1581-A contains two key
recommendations of the OEIB related to the design of the state’s unified education
system and to creating a targeted approach to budgeting and accountability for
educational outcomes. The legislation authorizes the CEdO to direct other state education
officials in the design and organization of the state’s unified public education system and
requires all of the state’s education entities to enter into annual achievement compacts
with the OEIB beginning with the 2012–2013 school year (ous.edu, 2013).
The accountability compact flowchart and definitions, below in Figures 2.2 and
2.3, show the outcome measures for progress, completion, and connection across the P-20
continuum, which organizes educational stages by early childhood, K–12, community
college, and university systems. The flowchart displays the timeline and measures that
educational entities must implement to ensure targeted educational outcomes.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 41

Figure 2.2. Achievement compacts for 2012-2013 P-20.

Note, Adapted OEIB Achievement Compacts for 2012–2013. Copyright
www.education.oregon.gov, 2012.

One component of the P-20 continuum is the K–12 phase, whereby the school
community needs to focus on: (a) college and career readiness, (b) progression toward
college and career readiness, (c) equity of success for all buildings and populations, and
(d) local priorities. Figure 2.3, below, defines the requirements per specific grade level
and student population to satisfy the goals of the compact.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 42

Figure 2.3. K-12, ESD achievement compact definitions.

Note: Adapted K–12, ESD Achievement Compact Definitions Final. OEIB adopted
3/27/2012. Copyright 2012.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 43

The P-20 systems need budget and funding to achieve the targeted goals. One of
the primary goals of the achievement compacts is to focus funding and strategies at the
state and local level on the achievement of the statewide education goals (Nesbitt, 2012).
Under SB 1581, the OEIB has authority with regard to partnerships, achievement
compacts, and the Quality Education Commission to identify best practice funding and
cost benefit (SB 1581, 2012). Budget alignment is a critical component of achieving
these annual goals. These numbers may then be compared to OQEM’s recommended
funding levels, and assist struggling entities calibrate how they appropriate funds to
emulate more successful educational bodies and their funding strategies (COSA, 2012).
Literacy and Common Core State Standards
Literacy and Access to College and Career
Literacy is the ability to read, write, compute, and use technology. Literacy skills
help us to communicate, access, and understand the world around us. Especially as
technology advances and the American economy becomes increasingly knowledge-
based, students need higher literacy skills to understand written texts, use information to
solve problems, and write effectively. Large-scale survey data reveal that direct measures
of literacy appear to have a significant impact on per capita gross domestic product,
productivity, and economic growth well after schooling has been completed (Kirsch et
al., 2007). Jobs in the United States economy are requiring post-secondary education has
increased from 28% to 60% in the last 40 years (Haynes, 2012).
In addition, Haynes (2012) has continued to report that the majority of students
exit high school without the advanced reading and writing skills needed to succeed in
college and a career. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 44

(NAEP), more than 60% of 12
th
-grade students scored below the proficient level in
reading achievement, and 27% scored below the basic level in reading. Simply put, these
lowest-performing high school seniors do not even have partial mastery of the
appropriate grade-level knowledge and skills and are not prepared for college and
beyond. Figure 2.4 displays the long-term trends in reading achievement for 12th grades
in the United States and the percentage of jobs that requires some college or beyond
mastery.
Figure 2.4. 12th-grade reading achievement and postsecondary education required for
jobs.

Note: Adapted Confronting The Crisis. Sources: U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report Card: NAEP 2008 trends in
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 45

academic progress (NCES 2009–479) (Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office, 2010); Carnevale et al., Forecast of education demand to 2018 (Washington, DC:
Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, 2010), retrieved from
http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/
cew/pdfs/CEW_press_conference_ppt.pdf. Copyright 2012. Adapted without permission.

Georgetown University economist Anthony Carnevale and his colleagues have projected
that, over the next few years, the United States will be short nearly 3 million workers
with the necessary analytic and technical skills to fill these jobs (Haynes, 2012).
The latter half of the 20th century has been marked by frequent efforts at school
reform, prioritizing major federal and state investments centered on early literacy rather
than content-area reading in middle and high schools (Borman et al., 2003; Haynes,
2013). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that resulted in the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act mandated the alignment of content standards with state
assessments and required rigorous monitoring of student progress toward proficiency.
NCLB legislation emphasizes the importance of state, district, and school accountability
for student proficiency, especially among socioeconomically disadvantaged students,
English language learners, and minority students (Friedlander & Darling-Hammond,
2007; Haynes, 2012; McLaughlin & Shephard, 1995).
One of NCLB’s objectives is to provide states the opportunity to implement a
seamless system of literacy development and education at early childhood, elementary,
and secondary levels. In 2012, Senator Patty Murray of Washington introduced The
Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation Act (LEARN ACT) in both houses of
the 112th Congress. LEARN ACT supported comprehensive state and local literacy
programs to ensure that children in K–12 have reading and writing skills to be successful
in school and career (congress.gov, 2013; Haynes, 2012).
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 46

The priority of the LEARN ACT directs award grants and subgrants to implement
a comprehensive literacy plan to local educational agencies (LEAs) and early childhood
education providers that serve high-need children of low socioeconomic status reading
and writing below grade level (congress.gov, 2013; Haynes, 2012). Table 2.1, below,
shows the literacy initiatives proposed by the LEARN ACT.

Table 2.1: The Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation Act (LEARN ACT)
Literacy initiatives • the acquisition and implementation of
literacy assessments
• efforts targeting students reading and
writing below grade level
• professional development opportunities for
educators
• family literacy services

Requires state grantees to • provide technical assistance to subgrantees
• work with the state literacy leadership team
and institutions of higher education to
include evidence-based literacy methods in
pre-service courses for students preparing to
teach children from birth through grade 12
• review and update state licensure or
certification standards in literacy instruction
• make information on promising child
literacy improvement practices available to
the public

Awards the implementation
grants to states
• if funds appropriated under this act fall
below $500 million, on a competitive basis
• otherwise, on the basis of each state's share
of low-income children under age 18

Requires states to use at least • 15% of the grant funds for state and local
activities pertaining to children from birth
through kindergarten entry
• 40% of the grant funds for state and local
activities pertaining to children from
kindergarten through grade five
• 40% of the grant funds for state and local
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 47

activities pertaining to children from grades
six through 12
Note. Adapted Senate Bill 758-113
th
Congress (2013-2014). Congress.gov/bill/113
th
-
congress/senate-bill/758. Copyright 2013. Adapted without permission.

Adoption and Implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in Oregon
By 2000, all states had adopted standards for student learning, assessments are
aligned to the standards, and accountability systems that measured school performance on
the basis of student achievement of the standards. But gradually, educators and
policymakers realized that many state standards were set too low and that these standards
were inconsistent from state to state. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania
conducted a study comparing state content standards in mathematics, and found very
little commonality among the states (National Research Council, 2008).
The most obvious indicia came from the results of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP). Under NCLB, all states were required to administer the
NAEP in reading and mathematics every two years. For example, in 2005, 4th graders in
Tennessee scored 87% proficient in math, whereas 40% of the 4th graders in
Massachusetts scored proficient in their state test. The discrepancies and inconsistencies
raised concerns that some states’ standards set expectations below what students need to
succeed in college and beyond (ascd.org, 2011).
The need for education reform in the United States has been a priority as a
growing numbers of employers have called for better-educated, more highly skilled
workers over the past few decades (Resnick & Hall, 1998). The National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 48

School Officers (CCSSO), in collaboration with a variety of stakeholders, including
content experts, states, teachers, school administrators and parents, developed a
framework to prepare students for college and career (corestandards.org, 2012; ODE,
2010).
CCSS has defined the knowledge and skills students should gain during their K–
12 education careers so that they will graduate from high school with the ability to
succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing academic college courses and in workforce training
programs. On a survey conducted by the Education Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) at
the University of Oregon, professors of first-year college courses agreed that the
standards reflect the knowledge and skills students need to have in their courses (Conley,
Drummond, de Gonzalez, Rooseboom, & Stout, 2011). The standards (a) are aligned with
college and work expectations; (b) are clear, understandable, and consistent; (c) include
rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order skills; (d) build upon
strengths and lessons of current state standards; (e) are informed by other top-performing
countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society;
and (f) are evidence-based (corestandards.org, 2013). Currently, 46 states have formally
adopted the CCSS though Alaska, Nebraska, Texas, Virginia, and Minnesota only
adopted the CCSS for English language arts (acsd.org, 2013).
Oregon is one of the 46 states that have formally adopted the CCSS. The state
became involved with the CCSS in 2009 when State Superintendent of Schools Susan
Castillo and Governor Theodore Kulongoski signed on to the initiative (ODE.gov, 2010).
The CCSS project, launched in April 2009, was divided into two teams. The first team
was in charge of developing anchor standards for college and career readiness in English
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 49

language arts and mathematics. The second team had to design grade-by-grade standards
in those two subjects, which would lead students to the anchor standards. The final set of
standards was released in June 2010. The objectives of all disciplines to prepare students
for college and career are the following:
1. They demonstrate independence
2. They build strong content knowledge
3. They respond to the varying demands of audience, task, purpose, and
discipline
4. They comprehend as well as critique
5. They value evidence
6. They use technology and digital media strategically and capably
7. They come to understand other perspectives and cultures (ascd.org, 2011)

The Oregon Department of Education is in the process of integrating CCSS with
its current system such as Proficiency-Based Teaching and Learning, the Oregon Literacy
Framework, Response to Intervention, and Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports
(ODE, 2013). It also intends to integrate critical thinking, literacy across the curriculum,
and application of skills. In addition, CCSS toolkits are available for administrators,
English teachers, content area teachers, early childhood teachers, parents, and students.
The toolkit is arranged by stakeholders and uses a sequential process. The sequential
process is organized into four phases: (a) awareness and dissemination, (b) transition, (c)
implementation, and (d) evaluation and refinement.
Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium
Resources for the evaluation and refinement phase are currently a work in
progress; however, states that are formally participating in the CCSS will utilize the
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). SBAC is a state-led consortium that
is working to develop next-generation assessments that accurately measure student
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 50

progress toward college and career readiness. Smarter Balanced is one of two multistate
consortia awarded funding from the US Department of Education in 2010 to develop
next-generation assessments—an assessment system aligned to the CCSS by the 2014–
2015 school year (smarterbalanced.org, 2013).
One of the major benefits of the new assessment system is that the scoring and
process time is faster in comparison with traditional assessment. Most constructed
responses can be scored automatically, and many items include downloadable scoring
rubrics. Schools will be able to conduct formative and summative assessments rather than
one major summative assessment at the end of the school year. The assessment is a
computer adaptive test and there are accessibility tools and accommodation options such
as Braille, translation options, highlighter tools, and the ability to change font size or
magnify portions of the items for students with disabilities (smarterbalanced.org, 2013).
However, the challenge is in providing technology resources and preparing students to
use technology to administer the test. By fall of 2014, the SBAC plans to have the
assessments and digital library ready for states to use.
The Smarter Balanced Pilot Test was conducted between February 20 and May
24, 2013. The pilot test marked an important milestone in the development of a next-
generation assessment system. It allowed the consortium to gather information about the
performance of assessment items and the test delivery system under real-world
conditions. More than 5,000 schools in the Consortium’s 21 Governing States
participated in the pilot test. In addition, small-scale trials for approximately 500 schools
in 23 states provided critical information for the development of the Pilot Test
(smarterbalanced.org, 2013).
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 51

Response to Intervention
Despite the resources provided to some pilot schools, all school districts and
school sites need to monitor student progress. Oregon’s Response to Intervention
Initiative (Or-RTI) integrates high-quality instruction, assessment, and intervention,
allowing schools to match the level of intensity and instructional support to student needs
in reading and in writing across the instructional areas since 2005. The major features
that need to be in place in an RTI framework can be found throughout the Oregon K–12
Literacy Framework; the RTI framework (a) uses scientifically based programs and
practices in the general education classrooms; (b) develops a multi-tiered support system
that incorporates prevention and early intervention services; (c) implements a reliable and
valid comprehensive assessment system; and (d) uses student data to make a range of
instructional decisions, including student responsiveness to instruction and intervention
(ODE.gov, 2013).
Resource Allocation
National Funding Trends
The Department of Education was created in 1867 to help states establish
effective school systems. Since its conception, various historical and legislative events
have shaped the federal role in education (ed.gov, 2013). According to Odden and Picus
(2008), a majority of the twentieth-century school finance policy focused on equity and
issues related to widely varying education expenditures per pupil across districts within a
state, which was caused by the uneven distribution of the property tax base. Currently,
education is mainly a state and local responsibility in the United States. An estimated
$1.15 trillion was spent nationwide on education at all levels for the 2011–2012 school
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 52

year, the majority of which came from state, local, and private sources. Federal
contributions to elementary and secondary education comprises 10.8%, which also funds
other federal agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start
programs and the Department of Agriculture’s School Lunch programs (ed.gov, 2013).
School finance is composed of federal, state, and local levels of government
funding. The federal government spends more than $40 billion annually on primary and
secondary education programs. Discretionary funds are allocated to the two biggest
programs, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Title I Grants to local school districts and
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Special Education State Grants.
States rely on income and sales taxes to fund elementary and secondary
education. The state legislature typically determines the distribution of funds by formula.
The funding formula is based on the number of pupils in a district. Some formulas are
weighted based on different variables such as the number of students with disabilities, the
number of students living in poverty, or the number of English as second language
students. However, significant funding disparities exist among school districts in states
that depend on local property taxes instead of state funding (ed.gov, 2013). Such funding
gaps have been prevalent since the 1960s, when fiscal disparities caused by unequal
distribution of the local tax base and inadequate state general equalization programs led
to legal challenges to state school finance systems in which plaintiffs—usually from low-
wealth and low-spending districts—argued that the disparities were not only unfair but
also unconstitutional (Berke, 1974; Coons, Clune, & Sugarman, 1970; Odden & Picus,
2008).
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 53

Local governments bank on tax collections from residential and commercial
properties as a direct revenue source for school districts. According to the Elementary
and Secondary Education Funding Fiscal Year 2010 (Figure 2.5), 44% of the funding
came from the local government. The funding disparity is manifestly evident in the
unequal distribution between wealthier property-rich localities and poorer communities
with less funding to support the local school districts. Funding disparities can be broken
down into three main areas: (a) interstate disparity—school finance inequities among
different states; (b) intrastate disparity—school finance inequities within a particular
state; and (c) intradistrict disparity—school finance inequities among schools within the
same district (newamerica.net, 2013).
Figure 2.5. Elementary and secondary education funding fiscal year 2010.

Note. Adapted from National Center for Education Statistics. New America Foundation
on Federal Education Budget Project. Copyright 2013.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 54

The goal of public education is to provide every student an equal opportunity to
learn, to gain knowledge and skill, and be critical thinkers so that he or she can rise above
socioeconomic circumstances and contribute to society. Resource allocation is meant to
support equitable access to high quality learning opportunities and is a critical component
of educational policy at the federal, state, and local government levels. Resource
allocation does not take place in a vacuum; it reflects the policy conditions of the time in
which it is implemented. Leaders at each level of education must allocate resources to
accomplish the goal of educating all students.

Oregon’s Funding Trends
Oregon schools began to depend more on state funding after Measure 5 in 1991.
Although state income tax revenue was able to make up for lost property tax revenue
throughout a period of economic growth in the 1990s, state revenue declined
substantially in 2001 and again in 2008 with the onset of economic recessions (Ode,
2010). The property limitation shifted the primary burden of paying for K–12 education
from local property tax payers to the state General Fund (Oregon Blue Book, 2013).
Oregon school districts had to balance their budgets with less financial support from the
state and a limited ability to raise local property tax revenues.
The Quality Education Model (QEM) was originally developed in 1999 to
establish an objective and research-based correlation between the resources devoted to
school and levels of student achievement and to guide efforts to fund Oregon schools
adequately. The state’s budget for K–12 education during the 2009 fiscal year was $6.1
billion—of which the federal government provided $671 million in revenues (Oregon
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 55

Blue Book, 2013). QEM’s purpose is to portray K-12 education systems with sufficient
detail and accuracy so that policymakers can better understand how schools allocate their
resources, how various policy proposals affect funding needs, and how decisions about
resources can be expected to impact student achievement (Oregon.gov, 2013). Figures
2.6 and 2.7, below, show QEM’s funding gaps.

Figure 2.6. OEM total operating revenue.

Figure 2.7. Projected Oregon school funding gap. State funding trends v. Full QEM

Note. Adapted QEM. A strategy to eliminate the funding gap must be based on two
components: increased levels of funding available to schools and increased efficiency in
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 56

educational service delivery. For more than a decade, the education funding per student
provided by the state has not kept up with educational cost increases, which have risen
faster than commonly used measures of inflation like the Consumer Price Index. Further,
Oregon has experienced substantial growth in its population of students with special
needs. Although the share of students meeting state academic standards has continued to
increase under these circumstances, the rate of achievement growth is slowing. Unless the
state can provide additional resources and districts can maximize efficiency, progress in
student achievement is unlikely to continue. Particularly in a period of economic
downturn and higher academic standards, Oregon faces a steep challenge.

In 2013, Governor Kitzhaber and the OEIB reauthorized the OQEM as a priority
to increase the educational resources to produce higher student learning outcomes. They
charged the Education Funding Team (EFT) to recommend a prioritized list of
investments that the state could make in education (Oregon.gov, 2013). The EFT
recognized that the ambitious goals of the legislature, the governor, and the OEIB did not
correspond with the levels of state investment. Therefore, the EFT believes that the
2013–2015 budget must help transform and improve the delivery of education and create
a roadmap for increasing resources for education over the longer term. According to the
EFT’s recommendation to the governor in 2012, the team concluded that the state’s
investments in education could be understood as falling into one of five categories:
1. Debt Service: Payments the state is obligated to make in order to service
education-related debt that it has previously incurred.
2. Strategic Investments: Funds that the state allocates in order to achieve
particular high-leverage processes and outcomes. These investments should
represent a small percentage of the overall state investment for education but
are preconditions to large-scale, enduring system improvement. Without them,
we should not believe that the education system in 2015 will serve students
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 57

any more effectively today than in the future. These are two- to six-year
investments.
3. Formula Funding: Funds that the state allocates on a formula basis to nonstate
education entities, including early learning centers and childcare providers,
K–12 school districts and ESDs, community colleges, and universities.
Through these allocations, the state provides the base funding that education
entities use for core instruction and operations. However, these formulas are
not neutral. The fiscal incentives embedded within them must be examined
and revised in order to align with the outcomes the state seeks.
4. State Infrastructure: State-run personnel and programs that are intended to
support and improve the education of Oregonians. Funds in this category are
not generally used to educate Oregon students directly.
5. Other Programs: Programs that do not evidently fit in one of the categories
above (Oregon.gov, 2012)
In addition, the EFT recommends that the budget prioritize four strategic investments,
guided by the CEdO, to generate targeted activities and outcome across the P-20 system:
1. Launch of Regional “Student Achievement Centers
2. Oregon Reads
3. Supporting Students and Families
4. Essential Skills for Global Success
The EFT echoes the OEIB’s commitment to recommend budgets and policies to close the
achievement gaps. The strategic investments are recommended to raise achievement
levels and reverse the historic patterns of disadvantage imposed on English as a Second
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 58

Language (ESL) students, low socioeconomic students, and select ethnic minority
subgroups.
In the 2010–2011 school year, Oregon had 197 public school districts, which
serviced 1,296 schools. These schools enrolled a total of 561,328 students in grades
kindergarten through 12, with 28,109 full-time equivalent teachers (Oregon Blue Book,
2013). Of the total student enrollment, more than 50.7% qualified for free and reduced-
priced lunches. The average cost of per pupil spending is $9,611, which is $1,856 lower
than the national average of $11,467 in 2012. Oregon is ranked 28th nationally in terms
of educational funding (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2012). Many factors
are incorporated into the calculation of per pupil spending allocation, such as
socioeconomic student status, language diversification, disability, mobility rates,
economies of scale, population density, and wage variation (Baker, Sciarra, & Farrie,
2012).
Over the past decades, the pattern of school district funding nationally has been
consistent. About 60% of district funds were spent on instruction: 8 to 10% on
professional development, 9% on operations and maintenance, 4 to 6% on transportation,
4 to 6% on food service, 7% percent on site administration, and 3% on district office
administration (Odden, 2007; Odden, Monk, Nakib, & Picus, 1995; Odden & Picus,
2008). Table 2.2, below, shows the educational expenditures by function.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 59

Table 2.2: Educational Expenditure by Function
Instruction Includes all resources dedicated to
providing instruction to students, including
teacher and instructional aide salaries,
benefits, books, purchased services, tuition,
and other instructional supplies. Also
includes all teachers for core classes (e.g.,
grade-level classes in elementary schools
and mathematics, science, reading,
language arts, history, and foreign
languages in secondary schools), for
specialist classes (e.g., art, music, and
physical education), and for special-needs
students (e.g., students with disabilities,
English-language learners, struggling
students from poverty backgrounds, and
gifted and talented students). Many times,
it also includes instructional coaches in
subjects such as literacy and math, who are
being used more often by school districts to
help improve instruction.
Instructional support Includes expenditures for curriculum
development, staff training, libraries, and
computer and media centers, including the
salaries, benefits, purchased services,
tuition, and supplies dedicated to this
purpose.
Administration For both the site and the district level, this
includes salaries and benefits of principals,
assistant principals, other administrators,
and secretarial staff, as well as purchased
services, tuition, and supplies dedicated to
this purpose at the district level.
Student support Includes salary, benefits, purchased
services, and supplies dedicated to
guidance, health, attendance, speech
pathology services, social workers, family
outreach, and other functions that support
the instructional program or are focused on
the well-being of students.
Operations and maintenance Includes salaries, benefits, purchased
services, and supplies for custodians,
carpenters, plumbers, electricians,
groundskeepers, and other support
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 60

personnel, and other expenditures for
operating, maintaining, heating, cooling,
and cleaning schools and grounds.
Transportation and food services Two separate categories: the salaries,
benefits, and purchased services, and
supplies dedicated to those respective
purposes.
Note. Adapted Allocation and Use of the Education Dollar by Odden and Picus (2008).
Copyright 2008. Adapted without permission.

According to Picus (2001), such budgetary fluctuations and inconsistencies of vital
resources actually reduce the incentive for school districts to implement long-term
programmatic changes because schools often cannot carry over funds from one year to
the next when expenditures are below the budgeted allocation. As a result, schools
typically spend their annual allocation to meet immediate needs.
Literacy and Common Core Funds
Oregon Legislature’s ambitious SB 253, SB 909, and SB 1581 establish the most
aggressive educational goals of any state in the country. One of the key components of
the achievement compacts in accordance to SB 1581 is preparing students to be literate
citizens in the 21st century. Governor Kitzhaber and the OEIB place a high priority on
funding strategic investments for early literacy. The Oregon Early Literacy initiative will
strategically invest $9.25 million to improve kindergarten readiness and 3rd-grade
reading proficiency through various programs (Oregon.gov, 2013). The table below
displays the early literacy initiative components with outlined budget and
implementation.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 61

Table 2.3: OEIB’s Early Literacy Initiative Components

Early Learning Division, Oregon Department of Education: $1.8 million

Online and Print Materials and
Curriculum
$250,000 for the creation and distribution of
online and print materials and curriculum
promoting early literacy. The projected reach is
50,000 families.
Access to School and Public Libraries $800,000 in grants to public libraries, early
learning providers, nonprofit organizations, or
K-12 school districts to expand and encourage
access to school and public libraries and to
celebrate and encourage reading in the home.
The projected reach is statewide through 2–5
grants, ranging from $100,000 to $500,000, to
organizations with a history of successfully
promoting literacy across a region or set of
communities.
Engagement, Instruction, and
Professional Development
Opportunities
$750,000 in grants to early learning providers,
school districts, postsecondary institutions, or
nonprofit organizations to provide early learning
educators, families or caregivers with
engagement, instruction, and professional
development opportunities in early literacy. The
projected reach is 5,000 educators, parents, or
caregivers through 15–20 grants ranging from
$25,000 to $50,000; projected reach.
Oregon Department of Education: $7 million

Support for Title I Priority and Focus
Schools
$5 million to support struggling Title I
elementary schools, federally designated as
Priority or Focus, to implement plans for
increasing 3rd-grade reading proficiency through
extended or expanded reading opportunities,
such as using summer breaks, intercessions,
afterschool, weekends and technology in
innovative and powerful ways. Funds will be
distributed based on enrollment to 30–45 focus
or priority elementary schools that meet criteria
established by CEdO, including demonstrated
need, readiness, collaboration, and
implementation plans.
Response to Intervention Network

$2 million to expand Oregon’s Response to
Intervention (RTI) Network, which will be
distributed by RFP to 1–2 lead organizations,
currently Tigard Tualatin School District, for the
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 62

training/support of 25–30 additional school
districts to join the existing 60 districts.
Oregon Education Investment Board: $250,000

OEIB $250,000 to be administered by OEIB for
purposes of developing a statewide approach to
early reading awareness, as well as to provide
technical assistance and coordination on overall
initiative.
Oregon State Library: $200,000

Oregon State Library $200,000 to be administered by the state library
for a public library initiative to develop
opportunities for cross-age mentoring and
support for emerging readers.
Note. Adapted from OEIB Initiative: Early Literacy. Copyright 2013 by Oregon
Education Department. Adapted without permission.

Literacy will become a major focus in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
once they are implanted and tested starting from the 2014-2015 school year.
The CCSS are common learning expectations that have been adopted by 46 states over
the past several years. These standards were developed by the states for the states to
prepare students to be nationally and internationally competitive and to ensure that they
graduate high school prepared for college and career in the 21st century. The Oregon
State Board of Education adopted the CCSS in fall of 2010. Smarter Balanced will
replace Oregon’s current statewide test, the Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills
(OAKS) as of 2014-2015 school year (ODE, 2013).
CCSS for English language arts and literacy will be implemented in core subjects
such as English language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and technical subjects
(ODE, 2011). Murphy, Regenstein, and McNamara (2012) have listed the three
hypothetical approaches to implementing the Common Core standards during the
transitional phase to full implementation by 2014–2015. Cumulative national estimates
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 63

range from $12.1 billion for Business as Usual to $3.0 and $5.1 billion, respectively, for
the Bare Bones and Balanced Implementation models.
1. Business as Usual: This “traditional” approach to implementation is defined as
buying hard-copy textbooks, administering annual student assessments on
paper, and delivering in-person professional development to all teachers. It is
not a cheap approach, though the price tags associated with it are quite
familiar.
2. Bare Bones: This is the lowest-cost alternative, employing open-source
materials, annual computer-administered assessments, and online professional
development via webinars and modules.
3. Balanced Implementation: This is a blend of approaches, some of which may
be more effective than others while reducing costs. It uses a mix of
instructional materials (e.g., teacher self-published texts and/or district-
produced materials), both interim and summative assessments, and a hybrid
system of professional development (e.g., train-the-trainers).

Table 2.4: Cost Comparisons for the Common Core implementation
State Business as
Usual Gross
Costs
Bare
Bones
Gross
Costs
Balanced Implementation
Gross Cost
Current
Expenditure
OR $151.8 per
student
$38.8 per
student
$66.7 per student $49.3 per
student
Note. Adapted Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How much will smart
implementation cost? Murphy, Regenstein, & McNamara (2013) calculations based upon
per-unit estimates of student and teacher population estimates for 2009–2010 from the
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 64

National Center for Education Statistics. Costs will vary by the size of the state due to
some economies of scale involving costs and services. Also, the transitional time period
could span from one to three years. Figures shown here, therefore, should be viewed as
total, not annual, transitional costs. Copyright 2013. Adapted without permission.

Oregon is anticipating by 2025 or earlier that the economies of scale that the
CCSS will bring will save the state money in the following ways:
1. Oregon will no longer need to revise and update English language arts and
mathematics standards on its own.
2. Instructional resources designed to support the CCSS can be shared among the
states.
3. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium partner states will share the costs
of developing and implementing a common assessment.
4. Assessment resources including formative assessments will be shared among
the Smarter Balanced consortium.
5. Textbooks and curriculum materials may be shared through open-source
environments.
6. A Joint Taskforce on Mathematics that includes members from all major
mathematics education organizations will provide a CCSS implementation
website to share tools and resources for teachers (ODE, 2011).
Educational Adequacy
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 had noble goals to ensure that school
districts and schools provide quality education for all students. However, even lofty goals
are hard to meet without sufficient funding. Adequate funding models or costing-out
models are designed to establish the minimal amount of funding needed to provide
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 65

adequate educational programs and support to all students in order to achieve the outlined
performance standards (Odden & Picus, 2009). An adequate level of funding is defined
as the amount of funding required for all students to meet high academic standards
(Baker, 2005; Clune, 1994; Elsasser, 2011; & Odden, 2003). However, there is no clear
correlation between the amount that schools spend and student achievement (Hanushek &
Lindseth, 2009).
According to Odden and Picus (2003), four methods have been developed by
them to determine that a school has an adequate set of financial resources: (a) the
Professional Judgment Model, (b) the Successful Schools Model, (c) the Cost Function
Model, and (d) the Evidence-Based Model. The following four sections will provide an
overview of each model.
Professional Judgment Model
The Professional Judgment Model—or the Professional Judgment Approach—is
the most commonly applied method of costing-out an adequate education. The
professional judgment model is used in Oregon, Maine, and Wyoming, and was under
consideration in a number of other states (Chambers & Parrish, 1983, 1994; Guthrie &
Rothstein, 1999; Management Analysis & Planning, 2001). This approach involves a
team of education experts, such as teachers, school administrators, and superintendents,
developing an educational program that produces certain specified student achievement
outcomes for all students at all grade levels (Baker et al., 2008; Conley & Picus, 2003;
Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). Usually, a prototype school is created with a price assigned
to each strategy, and a total cost per pupil is estimated. Prototype schools include
enrollment, staffing, and all other resources needed at the school and district level. The
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 66

variables are added together to determine the adequate fiscal base for a school. These
figures are adjusted on the basis of student and district characteristics as well as on
educational price differences (Conley & Picus, 2003; Odden & Picus, 2008).
The advantage of the Professional Judgment Model is its ability to identify
successful instructional strategies required at the school level to produce student
achievement by education experts (Odden, 2003; Rebell, 2007). However, a disadvantage
is that it provides little differentiation between strategies for the average school and
strategies for schools with higher concentrations of at-risk students, second language
learners, or other specialized populations (Conley & Picus, 2003). A second disadvantage
is that the panel is encouraged to dream big, so it may not consider the costs as it
develops its model schools (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009).
Successful Schools Model
In contrast to the Professional Judgment Model, the Successful Schools Model
pays little attention to how schools and districts use the funds. The original version of this
approach was articulated in the 1990s and looks at spending by schools or districts that
are meeting the state’s educational goal in student achievement. It excludes excessively
high spending and low spending schools and uses statistical techniques to identify
schools that are doing better than expected given the demographic characteristics of the
populations they serve. One disadvantage is that the model requires many years of
collecting data (Chamber & Levin, 2009).

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 67

Cost Function Analysis Model
The Cost Function Model, or the econometric approach, examines current
spending and achievement patterns across all schools statewide to determine optimum
levels of spending. The model’s advantage is that decisions are data-driven, and it uses
statistical methods to describe how districts and states are spending based on the student
demographic and other characteristics (Chambers & Levin, 2009). However, due to
technical complexities, this model is complicated and difficult to understand compared to
the other models. Calculations are based on large data sets, and it relies on one
standardized state test (Chambers & Levin, 2009; Hanushek & Linseth, 2009).
Evidence-Based Model (EBM)
Odden and Picus (2008) developed the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) as they
conducted state adequacy studies in Arkansas, Arizona, Kentucky, Washington,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming. This model provides schools with effective strategies to raise
student achievement, and specifies what resources are needed to implement those
strategies. The core of the EBM has primary influence for making programmatic
recommendations to research evidence (Odden, Picus, & Goetz, 2010). The funding
framework consists of research-based strategies, support mechanisms, and accountability
standards to produce high levels of student achievement (Odden & Picus 2009).
The EBM is based on evidence from three sources: (a) research with randomized
assignment to the treatment; (b) research with other types of controls or statistical
procedures that can help separate the impact of a treatment; and (c) best practices as
codified in a comprehensive school design at either the local district or the school site.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 68

Figure 2.8. The Evidence-Based Model.

Note. Adapted from (Odden & Picus 2009).
According to Odden, Picus, and Goetz (2010) the parameters of the EBM include the
following recommendations:
1. Full-day kindergarten
2. Core class sizes of 15 for grades K–3, and class sizes of 25 for grades 4–12
3. Specialist teachers
4. Preparation/Conference period
5. Pupil supporting staff
6. A full-time librarian and principal
7. Professional development resources
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 69

8. Supervisory aides
9. Funds for instructional materials
10. Funding of $25 per pupil for gifted and talented students
11. Comprehensive range of extra help
12. Substitute teacher resources
13. Central office staff
The EBM provides allocation flexibility and fluctuation to teaching specialists,
instructional facilitators, tutors, English language learners, students with learning
disabilities, and gifted students. However, the EBM includes no provisions for students
with moderate to severe disabilities because a subgroup can fluctuate dramatically
between schools and districts. Odden and Picus (2008) have stated that students with
severe disabilities should be funded by the state to promote fair budget allocation among
districts.
Summary
Chapter 2 presented a review of the literature that included Oregon’s role in
educational policy and funding reforms, literacy and Common Core State Standards,
resource allocation, and educational adequacy. The purpose of this study is to analyze
district and school site–level data regarding the implementation of literacy and CCSS as
outlined in the district achievement compact. The Evidence-Based Model by Odden and
Picus (2008) was used to analyze district resource allocations for District A to determine
the alignment of resources that pertains to literacy through the CCSS implementation and
evaluation. Chapter 3 describes the methodology utilized to conduct this study.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 70

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to examine the implementation of literacy and the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in Oregon public schools. A total of 46 states
across the nation are implementing the CCSS to increase the quality of student output in
this global society. Resource allocation has become a major factor for implementing and
evaluating an efficient yet tailored system of accountability. The framework used to
analyze the current state of resource allocation and its goal to improve student
achievement was the Evidence-Based Model developed by Odden and Picus (2008).
Two districts in Oregon were selected based on a diverse student population and
their committed quest to prepare students as global leaders in the 21st century. District A
was the third largest school district in Oregon, with 51 schools, approximately 40,000
students, and 4,300 staff members. The district’s goal was for all students to show
continuous progress toward their personal learning goals, provide rigorous learning
opportunities, and prepare students for college and career.
District B was the 24th largest of the 200 districts in Oregon. It was a growing
school with approximately 6,000 students. There were about 1,500 students in grades 9–
12, and the graduation rate at one of its high schools was the highest among the large
local public schools near the state capital. The district was also known for its
collaboration with University of Oregon’s College of Education. It was famous for
having a Literacy Leadership Team whose priority was to close the achievement gap for
lower socioeconomic students. District B’s students outperformed the state average at
nearly every grade level on state exams.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 71

The methodology used throughout the study included collecting qualitative data to
gain a comprehensive representation of the implementation of CCSS and literacy
programs and to prepare students for college and career. To ensure confidentiality, a
pseudonym was given to the district associated with the study.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study were:
1. How District A and District B are supporting literacy program to help students
achieve Common Core grade level literacy skills?
2. How the Achievement Compact impacted District A and District B’s
implementation of its literacy program to help students achieve Common Core
grade level literacy skills?
3. How District A and District B are monitoring the progress of its literacy program
to prepare students for college and career?
4. What resources are allocated to support and to increase District A and District B’s
literacy and the Common Core State Standards for the 21st century?
Purposeful Sample and Population
This researcher selected one large district and a small district in the State of
Oregon that is comprised of a diverse population. At the time of the study, the selected
districts were in year two of a multiyear reform process that included developing and
implementing annual district achievement compacts. This study focused exclusively on
the current implementation of the accountability compacts and the resource allocation
pertaining to the 2012–2013 and 2013-2014 school year.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 72

Sample selection included a review of the school districts within the State of
Oregon to determine which potential districts would fit the parameters of this study. The
selection process required analysis of the district size, district location, and student
demographic data. Two districts were selected that met the criteria for selection. Figure
3.1, below, shows the district sample demographics by Economically Disadvantaged,
English as a Second Language, Minority, Special Education, and Talented/Gifted
enrollment.

Figure 3.1. District sample demographic.

Note. Adapted from Oregon Department of Education. Copyright 2013. Adapted without
permission.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 73

The districts were provided with the following information:
1. An introduction to the researcher and the research topic
2. A summary of the proposed study
3. The reason for the selection and any potential gain that the district could expect to
receive upon the completion of the research study
Instrumentation and Data Collection
Qualitative data collection was used to conduct this study. Merriam (2009) has
identified a case study as an effective research design when studying processes. In
addition, Maxwell (2013) stated that a case study justifies the selection of a particular
case in terms of the goals of the study and existing theory and research. As such, this
study’s method included gathering various pieces of information and data derived from a
variety of sources. In turn, the district was asked to provide internal documents and
reports. District documentation included the achievement compact, action plan, budget
plan, strategic plan, and minutes from meetings.
Information was also gathered through a semi-structured interview process,
utilizing an interview protocol that was developed prior to the onset of the research study.
The interview included open-ended and closed-ended questions. With permission from
District A and District B, arrangements were made to conduct interviews and request
essential data from the district’s superintendent and personnel of the educational services.
The interviews allowed for triangulation to ensure validity of the data gathered (Merriam,
2009). Phone interviews were conducted to clarify process or gaps resulting from the
initial interviews.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 74

The interview transcripts were organized using HyperResearch to code.
Frequency reports helped to organize information. In addition, the following sources
were used for the study: (a) district mission and vision statements, (b) district strategic
initiatives, (c) school districts’ annual budget reports, (d) school mission and vision
statements, (e) school-site council minutes, (f) parent involvement, and (g) community
resources. These sources were analyzed to determine the implementation of literacy and
CCSS in the endeavor to prepare students to be college and career ready.
Qualitative data were extracted from the interview process and district-related
documentation. The researcher submitted an application to the Internal Review Board
(IRB) to gain permission to conduct this study prior to proceeding with data collection
and analysis (University of Southern California, 2013). All information required by the
IRB, including descriptive information regarding the research methods utilized in the
study, such as data collection protocols, practices, and codes, were submitted prior to the
initiation of the study. Data collection began only after IRB permission has been secured.
The researcher contacted nine leaders in the selected school districts via letter and
email with an introduction, summary of the study, and explanation of why the state and
districts were selected, as well as any potential gain they might receive from the
experience. When confirmations were received, appointments with interviewees were
scheduled. The selected leaders were the Superintendent, principals, and teachers. The
Superintendent was the first individual interviewed and then teachers.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 75

Data Analysis
Transcription of all interviews was completed immediately following each
interview to guarantee the accuracy and integrity of the conveyed information and
recorded in a secure database system. All data and information were collectively
gathered into a case-study format for District A and District B. The information gathered
was sorted by code into a database system for analysis. Similarities, differences, patterns,
and conclusions were drawn from the collection of data through frequency reports.
All data were comparatively analyzed with the governing practices of the
Evidence-Based Model for resource allocation and implementation. Theoretical
conclusions are drawn from the implementation of the achievement compacts and
resource allocation compared to the best practices outlined in the Evidence-Based Model.
The results are discussed in detail in chapters four and five.
Summary
This chapter described the data collection methodology and procedure used to
conduct the data analysis. Detailed information has been provided on the purposeful
sample and population, identification of district, instrumentation, data collection process,
and data analysis. The following chapter presents and examines results from the analysis
in response to the research questions used in this study.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 76

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Introduction
In this chapter, the findings of the study are presented beginning with an overview
of the characteristics and performance data of the two sample school districts.
The research questions were used as a framework to review the findings from the schools
and reveal the following: 1) how the Achievement Compact impacted District A and
District B’s implementation of its literacy program to help students achieve Common
Core grade level literacy skills; 2) how District A and District B are supporting literacy
program to help students achieve Common Core grade level literacy skills; 3) how
District A and District B evaluating the progress of its literacy program to prepare
students for college and career; and 4) what resources are allocated to support and to
increase District A and District B’s literacy and the Common Core State Standards for the
21st century.
District A is the third largest in Oregon, comprising of a total of 51 schools and
approximately 40,000 students. There are 33 traditional elementary schools, eight
traditional middle schools, five traditional high schools, five options schools, nineteen
options programs schools, and two charter schools. The most recent statistics posted on
the district’s web site are as of October 1, 2013. The student demographics show 49.2%
of students of color, the largest minority student group is Hispanic/Latino(a) followed by
Asian Americans. Approximately 36% of the students qualify for free or reduced-price
lunch. The graduation rate for the 2012-2013 school year is about 77% compared to 69%
for the state’s average.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 77

District B is the 24th largest of the 200 districts in Oregon. It is a growing school
with approximately 6,000 students. There are about 1,500 students in grades 9-12 and one
of its high schools has a graduation rate that is the highest among the large local public
schools near the state capitol. The district is also known for its collaboration with
University of Oregon’s College of Education. District B was recognized for its Literacy
Leadership Team that provides priorities closing the achievement gap for lower socio-
economic students. District B’s students outperformed the state average at nearly every
grade level on state exams. According to the Federal Education Budget Project, during
the 2011-2012 school year achievement data, District B’s 4
th
grade reading level was
86%, which is one percent higher than the state average. The high school reading level
was 92% while the state average was at 83%.

Achievement Compacts
Each school district at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year was required to
form an Achievement Compact Advisory Committee (ACAC) that was appointed by the
local school board, based on a joint recommendation from the school district
superintendent and local association president. The committee is composed of
administrators, teachers and education support professionals employed in the district.
ACAC is charged to1) develop plans for achieving the district’s outcomes, measures of
progress, goals targets expressed in an achievement compact, including methods of
assessing and reporting progress toward the achievement of goals and targets; and 2)
recommend outcomes, measures of progress, goals and targets to be contained in the
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 78

district’s achievement compact for the next fiscal year. (ACAC Preliminary Report;
oregoned.org)
The Achievement Compact across Oregon school districts priorities completion of
high school for college and career, progression towards college and career readiness,
equity for students in all buildings and populations, reflection of local priorities, and
public investments in the district.
Each priority of the Achievement compact is organized into achievement targets
goals for specific grade levels and subgroups to be proficient in reading and mathematics,
graduation rates, and college readiness. The first goal for college and career readiness
measures 1) the 4-year and 5-year high school graduation rates, 2) the 5 year high school
completion rate, 3) post-secondary enrollment, and 4) high school students earning 9+
college credits. The second goal measures progression to be college and career ready by
1) by third-grade reading and mathematics proficiency, 2) sixth grade on track, and 3)
ninth grade on track. The third goal measures Priority and Focus Schools, which are
schools that were labeled as need improvement, based on the 2012-2013 federal AYP
data. Currently, there are no specific targets for this particular goal.
College and Career Ready
The strategic plans evolved into the formation of SB 1581 mandated that local
school districts enter into achievement compacts with the OEIB, beginning with the
2012-13 school year. SB 1581 contains two key recommendations of the OEIB related to
the design of the state’s unified education system and a targeted approach to budgeting
and accountability for educational outcomes. The first key recommendation urges
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 79

accountability that measures progress, completion, and connection across the P-20
continuum.
In the pursuit to prepare students to be college and career ready in the Oregon
educational system, the Achievement compact monitors the five target goals under
college and career readiness. They are 1) the 4-year high school graduation rate, 2) the 5-
year high school graduation rate, 3) the 5 year high school completion rate, 4) post-
secondary enrollment, and 5) high school students earning 9+ college credits and
furthered specified by 9
th
grade cohort and disadvantaged students.
1. The 4-year cohort graduation rate is defined as the percentage of regular high
school diplomas earned in four or fewer years for the cohort of first-time 9th
graders in the stated year. The rate includes students who transfer into the district
after ninth grade and exempts students who transfer out of the district.
2. The 5-year cohort graduation rate is defined as the percentage of regular high
school diplomas earned in five or fewer years for the cohort of first-time 9th
graders in the stated year. The rate includes students who transfer into the district
after ninth grade and exempts students who transfer out of the district.
3. The 5-year completion rate is defined as the percentage of first-time 9th graders
in the stated year that earned a regular high school diploma, modified diploma,
extended diploma, adult high school diploma or GED within five years of
entering 9th grade. It is calculated as the percentage of students who earned a
specified diploma or certificate within 5 years of entering ninth grade divided by
the size of the cohort.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 80

4. The 9+ college credits rate is defined as the percentage of students who received
or earned the right to receive nine or more college credits while enrolled in high
school or earlier. Credits can be earned as long as they are approved by local
school board policy. Students can learn credits via Advance Placement (AP)
exam, International Baccalaureate (IB) course completion, dual credit course
completion, and community college or university enrollment during the school
year or during summer. It is calculated as the percentage of students who earned
at least nine college credits by the end of their 5th or final year in high school
divided by the size of the cohort.
5. The postsecondary enrollment rate is defined as the number of students enrolled
in a postsecondary institution (community college, career technical education
program, or 4-year institution) within 16 months of high school graduation. It is
calculated as the percentage of students in a particular cohort that enroll in
postsecondary education divided by the number of those who completed in that
cohort. (OEIB Achievement Compact Guidance Document)

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 81

Figure 4.1: District A’s Achievement Compact

Note. 2013-14 Achievement Compact Recommendations1/31/2013. This combined data,
illustrated above, will inform the annual target setting process the Achievement Compact
Advisory Committee engages in each year as well as the recommendations for the
implementation plan. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/docs/OEIB/acall.pdf

District A’s goal is to increase the percentage of students graduating high school
and being prepared for college or career. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 show a trajectory of students
graduating high school either within four or five years of high school. The data in figure
4.1 show that the percentage of ninth graders who graduate from high school in 4 years
has increased from 76.8% in 2007-2008 to 80% in 2010-2011. The percentage of
disadvantaged students increased about three percent from 65.1% to 68% during the same
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 82

time frame. The 5-year completion rate also increased from 86.3% in 2007- 2008 to 91%
in 2010-2011. Again, the percentage of disadvantaged students increased about six
percent from 79.9% to 86% during the same time frame. Students are not just limited to
graduating high school but have opportunities to earn credits for college. Students
earning nine or more college credits concurrent with high school enrollment have slight
increase of one percent from 28% during 2007-2008 to 29% in 2010-2011.

Figure 4.2: District B’s Achievement Compact

Note. 2013-14 Achievement Compact Recommendations1/31/2013. This combined data,
illustrated above, will inform the annual target setting process the Achievement Compact
Advisory Committee engages in each year as well as the recommendations for the
implementation plan. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/docs/OEIB/acall.pdf
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 83

Similar to District A’s achievement compact, District B’s goal is to increase the
percentage of students graduating high school and being prepared for college or career.
Data in figure 4.2 show that the percentage of ninth graders who graduate from high
school in 4 years has increased from 57.2% in 2007-2008 to 63% in 2010-2011. The
percentage of disadvantaged students increased around eleven percent from 50.2% to
61% during the same time frame. The 5-year completion rate also increased from 70.2%
in 2007- 2008 to 82% in 2010-2011. Again, the percentage of disadvantaged students
increased around 15% from 63.8% to 79% during the same time frame.
Students are not just limited to graduating high school but have opportunities to
earn credits for college. Students earning nine or more college credits concurrent with
high school enrollment are stagnant from 32% during 2007-2008 to 50% in 2010-2011.
District B is collaborating with local higher institutes. Superintendent of District B stated
that the strong partnerships with the local community college and the University of
Oregon attributes to their success. They have developed what's called an Oregon
Original Achievement Collaborative that ties early learning in K-12 systems and higher
education systems together.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 84

Progression Toward College and Career Readiness

The district methodology for setting the trajectory for progression toward the
College and Career Readiness Targets “is to increase the percentage of students meeting
the Achievement Compact measure by an amount equal to a 10% reduction in the
percentage of students not meeting the measure in the prior year” (District A ACAC
Preliminary Report, 2013, p. 8). The suggested method for setting the trajectory for these
measures is to calculate the annual growth for a group to reach a 100% of the five year
completion rate by 2020-21 and apply that annual growth factor to all four measures.
ACAC favored COSA’s recommendation that Achievement Compact Workgroup
acknowledges the possibility of resetting the trajectory if necessary. As policy impacts
annual growth measures, it is essential to reset the slope of the trajectory line for math
and or reading based upon the impact of the implementation of Smarter Balanced
assessment in 2014-2015. Some targets are not readily available due to lack of baseline
data, especially for the Kindergarten readiness participation.
Kindergarten readiness participation is not established. The first administration
of the Oregon Kindergarten Assessment was scheduled for the 2013-2014 school year.
When the district created its Achievement Compact, it did not have a concrete plan for
this measure of the progression toward college and career readiness. The individual
assessments will be administered September 2-5, 2014 at each of District A’s 33
elementary schools. In the fall of 2013, one school in District B has participated as a pilot
school for the new kindergarten assessment. The assessment is a fifteen-minute exam that
covers early literacy, math, and behavioral skills.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 85

Third-grade reading proficiency is measured by the percentage of students who
met or exceeded Oregon reading standards through their scores on the statewide
assessments in the stated year. It includes only students who were enrolled (resident) in
the district on the first school day in May and who were Full Academic Year at the
district. Includes as “met” those extended assessments that met the alternate achievement
standards, subject to the one percent cap.
Third Grade Math Proficiency is measured by the percentage of student who met or
exceeded Oregon math standards through their scores on statewide assessments in the
stated year. Includes as “met” those extended assessments that met the alternate
achievement standards, subject to the one percent cap.
Fifth-grade mathematics proficiency is measured by the percentage of fifth-grade
students who met or exceeded the Achievement Compact measure in mathematics, which
is based on individual student performance on the Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills (OAKS) mathematics section. Student proficiency in mathematics is categorized as
exceeds, meets, nearly meets, low, or very low. The district’s measure includes only those
students enrolled on the first school day in May and enrolled in the district for a full
academic year.
Sixth grade not chronically absent is measured by the percentage of students who
were present at least 90% of enrolled school days while enrolled in sixth grade. The rate
is calculated as the number of students who are not chronically absent in sixth grade
divided by the number of students enrolled in sixth grade. The calculation includes only
those students enrolled (resident) in the district on the first school day in May and
enrolled in the district for a full academic year. Sixth Grade Students On-Track
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 86

Number and percentage of students who were not absent for more than 10 percent of their
enrolled (resident) days in the district in the stated year. Includes only those students
reported as 6th Grade in Spring Membership who were also Full Academic Year in the
district.
Eighth-grade mathematics proficiency is measured by the percentage of eighth-grade
students who met or exceeded the Achievement Compact measure in mathematics, which
is based on individual student performance on the Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills mathematics section. The district’s measure includes only those students enrolled
on the first school day in May and enrolled in the district for a full academic year.
Ninth-grade credits earned is measured by the percentage of students who earned at
least 6 credits on the date that is 12 months past first enrollment in ninth grade. This is
calculated as the number of students who have earned at least 6 credits within 12 months
of first enrollment in ninth grade divided by the fall enrollment of first-time ninth
graders. The district includes only those students who were enrolled in the district for a
full academic year.
Table 4.1 summarizes the data that District A formulated by applying the
Progression Toward College and Career Readiness Targets methodology aforementioned
as part of its Achievement Compact. These data are intended to show the district whether
students starting from kindergarten to ninth grade are achieving the benchmarks that
demonstrate progress toward college and career readiness. The data show improved
progress in most categories, especially for 3rd grade reading proficiency from 2010-2011
to 2011-2012. However, ninth grade credits earned show a decrease in the percentage of
disadvantaged students from 2010-2011 to 2011-2012.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 87

Table 4.1: District A’s Progression Toward College and Career Readiness Targets
(Percentages)

4-year goal
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2016-2017
Target category All Disadv.
a
All Disadv. All Disadv. All Disadv. All Disadv.

Kindergarten
assessment par-
ticipation 95.0 95.0 NA NA

Third-grade
reading
proficiency 72.4 58.5 79.9 66.3 75.0 63.0 84.0 73.0 88.0 80.0

Fifth-grade
mathematics
proficiency 73.2 58.9 74.6 58.9 79.0 67.0 85.0 76.0

Sixth grade
not chronic-
ally absent 89.1 85.0 89.6 85.3 89.0 85.0 92.0 88.0 94.0 91.0

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 88

Eighth-grade
mathematics
proficiency 76.7 60.5 78.5 63.6 83.0 71.0 87.0 79.0

Ninth grade
credits earned 80.0 68.0 80.0 66.0 84.0 72.0 88.0 80.0

Ninth grade
not chronic-
ally absent 80.6 70.9 83.0 75.0 86.0 80.0 90.0 85.0

Note. From District A Achievement Compact, retrieved from
http://www.oregon.gov/gov/docs/OEIB/acall.pdf
a
Disadv. = Students classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged and receiving free or
reduced-price lunch.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 89

Table 4.2: District B’s Progression Toward College and Career Readiness Targets
(Percentages)

4-year goal
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2016-2017
Target category All Disadv.
a
All Disadv. All Disadv. All Disadv. All Disadv.

Kindergarten
assessment par-
ticipation 100.0 100.0 NA NA

Third-grade
reading
proficiency 55.5 50.2 77.5 72.6 68.5 62.9 81.0 78.0 NA NA

Fifth-grade
mathematics
proficiency 60.3 51.3 63.4 55.4 52.3 44.9 71.0 64.0 NA NA

Sixth grade
not chronic-
ally absent 88.8 85.0 85.5 81.8 87.6 83.3 92.0 85.0 NA NA

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 90

Eighth-grade
mathematics
proficiency 56.3 49.5 55.7 48.5 51.7 43.9 68.0 59.0 NA NA

Ninth grade
credits earned 68.0 62.0 67.9 64.6 74.0 68.0 77.0 71.0 NA NA

Ninth grade
not chronic-
ally absent 84.9 81.9 80.3 74.4 80.9 81.0 84.0 83.0 NA NA

Note. From District B Achievement Compact, retrieved from
http://www.oregon.gov/gov/docs/OEIB/acall.pdf
a
Disadv. = Students classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged and receiving free or
reduced-price lunch.

Table 4.2 summarizes the data that District B acquired by applying the Progression
Toward College and Career Readiness Targets methodology aforementioned as part of its
Achievement Compact. These data are intended to show the district whether students
starting from kindergarten to ninth grade are achieving the benchmarks that demonstrate
progress toward college and career readiness. The data show fluctuation of percentages
from one school year to another in most categories. For example, percentages for 3rd
grade reading proficiency and 5th grade math proficiency increase from 2010-2011 to
2011-2012. However, the respective categories decrease from 2011-2012 to 2012-2013
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 91

school year. An outlier is 9th grade credit earned show an increase in 2012-2013
compared to previous years.
Overall, the compacts endeavor to streamline early childhood programs, school
districts, and colleges. Governor Kitzhaber advocated a formal state goal that by 2025,
100% of students will finish high school and 80% will earn a college degree, half through
community college or technical certificate and half with a bachelor’s degree called the
40-40-20 goal. As of 2010, Oregon’s status is 30-18-42-10 where more than 50% have a
high school degree or less shown in figure 4.3 below.
Figure 4.3: Comparison Between 2025 goal and 2010 percentages

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 92

Findings by Research Question
The research questions were used as a framework to review the findings from the
schools and reveal the following: 1) how the Achievement Compact impacted District A
and District B’s implementation of its literacy program to help students achieve Common
Core grade level literacy skills; 2) how District A and District B are supporting literacy
program to help students achieve Common Core grade level literacy skills to prepare
students for college and career with purpose; 3) how District A and District B are
evaluating the progress of its literacy program to prepare students for college and career;
and 4) what resources are allocated to support and to increase District A and District B’s
literacy and the implementation of the Common Core State Standards for the 21st
century.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 inquired how the Achievement Compact impacted District A
and District B’s implementation of its literacy program to help students achieve Common
Core grade level literacy skills.
The United States in the latter half of the 20th century has been marked by
frequent efforts at school reform, prioritizing major federal and state investments
centered on early literacy rather than content-area reading in middle and high schools
(Borman et al., 2003; Haynes, 2013). One of federal mandates through NCLB’s
objectives has endeavored to provide states the opportunity to implement a seamless
system of literacy development and education at early childhood, elementary, and
secondary levels. An example was the LEARN ACT which has supported comprehensive
state and local literacy programs to ensure that children in K–12 have reading and writing
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 93

skills to be successful in school and career (congress.gov, 2013; Haynes, 2012). Haynes
(2012) has continued to report that the majority of students exit high school without the
advanced reading and writing skills needed to succeed in college and a career. According
to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), more than 60% of 12th
grade students scored below the proficient level in reading achievement, and 27% scored
below the basic level in reading.
As lofty as the goals of certain mandates, many students in America were passed
along the broken pipeline of accountability. The systems of accountability has created
bubble kids who were cultivated to take multiple choice tests based on drill and kill
methodology powered by rote memory. Darling-Hammond and Adamson (2010) quoted
President Obama that stated,
I am calling on our nation’s governors and state education chiefs to develop
standards and assessments that don’t simply measure whether students can fill in a
bubble on a test, but whether they possess 21st skills like problem solving and
critical thinking, entrepreneurship and creativity.

The Achievement compacts’ targets for various grade levels for Districts A and B has
helped each district to evaluate their current literacy programs and new plans to prepare
K-12 students to be college and career ready.
School A, an International Baccalaureate (IB) elementary school in District A
facilitates meetings with parents, administration, and teachers about Achievement
Compact Targets. Parent meeting minutes from school A articulated the changes in the
achievement compact measures adopted by OEIB. The measures include participation
rates for the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA), grade 5 math achievement
which was moved from grade 3, and grade 8 math achievement. An overview of KRA,
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 94

component of Easy CBM reading and math were discussed among stakeholders to pull
together a workgroup of teachers and principals to determine their plan for KRA
implementation in 2013-14. The workgroup will address implementation issues,
reasonable target, identify training needs, and the relationship to their current
Kindergarten Assessment.
School A is continuing to practice the workshop model where students
independently read and write. Teacher A has served on a literacy committee to implement
Common Core and writing for the district. Currently with the transition to CCSS, the
principal of School A is allowing teachers to instruct students with scaffolds and lessons
that the teacher is comfortable executing. Teacher A uses the workshop model where the
teacher and student will meet back for reflection or group time afterwards. Teacher A
stated,
“The workshop model's kind of an older model, but it's taken off recently. It's
what I learned in graduate school with my own graduate program. School wide,
most teachers use that model, but it's not district, nor is it mandated. It's
something I argued for, because the research shows that it's the best practice for
children. It's something that I pushed for at school six years ago and workshop
models have definitely gone that way.”

The Achievement compact has slightly impacted school A as it is in the pre-
implementation stages of the CCSS. The school has prioritized evaluation of student
performance. Last year teacher A served on the district literacy committee to work on the
CCSS for writing. The committee mainly worked on creating the district report card. The
focus has been on the new report card and how to report out and how to assess students.
Teacher A stated,
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 95

the schools have solid rubrics for writing, and then this year they focused on
math. For the writing, the district emphasized on students having old school
opportunities to show for efficiency, so it really was just the work we do in your
class. You're working with the district assessments, but there was a lot. But a lot
of time was spent on creating a rubric that all teachers can use on whatever
writing students are doing in class. Then next year will be reading.

In addition, the minutes from a parent, principal, and teacher meeting also detail the
discussion of Common Core versus Benchmarks. A stakeholder from the meeting
accentuated how teachers use students’ real work evidence to grade based on “point in
time” in relationship to “end of year”. This is more of an in progress grade report card
with the end of the year target as the standard compared to the past report cards. The
stakeholders discussed the seven areas of measurement.
1. Data Teams-once a week staff meetings to work on the grading process
2. Grades and comments are included to avoid misunderstanding
3. Reading is based on last years benchmarks, therefore no changes yet
4. Report card is based on ‘longer term targets’ not ‘current progress’
5. PE and Music grades will change next year
6. Spanish will be an insert
7. Behavior grade will be included
District B has been prioritizing literacy programs prior to the achievement
compact for several years. The district was part of an early piece of work grant with The
Center for Teaching and Learning at the University of Oregon that started thirteen years
ago. They developed a program called District B’s Reading Project.
(education.uoregon.edu). That program was the initial research that became Reading
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 96

First, the national Reading First program. The superintendent of District B stated in an
interview,
We want to hang on to those efforts. Part of what we do is we guarantee a certain
amount of time in the core from elementary on through 8th grade, 90 minutes of
reading instruction, and then a strong core reading program and tier 2 and tier 3
interventions for students whose assessments show they need [interventions].
Those are things we'll hang on to just from the success that that's giving us for
students right now.

Currently, District B has earlier interventions in freshman and sophomore year.
However, the implementation of these current interventions is dependent on local
assessments, which are pretty predictive of how students will do on the Oregon
assessment. They will continue those courses in future years based on whether they
have other formative assessments from Smarter Balance or another balance that are
predictive of success. Specially designed courses at the high school level are
implemented to help students who are struggling to meet those standards. A high school
intervention in reading and writing occurs in the junior and senior year.
The interventions line up to the Achievement Compact. However, Superintended B
shared that the Achievement Compact does not actually require the district to set specific
goals that focus on CCSS, proficiency, and instruction. However, it does do is monitor
student measures in a variety of areas. He stated,
Some of those measures are 9th grade on track, so students in 9th grade
are earning at least 6 credits at high school and earn college credits before
[they] graduate from high school. It does affect the outcomes that are on
the Achievement Compact, but there aren't actually goals written into that.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 97

Research Question 2
Research Question 2 inquired how District A and District B are supporting literacy
program to help students achieve Common Core grade level literacy skills for college and
career readiness with purpose.
The United States has prioritized educational reform to prepare students for the
real world as a growing numbers of employers have called for better-educated, more
highly skilled workers over the past few decades (Resnick & Hall, 1998). The National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief
State School Officers (CCSSO), in collaboration with a variety of stakeholders, including
content experts, states, teachers, school administrators and parents, developed a
framework to prepare students for college and career (corestandards.org, 2012; ODE,
2010).
CCSS has defined the knowledge and skills students should attain during their K–
12 educational experience. Students should graduate from high school with the ability to
succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing academic college courses and in workforce training
programs. On a survey conducted by the Education Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) at
the University of Oregon, professors of first-year college courses agreed that the
standards reflect the knowledge and skills students need to have in their courses (Conley,
Drummond, de Gonzalez, Rooseboom, & Stout, 2011). The standards (a) are aligned with
college and work expectations; (b) are clear, understandable, and consistent; (c) include
rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order skills; (d) build upon
strengths and lessons of current state standards; (e) are informed by other top-performing
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 98

countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society;
and (f) are evidence-based (corestandards.org, 2013).
Literacy is the ability to read, write, compute, and use technology. Literacy skills
help students to communicate, access, and understand the world around them. In recent
decades, the advancement of technology on a global scale has become a vital component
for students to research, understand written texts, use information to solve problems, and
communicate effectively.
Conley (2013) explains CCSS’s anchor standards as they pertain to literacy to
prepare students for college and career readiness. He stated that the standards apply to
various disciplines such as social studies, science, and technical subjects as they are the
same with in each broad topical area at K-5, 6-12, and for other subjects. The ten anchor
standards are organized into four clusters in tables 4.3 and 4.4.

Table 4.3: Reading College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards
Clusters Description
1. Key Ideas and Details  Read closely to determine what the
text says explicitly and to make
logical inferences from it; cite
specific textual evidence when
writing or speaking to support
conclusions drawn from the text.
 Determine central ideas or themes
of a text and analyze their
development; summarize the key
supporting details and ideas.
 Analyze how and why individuals,
events, or ideas develop and interact
over the course of a text.
2. Craft and Structure  Interpret words and phrases as they
are used in a text, including
determining technical, connotative,
and figurative meanings, and
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 99

analyze how specific word choices
shape meaning or tone.
 Analyze the structure of texts,
including how specific sentences,
paragraphs, and larger portions of
the text (e.g., a section, chapter,
scene, or stanza) relate to each other
and the whole.
 Assess how point of view or
purpose shapes the content and
style of a text.
3. Integration of Knowledge and Ideas  Integrate and evaluate content
presented in diverse media and
formats, including visually and
quantitatively, as well as in words.
 Delineate and evaluate the
argument and specific claims in a
text, including the validity of the
reasoning as well as the relevance
and sufficiency in the evidence.
 Analyze how two ore more texts
address similar themes or topics in
order to build knowledge or to
compare the approaches the authors
take.
4. Range of Reading and Level of Text
Complexity

 Read and comprehend complex
literary and informational texts
independently and proficiently.

Getting Ready for College, Careers, and the Common Core (Conley, 2013)

Table 4.4: Writing College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards
Clusters Description
1. Text Types and Purpose  Write arguments to support claims.
 Use valid reasoning and evidence.
 Write informative/explanatory texts
to examine and convey complex
ideas and information clearly and
accurately.
 Write narratives to develop real or
imagined experiences or events.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 100

2. Production and Distribution of Writing  Produce clear and coherent writing
in which the development,
organization, and style are
appropriate to task, purpose, and
audience.
 Develop and strengthen writing as
needed by planning, revising,
editing, rewriting, or trying a new
approach.
 Use technology to produce and
publish writing and to interact and
collaborate with others.
3. Research to Build and Present
Knowledge
 Conduct short as well as more
sustained research projects based on
focused questions.
 Gather relevant information from
multiple print and digital sources,
assess the credibility and accuracy
of each source, and integrate the
information while avoiding
plagiarism.
 Draw evidence from literary or
informational texts to support
analysis, reflection, and research.
4. Range of Writing  Write routinely over extended and
shorter time frames for a range of
tasks, purpose, and audiences.

Getting Ready for College, Careers, and the Common Core (Conley, 2013)

In order for students to be college and career ready, there are roles for elementary
and secondary schools. Ideally, the process of learning begins in preschool. Conley
(2013) explained that most of the content elementary school students learning is not
necessarily specific to college and career readiness. Conley further explained that
foundational content knowledge can strengthen their literacy skills early so that they can
quickly transition from learning to read to reading to learn. Nonetheless, students in early
grades can acquire and develop the foundational content knowledge, essential learning
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 101

skills and strategies, and frame of mind necessary for latter years. Conley, the following
abilities are similar to the Habits of Mind articulated by Costa and Kallick and the “four
C’s”: critical thinking, collaboration, creativity, and communication. These skills fosters
independence and ability for students to
1. set goals
2. manage time
3. be aware of personal strengths and weaknesses
4. self-monitoring the quality of their work
5. recognize when help is needed, and then be able to ask for help
6. persist with challenging tasks
7. achieve through effort and not rely solely on aptitude
8. identify and develop personal interest
9. have aspirations that require education beyond high school
It is also important to develop appreciation of how others cultures experiences and
interpret he world so that they understand that learning occurs in diverse ways.
Secondary schools can help foster student interest and direct students for their
future in tangible ways. In terms of CC as a framework, students can make connections
between their interests, endeavors, and specific knowledge and skills needed to be ready
for postsecondary programs aligned to their aspirations. In order to gauge student
learning, sophisticated instructional delivery and rigorous classroom projects and
assessments are required to deeply engage and prepare students for college.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 102

School A in District A’s goal is for all students to show continuous progress
toward their personal learning goals, developed in collaboration with teachers and
parents, and will be prepared for post- secondary education and career success.
School A’s first grade teacher stated,
Literacy is the basis for everything, to be ready for anything and I really
feel like the primary years, where I teach, is just so foundational to teach
them the good literacy skills that they're going to need to succeed, it's
either college or career, whatever they choose. We have to teach them to
love learning and to know how to learn and to love literacy and to be still
successful at it. I think it's two-fold. I think it's teaching them the skills
but I think it's teaching them, also, the love for it and the ability to learn
independently, to know how to do that, to know how to figure out what
they need to know and know how to find that out.

District A implements grade and subject specific learning targets. For example,
grade level district literacy learning targets include reading, writing, speaking, and
listening standards similar to anchor standards in the CCSS. Teacher A explained that
she teaches it in a workshop format with whole class mini lessons and then individual
conferences with each student while students are doing their independent work. In
particular for reading, students usually focus around reading behaviors or comprehension
strategies. Students have access to book boxes full of books. Students get their book box
and they find a place in the room to sit and read. Students are given about 30 to 40
minutes to read and or to practice anything they need help with as the teacher works with
a cluster of students. The same process is conducted with writing.
In addition to grade level and subject specific learning targets, school A
implements trans-disciplinary skills which include thinking, social, self management,
research, and communication skills. There are outlines of skills required in each trans-
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 103

disciplinary skills displayed below in figure 4.4. Literacy is a critical component in all
disciplines.
Figure 4.4: School A’s Approaches to learning (Transdisciplinary Skills)

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 104

District B has specially-designed courses at the high school level to help students
who are struggling to meet literacy standards. There are two folds to why District B has
implemented literacy programs. One reason for these interventions is for students who
are not meeting essential literacy skills. Students cannot earn a diploma in Oregon
without showing mastery in reading, writing, and math. In part of the reason for District
B to offer literacy intervention courses is to ensure that students have every chance
possible to earn their diploma. The other reason is because of District B’s partnership
with the University of Oregon. Many students that enter two and four-year college
systems had to take remedial courses, especially in writing. Students were struggling to
keep up with some of their language arts courses at the college level. The second reason
is just to ensure that students are truly ready for entry college-level courses so they do not
have to retake anything.
Reading and writing intervention courses are available for students during their
junior and senior year. According to Superintendent B, high school juniors and seniors
have a lot of space in their schedules for electives and are oftentimes taking less than full
schedules so they have off-campus periods. Students’ open schedule helps, especially for
struggling students by providing them more time connecting with an adult, smaller class
size, targeted instruction in writing or any area where the student is struggling.
Currently, the state of Oregon has a writing model that focuses on six traits and
four modes of writing. It is not a curriculum-based program, however it allows different
pieces from different curriculum to be used for instruction. The reading course is based
on making sure that students are reading at their grade level. It is similar to Read 180
model where teachers can carefully assess the students' reading fluency and then select
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 105

materials where they are fluent above 80% of the time. After fluency level is identified,
the students will practice and apply reading comprehension skills. Students partake in
Reading samples where they take marginalized notes and respond to a variety of
questions from the text to be ready for CCSS. As students progress, their fluency
improves and so does the level of text complexity. Student’s literacy fluency is crucial as
it applicable to other content areas. Superintendent B stated that a large percentage of the
reading instruction is non-fiction as it is on the CCSS and SBAC.

Research Question 3
Research Question 3 inquired how District A and District B are evaluating the progress of
literacy to prepare students for college and career.
Federal mandates such as ESEA and NCLB attempted to align content standards
with state assessments and required rigorous monitoring of student progress toward
proficiency. NCLB legislation emphasizes the importance of state, district, and school
accountability for student proficiency, especially among socioeconomically
disadvantaged students, English language learners, and minority students (Friedlander &
Darling-Hammond, 2007; Haynes, 2012; McLaughlin & Shephard, 1995).
According to Conley and Darling-Hammond (2013), current state tests in the
United States are unable to perform these rich performance tasks. Assessments are
typically limited to multiple-choice and short-answer formats; they do not provide useful
information to teachers about how students think and what they understand. Furthermore,
the current assessments do not provide much insight to postsecondary institutions about
college and career readiness.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 106

According to Conley (2013), opportunity exist to move away from an assessment
system composed of often overlapping, redundant, or disconnected scores or reports and
toward a system of assessments model. The suggestion is as new tests are implemented
and current state test are reviewed and revised, the need for a system that yields
information and addresses state accountability requirements and also provides students,
teachers, schools, and postsecondary education institutions with performance data to
inform a range of decisions that lead to ongoing improvement is beneficial. Conley
continued to note that while the CCSS do not specify all skills necessary for
postsecondary readiness and success, they do include many standards that are cognitively
complex and critical for success in college and careers (pg 217).
Additionally, Conley stated that classroom based assessments can be an important
data if they are of high quality. The caveat is that the teacher-generated assessment has to
be of high quality and has to be meaningful, complex, and valid. Classroom grades that
capture student performance along multiple dimension that are clearly specified can be
valuable sources of unique information and insight along with external exams,
performance tasks, student self-reports, and other measure that combine a system of
assessment approach.
Darling Hammond’s assessment continuum in figure 4.5 illustrates student
learning and assessment continuum from a narrow assessment to deeper learning
assessment.
The left of the spectrum is the multiple-choice and close-ended items found in current
traditional tests. These items measure recall and recognition, skills on the lower end of
the Bloom’s Taxonomy and depths of knowledge that do not measure higher-level
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 107

thinking skills. The tasks become more complex and extend over longer periods of time
as it progresses right of the continuum. It measures larger and more integrated sets of
knowledge and skill, more cognitively complex aspects of learning, and leads students to
apply knowledge to new settings and situations. The more challenging tasks require
greater student initiation of creativity, design, and performances, which provides
opportunities for real world management skills needed for college and career.

Figure 4.5: Assessment Continuum. SCOPE-EPIC-assessment-systems

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 108

CCSS Assessments such as SBAC and PARCC is located in the lower, narrower
section of the continuum. Although it is a it a little more extensive than a traditional test
with open ended items, the CCSS assessment cannot be a stand alone indicator of student
learning that measures deeper learning.
A performance tasks and student design task require more complex and extensive
and comprehensive learning because students apply the four C by thinking critically,
creating, collaborating, and communicating with others about their inquiry.
According to Conley and Darling-Hammond (2013) the student design task practiced in
IB schools allows students to communicate their ideas in writing, orally, and in other
formats, and to demonstrate the depth of their understanding as they respond to questions
from others, similar to a dissertation defense.
School A in district A are in the process of creating literacy rubrics as
aforementioned in research question number two. Most teachers scaffold and eventually
guide students to the last step on the assessment continuum since it is an IB school. As
part of a capstone requirement, students have to create a profile synthesizing the essential
experience of the Primary Years Programme (PYP) and communicate with the school
community outlined in figure 4.6. The process includes extensive literacy skills because
students have to research for their inquiries and write to create their portfolio. School A is
able to evaluate student progress toward college and career readiness in various grade
levels and across various disciplines.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 109

Figure 4.6: School A’s PYP Exhibit Criteria

Unlike District A, District B does not have IB schools. The district is
transitioning to CCSS by adopting new curriculum. Superintendent B stated that the
district is in the process and will have new curriculum in place for next school year. The
new core and new intervention curriculum will focus on things like reading strategies,
rigorous communication strategies in the classroom in order to foster deeper
comprehension capabilities.
Superintendent B stated that at the high school level in Oregon have exit exams so
the state is in flux as it shifts from what was the state testing model to the SBAC. These
essential skills students will have to meet a certain level on the SBAC, which has yet to
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 110

been set by the state of Oregon. District B has specially-designed courses at the high
school level to help students who are struggling to meet those standards. Basically a high
school intervention in reading and writing that takes place in the junior and senior year.
District B has strong partnerships with the local community college and the
University of Oregon. Together they have developed an Oregon Original Achievement
Collaborative that ties early learning K-12 systems and higher education systems
together. In addition to the partnership, District B has written the Eastern Promise Grant
that will allow more of the district’s high school instructors to be able to teach courses at
the high school level but have the students receive college credit. College professors and
the high school teacher collaborate together and design the course. The high school
teacher will primarily teach the course with guest lectures from the college professor. The
district is moving toward a district wide proficiency based model. The model entails a
review of the student work by both the college professor and the high school teacher to
ensure that they met the level of rigor for the college credit. Superintendent B stated,
It's a little bit more intense for the assessment side of things with grading on the
teachers' side but it really does support the students in understanding the level of
understanding that they need to develop in the text.

The results of the assessments allow educators to evaluate the progress of student
learning in literacy as it transcends to other content areas for college and career readiness.
Table 4.5 below displays the types of measurements for student evaluation in core and
CTE classes for college and career readiness. The evaluation affects school districts and
schools across Oregon as the measurements range from college entrance requirements,
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 111

career readiness, personal goal evaluation, and collaboration among student, teacher, and
parent stakeholders.

Table 4.5: Evaluation and Measurements for college and career readiness

District A measurement for college and career readiness.

Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked what resources are allocated to support and to increase
District A and District B’s literacy and the Common Core State Standards to prepare
students for college and career readiness.
Odden and Picus (2011) argued that school performance can improve if districts
redirect spending, develop a powerful vision, reallocate resources to meet the vision, and
restructure compensation. Odden and Picus (2008) developed the Evidence-Based Model
(EBM) that provides schools with effective strategies to raise student achievement, and
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 112

specifies what resources are needed to implement those strategies. The core of the EBM
is to give primary influence for making programmatic recommendations to research
evidence (Odden, Picus, & Goetz, 2010). The funding framework consists of research-
based strategies, support mechanisms, and accountability standards to produce high levels
of student achievement (Odden & Picus 2009).
The EBM is based on evidence from three sources: (a) research with randomized
assignment to the treatment; (b) research with other types of controls or statistical
procedures that can help separate the impact of a treatment; and (c) best practices as
codified in a comprehensive school design at either the local district or the school site.

Figure 4.7: The Evidence-Based Model. Note. Adapted from (Odden & Picus 2009).

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 113

The EBM provides allocation flexibility and fluctuation to teaching specialists,
instructional facilitators, tutors, English language learners, students with learning
disabilities, and gifted students. However, the EBM includes no provisions for students
with moderate to severe disabilities because a subgroup can fluctuate dramatically
between schools and districts. Odden and Picus (2008) have stated that students with
severe disabilities should be funded by the state to promote fair budget allocation among
districts.
The implementation of CCSS and creating deeper learning classrooms require
financial resources, time, and professional development resources to list a few. In order to
prioritize and impart the options to the stakeholders, Districts created and facilitated
budget committees and timelines. In district A, there has been proactive community
involvement through the various phases of the 2013-14-budget development process. In
the fall of 2013 during the months of September and October, the board solicited
applications for open budget committee positions. Board members interviewed
applicants, and the Board approved finalists in December and January. In October, the
Board approved a budget calendar and process, and shared it with the community
stakeholders. Throughout the process, staff, students and members of the community
have submitted emails and Budget Suggestion Forms that have been shared with the
Internal Budget Team and Budget Committee. The advisory input was utilized by the
Internal Budget Team to formulate the budget recommendations. The community college
members prioritized District Goal for Full Option Graduates with every student being
college and career ready.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 114

Table 4.6: District A’s Budget Timeline 2013-2014
District A’s budget timeline for 2013-2014. Adapted without permission.

Likewise in District B, there has been proactive community involvement through
the various phases of the 2012-13 budget development process. In the winter of 2012 the
board reviews committee charge with budget committee elected officers. In the early
months in 2013, the committee reviews financial protections and budget history to
Phase 1 Beginning with the development and School Board approval of the budget
process in October 2012. In November and December, individual board
members reviewed the budget process with continuing budget committee
members, and an orientation was provided to newly appointed budget
committee members. On December 1, Governor Kitzhaber released the
2013-15 state proposed budget, and the District released estimated resources
and budget capacity for the District in 2013-14.

Phase 2 From January through March 2013, the District held two
Superintendent Budget Listening Sessions to solicit additional feedback
from the community. In addition, budget suggestions were received
throughout the fall and into March. An electronic Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQ) was created and is available online under the Annual
Budget tab.

Phase 3 In March, the Legislature’s Co-Chairs released their budget proposal. This
further informed the work of the Internal Budget Team who were charged
with responding to multiple budget scenarios pending legislative and the
May 21st local option levy election results.

Phase 4 Beginning in April, the final phase includes the delivery of the Budget
Message by the Superintendent and the 2013-14-budget proposal to the
Budget Committee. The Budget Committee will review the proposed
budget, hear community testimony, and accept requests for additional
information. Finally, the Budget Committee will approve the budget and tax
levies for 2013-14 and send the 2013-14 Budget to the
School Board for adoption.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 115

develop budget for 2013-2014. In May, budget plans are communicated publically before
adopting it for the school year.

Table 4.7: District B Budget Process for 2012-2013

December 17, 2012

Budget Committee elected officers; reviewed the committee
charge; reviewed financial and enrollment projections and the
financial forecast; considered direction for balancing the 2013-14
budget; and set dates for future meetings.

January 8, 2013

Budget Committee reviewed financial projections and discussed
fund balances and reserves, PERS and the Long-Range Facility
Plan.

February 4, 2013 Budget Committee discussed recent budget history and the
financial context for developing the 2013-14 budget.

March 4, 2013

Budget Committee reviewed potential impacts of state funding
scenarios and discussed possible budget balancing strategies.

May 13, 2013 Budget Committee received Superintendent’s Budget Message,
proposed budget and public comment
May 20, 2013 Budget Committee approved budget and set date for public hearing
by the Board.

June 5, 2013

School Board held public hearing on approved budget and
considered the adopted budget as an item for future action.

June 19, 2013 School Board adopted budget

District B’s budget timeline for 2012-2013. Adapted without permission.

The next two figures below illustrate both districts’ budget comparison from the
previous years to current years. District A’s adopted budget for 2013-2014 school year is
approximately 150 million dollars less than the previous year. Similarly, District B also
received less in 2012-2013 compared to 2011-2012. It is a change to implement a college
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 116

and career readiness skills for both districts with furlough days, increased class sizes,
decrease in literacy coaches, and professional development. Meanwhile students,
teachers, and administrators had to make adjustments to accommodate for CCSS and
urgency for college and career readiness.

Figure 4.8: District A’s budget comparison from 2009-2014

Note: Total revenue and expenditure for all funds have declined by $147.9 million from
2012-2013 to 2013-2014. The most significant changes have been an increase in General
Fund due to increased state and local funding for operations, and a decrease in Debt
Service for General Obligation Bonds and Capital Project Funds for construction.
Over the past five years, all fund revenues have declined by $19.2 million and
expenditures have increased by $60.1 million. The areas of greatest change are the
General, Special Purpose, Grant, Categorical, Long Term Planning, and Capital Projects
funds.
*2012-2013 Adopted Budget reflects a bond refunding of $180,361,752 that occurred in
August 2012. Adapted without permission.

Teacher A at School A shared in an interview due to low budget this year,
teachers were laid off therefore increased her kindergarten class from 22 to 30 students.
The school used to have literacy coaches and librarians, however their positions were also
eliminated. According to the EBM (Odden, Picus, & Goetz, 2010), K-3 core classes
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 117

should be fifteen students to one teacher ratio. The core of the EBM is not being met at
School A.
School A is in the pre-implementation stage for CCSS as teachers are in the initial
stages of truly understanding the shift in deeper learning to prepare students to be college
and career ready. Conley (2013) stated that a wide range of instructional strategies is
needed to engage students in a meaningful way. Teachers need to know how to:
 Organize lessons and focus them clearly on key ideas and concepts rather than
just plow through content one topic after anther
 Point out to students what is important and why
 Make connections between what has been learned previously and what is yet to
come and how what is being studied currently fits in
 Make material meaningful and relevant to students by connecting it to their lives
in some fashion ad to their interests and aspirations
 Lead a discussion and question students in ways that cause students to reflect on
their own thinking about the subject or topic
 Select or develop appropriately challenging assignments, tasks, or projects and
then support students as they complete them
 Help students reflect on the learning strategies and methods they are using
currently and then improve their use of those strategies in the future
 Organize, structure, and mange social learning situations and help students
develop the ability to mediate their learning socially
Teachers need professional development in order to execute this wide range of
instructional strategies. The most outer resource on the EBM indicates professional
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 118

development (PD) for teachers by providing them with trainers, instructional coaches,
and ten extra days of PD. Teachers need professional learning communities to share ideas
and strategies, attend conferences, and collaborate. Teachers at School A meet once a
week with their grade level teams while students are at physical education, music, and
other electives. Teacher A stated,
This year the district really wanted to do late starts once a week where we would
get that collaboration time and students would arrive a couple hours late.
[Teachers] were unclear about how that time was going to be directed and missing
more classroom time on top of furlough days and all the days they already have
off. What they ended up doing was putting it on Tuesday afternoon, after school,
for 45 minutes. They're called learning teams. It's every other Tuesday and then
staff meetings are on the alternate Tuesday.
In addition, teacher A shared that while her involvement with the district literacy
committee, most of the time was spent on creating rubrics for the district and school
report cards. The district did not provide PD for teachers about how to instruct to meet
the demands of Common Core.

School A’s low budget has affected the ability to purchase instructional materials
and technology. The CCSS and deeper learning on the continuum of assessment require
students to research. The lack of funds to update technology has mobilized the parent
groups to fund raise to purchase technology as stated in the parent, teacher, and
administration meeting minutes. Teacher A explained the need for technology because
even kindergarten students are assessed on the computer for literacy and math.

District B also suffered due to budget reductions since this last recession. Starting
from 2008 to 2014, spending per student has drastically gone down but the budgets have
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 119

increased. Superintendent B stated that prior to cutting class size and school year, the
district cut back in professional development.

Figure 4.9: District B’s Budget summary 2011-2013

In pursuit of remedying resource deficit, the district had to be creative in writing
grants. In Oregon, there is a funding opportunity called Strategic Initiatives, where an
educator or administrator can write to the Department of Education for grants for a
variety of different things. Strategic Initiatives for Student Success stated in the House
Bill 3232 of 2013 provides several grants targeted to addressing the needs of underserved
students in schools and communities to reach the 40-40-20 goal. The initiative mirrors the
Eastern Oregon Eastern Promise program by funding two to three Consortiums. It is
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 120

essential that each Consortium must include at least one public or private Oregon
University, at least one Oregon community college, at least three school districts, and at
least one education service district (ocde.gov). District B was awarded a $500,000 grant
that was used mostly for professional development around implementing CCSS,
strengthening the core and interventions, and working on the NCLB educator
effectiveness rules.
Chapter Summary
The purpose of this study was to collect and examine district-level and school-level data
related to the implementation of the state Achievement Compacts and CCSS in particular
literacy, to achieve the 40-40-20 goal set for all students in Oregon. The Evidence-Based
Model by Odden and Picus (2008) was used as a framework while examining district-
level and school-level resources to determine whether or not the sample districts and
schools have aligned their resources to support literacy, CCSS, and college and career
readiness. The selected districts have not been significantly impacted by the
implementation of Achievement Compacts. They are implementing current practices, IB
strategies, and interventions for struggling students. However, districts are aware of the
Achievement Compacts and the urgency to prepare students to be college and career
readiness. They are in the transition state of disseminating knowledge about the CCSS,
resources, and support needed to implement deeper and purposeful learning for students.
The state is currently working on new assessments for K-12 and new district and school
report cards that clearly communicates student progress to meet the 40-40-20 goal.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 121

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Summary, Conclusions, and Implications
This chapter provides a discussion of the findings reported in Chapter 4 and is organized
into four sections: an overview of the study, a discussion of the findings as they relate to
the literature review, conclusions, and the implications for implementing literacy and
CCSS to prepare students to be college and career ready for future research.
Overview of the Study
This study used a purposeful sample of two school districts in Oregon. District A is a
large school district that is comprised of a diverse student demographic. It is diverse
socio-economically, racially, and ethnically. It consists of 33 traditional elementary
schools, eight traditional middle schools, five traditional high schools, and 24 alternative
program options. This district is viewed as a successful and progressive district that even
has IB program schools. District B is a small school district that is composed of a diverse
student demographic. It also has a diverse socio-economic, racial, and ethnic student
population. It consists of five traditional elementary schools, two K-8 schools, two
middle schools, and two high schools.
The purpose of this study was to collect and examine how school districts implement
literacy programs in light of the CCSS to prepare students to be college and career ready.
The Evidence-Based Model by Odden and Picus (2008) was used as a framework to
analyze district and school-level resources to increase student achievement.
In this study, interview and document review data was used to examine how two different
school districts in Oregon have responded and reacted to the Achievement Compacts to
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 122

meet Oregon’s ambitious 40-40-20 goal by 2025. The findings of the study revealed
several themes that are discussed in the next section.

Discussion of Findings Relative to the Literature Review
The research questions for this study were as follows:
1. How has the Achievement Compact impacted District A and District B’s
implementation of its literacy program to help students achieve Common Core
grade level literacy skills?
2) How are District A and District B supporting literacy program to help students
achieve Common Core grade level literacy skills to prepare students for college
and career with purpose?
3) How are District A and District B evaluating the progress of its literacy
program to prepare students for college and career?
4) What resources are allocated to support and to increase District A and District
B’s literacy and the implementation of the Common Core State Standards to
prepare students for college and career?

Educational reform or change in a system seems to be daunting, challenging, and
undiscerning at times. It is a natural reaction to systematic change during its initial stage.
For many decades, the United State’s prioritized education in efforts to better educate its
citizens to foster global competitors. Education reform became one of the priorities
throughout the Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy administrations (Spring, 2005). The
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 123

pursuit for education reform continued into Lyndon Johnson, George W. Bush, and
Barrack Obama’s presidency with the implementation of ESEA, NCLB, and now the
CCSS respectively (ed.gov, 2013).
States across the nation have requested a NCLB waiver. The Oregon Education
Association (OEA) requested a waiver and created alternative methods for student
achievement (Rasmussen & Vaandering, 2012). Prior to receiving approval for the
waiver, Oregon was a vanguard in school reform (OEIB, 2012). According to Conley and
Picus (2003), the Oregon Educational Act for the 21st century established requirements
for state standards and assessments in 1991. It predated the implementation of NCLB.
Oregon is one of the early adopters of state-level performance-based education systems.
John Kitzhaber, governor of Oregon, spearheaded the initiative to create a comprehensive
and tailored system of standards and accountability. In 2011, Governor Kitzhaber and the
Oregon Legislation signed Senate Bill 909 (SB 909) to streamline a unified educational
system. SB 909 created the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) and hired a
Chief Education Officer, Dr. Rudy Crew, to develop an education investment system
strategy that covered prekindergarten through postsecondary (P-20) to achieve the state’s
educational outcomes (OEIA, 2012). It also directed the OEIB to recommend strategic
investments to guarantee that the public education expenditure is integrated and targeted
to achieve the educational outcomes for the state.
The educational outcomes are defined in the SB 253. The goal of OEIB to ensure
that by 2025, 40% of adult Oregonians has earned a bachelor’s degree or higher; 40% has
earned an associate’s degree or postsecondary credential; and the remaining 20% or less
has earned a high school diploma or its equivalent. These targets are referred to as the
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 124

“40/40/20” goal (OEIB, 2011). These outcomes affect Oregon’s economy and the
economic gap between the skilled and unskilled citizens. Conley (2013) noted that there
is a strong nexus between economic mobility for those who do not already have money
and education. Education in this context encompasses the ability to acquire new skills and
obtaining certifications over the course of a career. He also mentioned that the era of
succeeding with little formal education and lots of hard work is obsolete. Large-scale
survey data reveal that direct measures of literacy appear to have a significant impact on
per capita gross domestic product, productivity, and economic growth well after
schooling has been completed (Kirsch et al., 2007). In addition, Haynes (2012) has
continued to report that the majority of students exit high school without the advanced
reading and writing skills needed to succeed in college and a career.
Literacy is the ability to read, write, compute, and use technology. Literacy skills
help us to communicate, access, and understand the world around us. It transcends to all
content areas in education. Students need literacy skills in science, social science, math,
CTE classes, and elective classes. Especially as technology advances and the American
economy becomes increasingly knowledge-based, students need higher literacy skills to
understand written texts, think critically, and communicate effectively. According to
Toffler (2000), the illiterate of the year 2000 are not those who cannot read and write, but
those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. Therefore, students need to be information
literate and lifelong learners (www.edu.pe.ca).
The literature review revealed the need for specific literacy strategies and deeper
learning to increase student achievement so that they are college and career ready. A
review of the district-level implementation of the strategies from the literature review led
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 125

to the conclusion that the two districts have effective systems for literacy and deeper
learning curriculum. However, the system is not CCSS based because the standards have
not been implemented yet. The district is mindful of best practices through IB program
and interventions, which were implemented at the district and school levels to improve
students’ literacy skills and to prepare them for postsecondary education and or career.
These were evident via interviews with the superintendent and teacher in two districts
along with website and document reviews. The district administration and site leaders
recognized the importance of literacy skills, deeper learning, accountability,
interventions, and partnership with local community resources for student success. They
prioritized strong instructional guidance, student-centered learning climates, the
importance of professional capacity of teachers and staff. It also has strong parent-
community partnership. The districts’ data show a steady upward trajectory in student
achievement during the pre-implementation stages of CCSS in addition to the
implementation of the Achievement compacts.
Four themes emerged from the findings: (a) the Common Core connection to
college and career readiness, (b) the need to provide students opportunities for deeper
learning and foster ownership of learning to prepare them for college and career, (c) the
need for effective systems of assessments and evaluation to ensure success for all
students to be successful (d) the need for effective resource allocation to execute
educational reform.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 126

Common Core Connection to College and Career Readiness
One of the four major themes that developed from this study was the Common Core
connection to college and career readiness. First, the CCSS connection to college
readiness is strongly tied to literacy. According to Conley (2013), a national sample of
two thousand faculty members who taught entry level courses in twenty five subject areas
were asked how applicable and important CCSS were as prerequisites for success in their
courses. The following three subsets of the English language arts standards were
important across all course areas:
 Speaking and listening
 Reading informational texts
 Writing in a variety of genres
Second, the CCSS connection to career readiness is evident as students need:
 Foundational academic knowledge and the ability to apply knowledge
 Communication capabilities in reading, writing, speaking, and listening
 Technology literate and proficient
 Critical thinking and problem solving strategies
 Flexibly, initiative, an adaptability skills

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 127

Figure 5.1: Components of the Four Key Model for College and Career Readiness

Note: Conley (2013) power point presentation in Orange County, California.

School A in District A is implementing key cognitive strategies and key learning
skills and techniques in their IB program as shown in figure 5.1. The structure of the
program is formatted for self-directed inquiry projects where students have to
research, collect data, analyze, and communicate their findings to the school
community. District B is implementing key transition knowledge and skills via the
Eastern promise grant. They are partnering with local community colleges and the
University of Oregon to expose students to postsecondary norms through instruction
and evaluation of their work from professors.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 128

Deeper Learning with Purpose and Foster Ownership of Learning
The CCSS is one component to prepare students for college and career. Conley
stated, “CCSS will not transform education in and of themselves,” (Conley 2013, p. 264).
Furthermore, Conley explained that Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)
and Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)
developers admitted that their tests do not fully capture every factor necessary for college
and career readiness because they test only English and mathematics. The following
concepts are not well addressed by the consortia assessments in their current state and
that require assessment beyond what consortia exams will be able to offer:
 Conducting research and synthesizing information
 Developing and evaluating claims
 Reading critically and analyzing complex texts
 Communicating ideas through writing, speaking, and responding
 Planning, evaluating, and refining solution strategies
 Designing and using mathematical models
 Explaining, justifying, and critiquing mathematical reasoning

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 129

Figure 5.2: Competencies to be Developed and Assessed

Note: Image from Creating Systems of Assessment for Deeper Learning, Conley and
Darling Hammond (2013)

In figure 5.2, the CCSS and SBAC or PARCC assessments components within the
holistic picture of college and career readiness competencies. CCSS and SBAC alone
cannot prepare students to be college and career ready. Students need opportunities to go
beyond the surface facts and partake in deeper learning and ownership of their learning.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 130

Figure 5.3: Levels of Thinking in Bloom’s Taxonomy and Webb’s Depth of Knowledge

Note: retrieved from Common Core Instructional Support Services
http://www.stancoe.org/SCOE/iss/common_core/overview/overview_depth_of_knowled
ge/dok_bloom.pdf

First, students need opportunities to think deeply and critically. The Blooms
taxonomy and Depths of Knowledge (DOK) in figure 5.3 explains the levels of thinking
and how to guide students to ultimately achieve the highest level. The Extended thinking
level allows students to investigate, reason, plan, and create over an extended period of
time. According to Conley (2013), the key indicators of deeper learning allows students
to:
 Excel in scientific inquiry
 Generate new solutions to old problems
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 131

 Create and manage self-directed teams that work with a high degree of
independence to design original solutions to complex problems
 Are not afraid to make up their own rules and figure out how to take on
ambiguous tasks
Deep learning can occur with thoughtful integration of a wider range of teaching and
learning activities. Project based learning (PBL) teaching methods allow students to gain
knowledge and skills in the extended thinking zone in Bloom’s Taxonomy and DOK.
PBL essential elements include:

Table 5.1: Project Based Learning Essential Elements

Significant Content

At its core, the project is focused on
teaching students important knowledge and
skills, derived from standards and key
concepts at the heart of academic subjects.

21st century competencies

Students build competencies valuable for
today’s world, such as problem solving,
critical thinking/problem solving,
collaboration, communication, and
creativity/innovation, which are explicitly
taught and assessed.

In-Depth Inquiry

Students are engaged in an extended,
rigorous process of asking questions, using
resources, and developing answers.

Driving Question

Project work is focused by an open-ended
question that students understand and find
intriguing, which captures their task or
frames their exploration.

Need to Know

Students see the need to gain knowledge,
understand concepts, and apply skills in
order to answer the Driving Question and
create project products, beginning with an
Entry Event that generates interest and
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 132

curiosity.
Voice and Choice

Students are allowed to make some choices
about the products to be created, how they
work, and how they use their time, guided
by the teacher and depending on age level
and PBL experience.

Critique and Revision

The project includes processes for students
to give and receive feedback on the quality
of their work, leading them to make
revisions or conduct further inquiry.

Public Audience

Students present their work to other people,
beyond their classmates and teacher.

Adapted from http://bie.org

Table 5.2: Habits of Mind identified by Costa and Kallick include:

Habits of Mind

 Persisting
 Thinking and communicating with
clarity and precision
 Managing impulsivity
 Gathering data through all senses
 Listening with understanding and
empathy
 Creating, imagining, innovating
 Thinking flexibly
 Responding with wonderment and
awe
 Thinking about thinking
(metacognition)
 Taking responsible risks
 Striving for accuracy
 Finding humor
 Questioning and posing problems
 Thinking interdependently
 Applying past knowledge to new
situations
 Remaining open to continuous
learning
Adapted from the16 Habits of Mind identified by Costa and Kallick

Conley (2013) continues to note that deeper learning classrooms help students to make
connections between their learning and future aspirations. Students’ learning should be
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 133

purposeful and meaningful for their future. These classrooms allow students to reflect on
their own learning by:
 Analyzing why they approach a problem they way they do
 Considering alternatives they had not initially entertained
 Conducting postmortems on significant assignments and projects to see how they
could have gained deeper insight into the problems they studied, not necessarily
how they could have gotten a better grade.
 Considering how they are organizing their time and how they are prioritizing the
tasks necessary to complete a particular assignment
 Assessing relations with others to determine who are good partners for studying
and who thinks differently from them and may offer new ideas and insights as a
result
 Examining how the can be more efficient in how they work, not just generically,
but in new ways specific to the kinds of problems that they are encountering in
class
 Thinking about the quality of their own thinking as objectively as possible and
assessing how innovative and original they are being in the thinking

The ability for students to reflect and take ownership of their learning is important
factors to student success. Conley (2013) stated, “that the heart of student ownership of
learning is a complex of interacting skills and dispositions” (pg.73). They are the
students’ goal setting abilities, persistence, self-awareness, motivation, help seeking,
progress monitoring, and self-efficacy. In addition, students need trust and support in the
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 134

classroom in order to foster grit. They need the courage and bravery to fail and take risks.
Conley emphasized the importance for students to know they can try and fall short of
complete success and not be punished granted they are working diligently and
conscientiously.

Effective Systems of Assessments and Evaluation
Indeed students need support in the classroom. Furthermore, students need
effective systems of assessments and evaluation of their work. The CCSS include many
areas that are important for college and career readiness. However as illustrated in figures
4.5 and 5.2, there are other mechanisms that can evaluate students’ college and career
readiness. The Assessment Continuum in figure 4.5 gave examples of deeper learning
assessments in the form of common performance tasks and student designed projects. A
system of assessment approach widens the array of measurement instruments and
approaches for students to increase ownership of their work. The current school report
cards limit assent options because they are viewed with a myopic lens of accountably
purposes and technical requirements of high stakes testing. A system of assessments such
as student profiles or capstones can capture students’ college and career readiness
because it is a comprehensive portrait and evaluation of student performance.
A student profile or capstone can be comprised of multiple grade levels, multiple
disciplines, and state accountability measurements as a holistic system of evaluation for
college and career readiness. Conley (2013) gives an example student profile measures.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 135

Table 5.3: Examples of Student Profile Measurement

Type of Measure Ways to Measure
Math, ELA knowledge and skills Consortia exams
Other subject areas State exams
Grade point average Cumulative and disaggregated by subject
Admissions exams SAT, ACT
Performance task Classroom administered research paper
Speaking Consortia exams, classroom activities
Listening Consortia exams, classroom activities
Goal focus Student goal plan
Aspirations Student self report
Postsecondary plans Student plans for postsecondary education
Adapted without permission Getting Ready for College, Careers, and the Common Core
(Conley 2013).

Effective Resource Allocation to Execute Educational Reforms
Oregon Legislation and Governor Kitzhaber signed SB 253 to implement
aggressive high school and college completion goals in the country. SB 253 defines the
goal of OEIB to ensure that by 2025, 40% of adult Oregonians has earned a bachelor’s
degree or higher; 40% has earned an associate’s degree or postsecondary credential; and
the remaining 20% or less has earned a high school diploma or its equivalent. These
targets are referred to as the “40/40/20” goal (OEIB, 2011). In order for these ambitious
goals to come to fruition, effective resource allocation has to been in place. Nesbitt
(2012) stated that “districts are expected to collaborate with stakeholders to adopt
transformational practices, policies, and budgets that will help students achieve the
educational outcomes valued by Oregonians” (p. 5).
The Accountability compacts set goals for districts in Oregon. However, based on
the document reviews and interviews, the two districts lacked financial resources to
implement desired outcomes with finesse. Odden and Picus’ (2009) framework of the
Evidence based model in figure 4.9 details resources needed to provide schools with
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 136

effective strategies to raise student achievement. The principle of reciprocity of capacity
is at skate. Reciprocity for capacity is at play when educational institutions are not
designed to provide support for capacity in response to demands for accountability.
Furthermore, it is imperative to invest in the knowledge and skills of educators in order to
improve the educational experience for all students and increase performance of all
schools (Elmore, 2002). Professional development for new shift to CCSS and material
resources are necessary ingredients to effectively execute educational reforms such as the
Achievement compacts.
Conley (2013) stated that educators need professional develop opportunities to refine
their craft to implement effective instructional strategies. Teachers need the following
support:
 Professional learning communities in which teachers share ideas and strategies for
dealing with particular changes are places where they can explore and discuss
new approaches in a safe, supportive environment
 Professional development opportunities focused on teaching strategies give
teachers opportunities to take ideas back to the classroom that they can test out
immediately and then refine over time
 Attendance at conferences and workshops in which specific techniques are taught
helps inspire and motivate teachers an lets them develop broader professional
networks
 Mentorship and peer observations create opportunities for dissemination of
effective teaching techniques quickly within a school and build school wide
norms of collaboration
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 137

Limitations
The following limitations were present in the study:
 The study was focused on two school districts in one state. Due to the size of the
samples in one state, the findings may not be generalized to other schools with
different student populations.
 The method of data collection was based on upon a structured and semi-structured
interview process; the review of websites, and document reviews, findings may be
subjective.
 A district superintendent of one school district was interviewed and a teacher
from the second school district was interview. The findings may not represent all
school districts in Oregon. The information gathered from the interviews were
derived from the perceptions of that one superintendent and one teacher might not
have constituted a representative sample of all other district and school leaders.
 The study was focused on the process used to achieve the 40-40-20 goals set by
the State of Oregon. The achievement compact is in its second year. Hence the
degree of success of the state initiative will not be known for several years.
 Common Cores State Standards and Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium
have not been implemented during the time of research.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study supplements the body of research regarding implementation of literacy
and pre-implementation of CCSS to prepare students for college and career. The
Achievement Compacts were used as a goal to measure the progress of the 40/40/20 goal
set by Oregon. In addition Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence base model framework was
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 138

used to examine the two districts’ resource allocation to support literacy and plans to
prepare students for college and career.
This study examined two school districts as they were mandated to improve student
achievement by various grade levels and ultimately their readiness for college and career
established by the State of Oregon. The following recommendation for future research
are made based on the findings from this study:
 It will be useful to study other school districts in Oregon that are successful at
increasing student achievement to determine what effective strategies are being
implemented.
 It will be valuable to examine each school in the selected districts to determine the
level of student achievement longitudinally and to determine whether each school
is implementing effective strategies with fidelity.
 It would be beneficial to identify and study a state that has implemented CCSS
and systematic literacy programs successfully and to describe the process that it
used to incorporate all of the essential elements.
 It will be helpful to study additional school districts to further determine what
resource allocation and instructional strategies are contributing to their success.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was 1) how the Achievement Compact impacted
District and District B’s implementation of its literacy program to help students achieve
Common Core grade level literacy skills; 2) how District A and District B are supporting
literacy program to help students achieve Common Core grade level literacy skills; 3)
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 139

how District A and District B are evaluating the progress of its literacy program to
prepare students for college and career; and 4) what resources are allocated to support
and to increase District A and District B’s literacy and the Common Core State Standards
for the 21st century.
Oregon’s education reform is a process, not a finite product; and, in certain
respects, Oregon's experience can serve as a model for other states, while in other
respects, its reform is itself the result of unique shifting political and cultural
circumstances (Baylis, 1997). For the past two centuries, zealous teachers, lawmakers,
and national leaders have participated in several endeavors to educate young Oregonians
with the hope of cultivating future leaders.
The Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) in 1965 and No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) in 2001 sought to create equal access to education for all students across the
nation. In light of these federal educational laws, the following four events have changed
the structure of the Oregon education system: reform plans aligned with NCLB: voter-
approval of Measure 5; passage of the 1991 Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century;
creation of the Oregon Quality Education Model (OQEM); and passage of Oregon Senate
Bills 909, 253, and 1581.
SB 253 confronted the issues of a broken pipeline in the states’ education system
by passing legislation that established ambitious goals for students. According to the bill,
by 2025, 40% of students would earn a bachelor’s degree, 40% would earn an Associate
degree or postsecondary credential, and 20% would earn a high school diploma. The state
then structured its impressive efforts to align the entire public education system, pre-K to
postsecondary education by mandating Achievement Compacts across districts.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 140

Based on the findings of this study, the researcher recommends that district and
school leaders begin improvement efforts by becoming familiar with the deeper learning
and the crucial components of literacy across all disciplines and effective resources
allocation in the pursuit of preparing students to be college and career ready (Conley
2013; and Odden & Picus 2008). A review of the target school districts confirmed that
they were implementing some deeper learning strategies, literacy programs, and
preparing students to be college and career ready.
The two districts have yet to implement CCSS because of the current transitional
period of moving away from bubble in high stakes test to a broader range of cognitive
measurement by consortium tests. It is challenging to implement college and career
readiness strategies without sufficient recourses. Therefore, the researcher recommends
that a school or district to provide (a) clear dissemination of the 40-40-20 goal to all
stakeholders, (b) effective CCSS and SBAC transition, (c) deeper learning professional
development for teachers across all discipline with literacy as a foundation, and (d)
embed the EBM (Odden, Picus, & Goetz, 2010) to fully implement CCSS and college
and readiness skills. Below are some parameters of the EBM:

 Core class size of 15 for K-3 and class size of 25 for grades 4-12
 Specialist teachers to provide instruction in all content and elective classes
 At least one period (usually an hour) of planning and preparation for all
teachers in K-12
 Pupil support staff (1 full time equivalent [FTE] per 250 students in secondary
schools)
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 141

 An ambitious set of professional development resources, including
instructional coaches
 Funds for instructional materials, formative assessments, and supplies
 Comprehensive interventions to increase achievement for all students

This study validated the conclusion that it is critical for all stakeholders to prepare
students for college and career readiness with strong foundations in literacy, effective
deeper learning strategies, comprehensive evaluation system, and resources which are all
essential elements confirmed by research. It is important for a state education system to
prioritize and align its goals by providing effective systems of implementation,
evaluation, and resources to live out its endeavors. The proper alignment can prepare
students to be college and career ready as global competitors in the 21st century.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 142

References

Achieve. (2013). The Next Generation Science Standards. Washington DC: Author.
Retrieved April 20, 2013 from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-
science-standards
Baker, B., Sciarra, D., Farrie, D. (2012). Is school funding fair? A national report card 2
nd

edition. Newark, NJ: Rutgers Graduate School of Education – Education Law
Center (June).
Barrett, C., R. (2010). Chair of Change the Equation. (September). Retrieved June 2,
2013 from http://showyou.com/ukituki/y%3A26vb5Y6UuPo
Bit Locker Drive Encryption (2013). Encryption system overview. Retrieved May 8,
2013 from
http://windows.microsoft.com/enUS/windows7/products/features/bitlocker
Bureau of labor and statistics. (2011). Occupational outlook handbook employment
change by education and training category. Washington DC: Author
Retrieved (May).
Carnoy, M. and S. Loeb (2002). ‘Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A
cross-state analysis’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305–31.
Chambers J., G. & Levin, J., D. (2009). Determining the Cost of Providing Adequate
Funding for all Students. Washington DC: National Educational Association.
(July). Retrieved April 29, 2013 from
http://www.keysonline.org/about/education_funding.attachment/cost_of_adequate
_education/Cost_of_Adequate_Education.pdf
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 143

Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts.
Harvard Business Review, 55-68.
Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press
Common Core State Standards. (2012). Implementing the Common Core State Standards.
Retrieved April 20, 2013 from http://www.corestandards.org/
Conley, D.T. (2014). Getting ready for college, careers, and the common core. San
Francisco: CA, Jossey-Bass.
Conley, D.T., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Creating systems of assessment for
deeper learning. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in
Education.
Conley, D. T., & Picus, L.O. (2003). Oregon’s quality education model: Linking
adequacy and outcomes. Educational Policy, 17(5), 586-612.
Council on Foreign Relations. (2011). Education Reform and U.S. Competitiveness.
Washington DC: Author Retrieved May 22, 2013 from
http://www.cfr.org/education-reform-us-competitiveness/p25816
Dee, T. and B. Jacob (2009). ‘The impact of No Child Left Behind on student
achievement’, NBER Working Paper 15531, Cambridge, MA.

Ed. Source. (2013a). Average Daily Attendance (ADA). Mountain View, CA: Author.
Retrieved May 06, 2013 from http://www.edsource.org/1077.html
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 144

Ed. Source. (2013b). Categorical Aid: Special Dollars for Special Purposes. Mountain
View, CA: Author. Retrieved May 06, 2013 from
http://www.edsource.org/pub_abs_categorical.html
Ed. Source. (2013c). Dollars to Districts. Mountain View, CA: Author.
Retrieved May 6, 2013 from http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_sys_dollarstodistricts.html
Ed. Source. (2013d). No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Mountain View, CA: Author.
Retrieved April 20, 2013 from http://www.edsource.org/iss_fedlaws-nclb.html
Ed. Source. (2013e). Student Demographic data. Mountain View, CA: Author. Retrieved
April 20, 2013 from http://bluebook.state.or.us/education/educationintro.htm
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/06/15/stem-education-is-th-key-to-
the-usss-economic-future
Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative
for professional development in education.
English Learner Service Procedures Manual. (2010). Retrieved April 29, 2012.
http://www.wccusd.net/cms/lib03/CA01001466/Centricity/Domain/76/1_EIA_LE
P_Expenditure_Guidelines.pdf
Fullerton, J., Hochman, D. (2011). Title 1 Requirements and School District
management: The Consequences of Intergovernmental Distrust. Retrieved April
25, 2012 from http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-
content/uploads/events/2011/03/av/intergovernmental.pdf
Graham, B. & Bridge, S. (2010). From presidential policy to classroom reality: the
indelible impact of ESEA. Proceedings of the American Institute of Higher
Education Conference, 99-104. Retrieved from http://www.amhighed.com/
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 145

documents /orlando2010 AmHighEd_Conference_Proceedings_
Fall2010.pdf#page=99
Giegerich, A. (2012). Oregon Unemployment Rate Down a Fraction. Portland Business
Journal. Retrieved April 25, 2013 from
http://www.bizjournals.com/protland/news/2012/06/12/Oregon-unempoloyment-
rate-down-a-fraction
Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and school
leadership. In J. Murphy & a Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons from
comprehensive school reforms (pp. 57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses:
Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America’s public schools. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hart, D., Teeter, R., (2004). Equity and Adequacy: Americans Speak on Public School
Funding. Educational Testing Service. (June). Received May 5, 2013 from
http://www.ets.org/Media/Education_Topics/pdf/2004report.pdf
Hanushek, E. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance.
Educational Researcher, 18, 45-62.
Hanushek, E., & Woessmann, L. (2008). The role of cognitive skills in economic
development. Journal of Economic Literature, 46, 607-668.
Hanushek, E., & Woessmann, L. (2011). The economics of international differences in
educational achievement. In E. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann (Eds.),
Handbook of economics education (pp. 89-200). Amsterdam, North Holland:
Elsevier.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 146

International Baccalaureate Organization. (2013). International Baccalaureate: Americas
Global Center. Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved May 5, 2013 from
http://occ.ibo.org/ibis/occ/guest/home.cfm
Kirsch, I. S., Braun, H., Yamamoto, K., & Sum, A. (2007). America’s perfect storm:
Three forces shaping our nation’s future. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing
Service.
Kitzhaber, J. A. (2011). Oregon learns: Oregon’s education agenda and the Oregon
Education Investment Board. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/files/
live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1112REDESIGNCANNON.PDF
Linda Darling-Hammond & Frank Adamson (2010) Beyond Basic Skills: The Role of
Performance Assessment in Achieving 21st Century Standards of Learning
https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/beyond-basic-skills-role-
Lumina Foundation. (2012). A Stronger Nation Through Higher Education: Oregon.
(March). Retrieved June 01, 2013 from
http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/state_data/2012/Oregon-2012.pdf
Mora, J. K. (2009). From the Ballot Box to the classroom. Educational Leadership. 66
(7). 14-19. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/apr09/vol66/num07/From-the-Ballot-Box-to-the-Classroom.aspx
McClure, P. (2005). School Improvement Under No Child Left Behind. Center for
American Progress. Retrieved April 20, 2013 from
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploadskf/cclure3-03-2005.pdf
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 147

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012a). Graduation rates. Washington DC:
Author. Retrieved May 10, 2013 from
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012b). Public High School Graduation
Rates. Washington DC: Author Retrieved May 10, 2013 from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_scr.asp
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). Fast facts on school statistics.
Retrieved May 10, 2013 from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2013). Status and Trends in the Education of
Racial and Ethnic Minorities. Retrieved May 10, 2013 form
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/minoritytrends/tables/table_7_2.asp?referrer=report
National Education Association (NEA). (2011). C.A.R.E.: Strategies for Closing the
Achievement Gaps, fourth edition. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved May 10,
2013 from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/CAREguide2011.pdf
National Education Association (NEA). (2013). NEA on ESEA Reauthorization: The time
for change is now. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved May 10, 2013 from
http://www.nea.org/home/54438.htm
National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. (2012). IDEA – The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved
June 1, 2012 from. http://nichcy.org/laws/idea
New America Foundation. (2012). Federal Education Budget Project: No Child Left
Behind Funding. Washington, DC: Author. (April). Retrieved May 1, 2013 from
http://febp.newamerica.net/backgroud-analysis/no-child-left-behind-funding
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 148

New America Foundation. (2013). Federal Education Budget Project: School Finance
Inequity Among Districts - % Per Pupil Spending. Washington, DC: Author ().
Retrieved May 1, 2013 from
http://febp.newamerica.net/k12/OR/compare/schofiineq
Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gross, B. (2003). Defining school-level
expenditure structures that reflect educational strategies. Journal of Education
Finance, 28, 323-356.
Odden, A., Picus, L. O. (2008). School finance: A policy Perspective, (4
th
ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Odden, A., Picus, L. O., Archibald, S., & Smith, J. (2009). Wyoming School Use of
Resources 2: Making More Progress in Identifying How Schools Use Resources
in Ways that Boost Student Performance on State Tests. North Hollywood, CA:
Lawrence O. Picus and Associates. Prepared for the Wyoming Department of
Education.
Odden, A., & Picus, L. (2011). Improving teaching and learning when budgets are tight.
Phi Delta Kappan, 93, 42-48.
Oregon Department of Education. (2013a). Academic Education Overview. Salem, OR:
Author.. Retrieved May 1, 2013. From http://www.ode.state.or.us/home/
Oregon Department of Education. (2013b). Common Core State Standards
Implementation Toolkit. Salem, OR: Author. Retrieved May 5, 2013 from
http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3430
Oregon Department of Education. (2013c). Education Funding Team – Summary
Recommendations to the Governor Strategic Investments overview. Salem, OR:
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 149

Author. Retrieved May 12, 2013 from
http://www.oregon.gov/gov/docs/OEIB/1EFT.pdf
Oregon Department of Education. (2013d). Little Growth in Oregon Grad Rates; State
Leaders Call for Systems Change. Salem, OR: Author. Retrieved May 13, 2013
from http://www.ode.state.or.us
http://www.ode.state.or.us/news/announcements/announcement.aspx?ID=8845&
TypeID=5
Oregon Department of Education. (2013e). Smarter Balanced Assessments. Salem, OR:
Author. Retrieved May 15, 2013 from
http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3298
Oregon Department of Education. (2013f). State Board of Education Adopts Changes to
Graduation Proficiency Requirements. Salem, OR: Author. (August). Retrieved
May 15, 2013 from
http://ode.state.or.us/news/annoncements/announcement.aspx?od=6857&typeid 5
Oregon Department of Education. (2013h). Oregon Policies and Programs Related to K-
12 Standards. Salem, OR: Author. Retrieved May 15, 2013 from
http://www.ode.state.or.us/news/announcements/announcement.aspx?=7983
Oregon Department of Revenue. (2012). Local Budgeting in Oregon. Salem, OR: Author.
Retrieved May 20, 2013 from http://www.oregon.gov/dor/forms/property/local-
budgeting-in-oregon_504-400_2012.pdf
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2013a). Oregon Educational Investment Board
Overview. Salem, OR: Author. Retrieved May 22, 2013 from
http://WWW.osba.org/Resources/Article/Improving_Education/SAG/OEIB.aspx
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 150

Oregon Educational Investment Board. (2013b). Oregon learns: Executive summary.
Salem, OR: Author. Retrieved May 22, 2013 from
http://www.oregon.gov/gov/oeib/docs/oregonlearnsexecsumwithlink.pdf
Oregon Legislative Assembly -76th. (2010). Senate Bill 253. Salem, OR: Author.
Retrieved April 20, 2013 from
http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/sb0200.dir/sb0253.intro.pdf
Oregon Legislative Assembly -76th. (2011). Senate Bill 909. Salem, OR: Author.
Retrieved April 20, 2013 from
http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/OEIT/docs/sb0909.a.pdf
Oregon Legislative Assembly -76th. (2012a). House Bill 4165. Salem, OR: Author.
Retrieved April 20, 2013 from
http://www.leg.state.or.us/12reg/measpdf/hb4100.dir/hb4165.en.pdf
Oregon Legislative Assembly -76th. (2012b). Senate Bill 1581. Salem, OR: Author.
Retrieved April 20, 2013 from http://www.oregon.gov/gov/oeib/docs/sb1581.pdf
Oregon University system. (2011). Undergraduate Admission Requirements for 2012-
2013 Academic Year. Salem, OR: Author. (February). Retrieved April 29, 2013
from
http://www.ous.edu/sites/default/files/stucoun/propstu/files/Admissionpolicy2012
-13FINAL.pdf
Orfield, G., Losen, D/. Wald, J., & Swanson, C. B. (2004). Losing our Future: How
Minority Youth are Being Left Behind by the Graduation Rate Crisis. The Civil
Rights Project at Harvard University, Harvard College. Cambridge, MA:
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 151

Retrieved April 29, 2013 from
http://www.urban.org/UploadPDF/410936_LosingOurFuture.pdf
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). OECD: Programme
for International Student Assessment (PISA). Paris Cedex, France: Author
Retrieved May 21, 2013 from http://www.oecd.org/contact/
Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills. (2011). Need title. Citi, state: Author.
Retrieved May1, 2013 from http://www.p21.org/
Picus, L. O. (1999). Collection of School Level Data in Oregon: An Analysis of the
Database Initiative Project. Technical paper. The Joint Legislative Audit and
Review Committee Washington State Legislature Center for Research in
Education Finance USC Rossier School of Education 1-19.
Picus, L., O (2001). Retrieved April 25, 2013 from
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/3257/picus.pdf;jse
ssionid=7E71429266E9491EA3CF83245BF682A3?sequence=1.
Picus L. O. (2009). Implementing school finance adequacy: School level resource use in
Wyoming following adequacy-oriented finance reform. North Hollywood, CA:
Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.
Picus, L. O., Odden, A. R., Aportela, A., Mangan, M. T., & Goetz, M. (2008).
Implementing school finance adequacy: School level resource use in Wyoming
following adequacy-oriented finance reform. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O.
Picus and Associates.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 152

Picus, L. O. (2010). Using an Evidence-Based Approach to Estimate School Finance
Adequacy. Lawrence O. Picus and Associates. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence
O. Picus and Associates.
Retrieved May 5, 2013 from http://www.ncsl.org/print/educEBmodel.pdf
Proximity One. (2009). Oregon School District Demographic Characteristics. Citi, State:
Author. Retrieved April 20, 2013, from http://proximityone.com/sd_or,htm
Rasmussen & A. Vaandering (Eds.), Letter to Senators Wyden and Merkley.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential-Proclamation-National-
Information-Literacy-Awareness-Month
Ravitch, D. (2009). Time to kill “No Child Left Behind.” Education Week, 28(33), 30-36.
Ravitch, D. (2010, March 9). Why I changed my mind about school reform. Retrieved
from http://wsj.com/articleSB10001424052748704869304575109443305343962
.html
The State of Oregon. (2013a). Governor John A. Kitzhaber, M. D. State of the State 2013.
Salem, OR: Author. Retrieved April 20, 2013 from
http://www.oregon.gov/gov/media_room/Pages/speeches/StateoftheState2013.asx
The State of Oregon. (2013a). The Governor’s Budget & Message. Salem, OR: Author.
(January). Retrieved May 15, 2013 from
http://www.oregon.gov/gov/priorities/Documents/GBB_Complete.pdf
The State of Oregon. (2013b). The Recovery Act in Oregon. Salem, OR: Author.
Retrieved April 20, 2013, from
http://www.oregon.gov/recovery/page/arra_impact_ed.aspx
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 153

The White House. (2011). The State of the Union: Winning the Future. Washington DC:
Author. (January). Retrieved May 25, 2013 from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-th-union-2011
The White House. (2013a). Education: Knowledge and Skills for the Jobs of the Future.
Washington DC: Author. Retrieved May 25, 2013 from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/reform
The White House. (2013b). President Obama Calls for New Steps to Prepare America’s
Children for Success in College and Careers. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved
May 25, 2013 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-
calls-new-spets-prepare-america-s-childen-success-college-and-careers
The White House. (2013c). U.S. Government Spending: US Federal Budget Analyst –
Budget Estimated outlays. Washington DC: Author. (April). Retrieved May 25,
2013 from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_detail
University of Southern California. (2013). University of Southern California: The ABC’s
of the IRB Process for Student Investigators. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Retrieved on June 28, 2013 from
http://www.usc.edu/admin/oprs/private/docs/oprs/Stud_Res.pdf
US Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Employment outlook: 2010-2020 Occupational
employment projections to 2020. Washington, DC: Lockard, C. B., & Wolf, M.
(January). Retrieved May 27, 2013 from
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2012/01/art5full.pdf

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 154

US Chamber of Commerce. (2012). Help Wanted The Role of Foreign Workers in the
Innovation Economy. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved May 25, 2013 from
http://www/renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pneastem-reprot.pdf
US Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind. Washington DC: Author.
Retrieved April 20, 2013, from http://www.2ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.
US Department of Education. (2010). A Blueprint For Reform: The Reauthorization of
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved
April 20, 2013 from http://www.2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf
US Department of Education. (2011). Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Washington DC: Author. Retrieved April 20, 2013 from http://www.ed.gov/esea
US Department of Education. (2012a). Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Flexibility Request: OMB Number: 1810-0708. Washington DC: The State of
Oregon – Department of Education. (December). Retrieved April 20, 2013 from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/or.pdf
US Department of Education. (2012a). Definitions. Washington, DC: Author. (May).
US Department of Education. (2013a). High School Graduation Rate at Highest Level in
Three Decades. Washington DC: Author. Brenchley, C. (January). Retrieved May
5, 2013 from http://www.ed.gov/blog/2013/01/high-school-graduation-rate-at-
highest-level-in-three-decades/
US Department of Education. (2013b). Public Law print of PL 107-110. The No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved April 20, 2013 from
http://www2ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/eaes02/index.html
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 155

US Department of Education. (2013c). The Federal Role in Education Overview.
Washington DC: Author. Retrieved march 03, 2013 from
http://www.2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html
West Ed. (2000). From Equity to Adequacy: A policy brief. San Francisco, CA: Author:
Retrieved May 5, 2013 from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/po-00-03.pdf
Whilden, B. E. (2010). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act: A Primer on
Reauthorization in 2010. Federal Relations and Policy Analysis.
World Economic Forum. (2013). The Global Competitiveness Report. Geneva,
Switzerland: Author. Retrieved April 28, 2013 from
http://report.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2012-2013/#

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 156

Appendix A
Introductory Letter

Dear -----

I am a student in the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education
doctoral program and am involved in a thematic study on the literacy programs and
allocation of educational resources in light of the Common Core standards and
preparation for students to be college and career ready. I will be using Odden and Picus'
Adequacy Model (2009) as my frameworks some point in the future.

The reason for this letter is to request your help and aid in completing my thematic
study/dissertation through a short interview. Every interview used will be kept
completely confidential and pseudo-names will be used to adhere to the strict confidential
rules stipulated by USC. I would appreciate it if we could arrange either an interview in
person or a phone interview at some point in the future (preferably late December or
January) for a 15-20 minutes interview.

The purpose of my study is to:
 determine the role of an Oregon School District in the creation of literacy
programs in light of the Common Core State Standards and college and career
readiness
 collect literacy program implementation and evaluation strategies of an Oregon
School District
 analyze district and school site level data regarding the allocation of resources
related to the implementation and evaluation of literacy programs and Common
Core State Standards and college and career readiness

Currently, I have finished chapters 1-3 of my dissertation, and I have passed my
qualifying exam this past August. I would greatly appreciate your participation and
would very much like to learn more from you and your staff.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please contact me via email or call me at the
number listed below.

Sincerely,
Esther Cho
Title I Coordinator/Instructional Specialist
South Junior High School
Choes@usc.edu
714-722-7984
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 157

Appendix B

INFORMATION FACT SHEET FOR EXEMPTION NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

University of Southern California

Rossier School of Education

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON’S IMPLEMENTATION OF LITERACY AND
COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS: PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE
COLLEGE AND CAREER READY
You are invited to participate in a research study on the implementation of literacy
programs and Common Cores State Standards in Oregon school districts. This research
study will include only those individuals who volunteer to take part. You are advised to
read the information below and ask questions about the study at are unclear before
deciding whether to participate. After reading this consent form, if you decide to
participate, please sign the form and return it to me.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to examine how Districts in Oregon implements, monitors,
and allocates resources to support its literacy programs and Common Core State
Standards for students to be college and career ready by examining publicly available
achievement compacts, general district literacy implementations, and conducting follow-
up interviews with district and school leaders.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
All participants need to be willing participants in this study. You will be asked to
participate in an interview, which will take approximately 30-45 minutes. You are not
obligated to answer any questions that you are uncomfortable with and have the option to
opt out on any questions posed. The interview can be completed in person or over the
phone. The interview will be audio-taped to preserve the information gathered from the
interview. If you are not willing to participate in an audio-taped interview then the
interview will be captured through transcription. Follow-up interviews may be necessary
to gather more information. In addition to the interview session, documents will be
needed from each school site. The following documents can be sent electronically:
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 158

• The District Strategic Plan
• The District Budget
• The District Placement Criteria
• The School Site Master Schedule
• The School Mission & Vision Statement
• The School Plan for Student Achievement and/or Accreditation Plan
• The School Instructional/Curricular Map

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

There will be no payment/compensation given for participation in this survey.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION

There are no alternatives to participating in this study. In no way will your participation
effect your employment.

CONFIDENTIALITY

All information pertaining to this study will be kept and will remain confidential. Your
name, address or other identifiable information will not be collected throughout this
study. The responses captured during the interview process will be coded under pseudo
names. All data will be coded, stored, and secured in the property of the investigator.
Only the investigator will have access to the data. The audio-tapes will be destroyed once
transcription has occurred. You will have the right to review your audio-tape recording
upon request prior to its destruction. The chief investigator only will conduct
transcription, which is myself. All information will be maintained in a data-encryption
password protected computer system. The information will be kept for a finite amount of
time to be determined by the University of Southern California.

The members of the research team, and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and
monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

Principal Investigator: Esther Cho
email choes@usc.edu
phone (714) 722-7984

Faculty Advisor: Dr. Picus
email lpicus@usc.edu

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 159

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION

University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301,
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT

I understand the procedures described above, and I understand fully the rights of a
potential subject in a research study involving people as subjects. My questions have
been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study.

You can still participate in the research study if you do not wish to be audio-taped as part
of the research procedures.

 I agree to be audio recorded

 I do not want to be audio recorded

_______________________________________
Name of Subject

_______________________________________ ___________________
Signature of Subject Date

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 160

Appendix C

Document Request

Information requested from Districts and School Site during the 2013-2014 school year.

Achievement Compact
• Formalized strategic action plans outlined to guide and direct the School
Districts and site through the implementation of the education reform initiatives.
Class Matrix
• The master calendar that details staff members, grade assignment, and class size
ratio between teacher and students.
Consultants
• Districts may hire and utilize consultants that provides a variety of professional
development and services designed to train, teach, and model school districts
and school sites strategic action plans to prepare students to be college and
career ready. Any fee or budgetary amount that is reserved for consultants of
this nature should be indicated in the annual budget report.
• Districts may hire and utilize consultants that represent the district as a whole or
provide services directly to the district or the site locations that is not affiliated
with professional development services. Any fee or budgetary amount that is
reserved for consultants of this nature should be indicated in the annual budget
report.
Mission and Vision Statement
• The school mission and vision statements are considered to guide student
achievement.
Placement Criteria
• The established rules and procedures designed to ensure that students are placed
in the appropriate literacy programs based on each student individual ability
level.
• Placement criteria should be consistent across each district.

Professional Development
• An indication of the amount of funding that is provided to a research-based
program, service provider or instructional expert for the professional
development of any staff member, certificated, and classified, should be
indicated in the district and school sites’ annual budget report.
• An indication of the amount of funding that is provided to any member of the
staff, certificated, and classified, as a measure of compensation to attend the
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 161

professional development should be indicated in the district and school sites’
annual budget report.
• An indication of the amount of funding needed to provide transportation to and
from the professional development should be indicated in the district and school
sites’ annual budget report.
• An indication of the amount of instructional materials, equipment, and facility
usage required to conduct the professional development should be indicated in
the district and school sites’ annual budget report.
• An indication of the fees associated with the registration process, other
conference fees, and travel expenses to attend the professional development
should be indicated in the district and school sites’ annual budget report.
School Bell Schedule
• The bell schedule should include detailed instructional time, recess, lunch, and
passing period time for all regular, late start, assembly, and minimum day.
• The bell schedules indicate any reserved or banked time that is utilized for non-
instructional purposes.

School Calendar or Annual Schedule
• The school calendar or annual schedule will indicate the number of days of the
current school year.
• The school calendar or annual schedule will indicate any reserved or banked
allotment of time that is utilized for non-instructional purposes such as teacher in
service day.

School Plan for Student Achievement
• The school plan for student achievement can contain school goals aligned to
district strategic initiatives for student achievement. The document can contain
action, evidence, time frame, and budget information to help all stakeholders to
increase student achievement.

Student and Parent Handbook
• A documented student and parent handbook outlines all of the required and
pertinent information that needs to be transmitted annually to parents and
students. School handbooks can includes; activities, attendance, codes of
conduct, uniform complaint procedures, discipline or consequences, grading
information, resources, school and district policies.
Substitutes
• Substitutes are available in the event of a staff member being absent from work
for personal/professional needs.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 162

• The rate of pay, both all day and half day, for a substitute should be indicated in
the annual budget report.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 163

Appendix D
Open-ended Data Collection Protocol
School Site

The protocol used at the school site is comprised of open-ended questions intended to
capture the degree to which each school has implemented and developed Literacy for the
Common Core standards and STEM programs for college and career readiness. The
questions were asked in the order that they appear and this questioning technique was
replicated exactly without deviation for each school site involved in the research study.
The principal’s answers were recorded and later transcribed to document the interview
process.

Curriculum & Instructional Inquiry:
1. What is your current focus on Literacy and STEM or Literacy and STEAM
education?
2. How is Literacy and STEM education addressed in the achievement compact?
3. In what areas are you currently expanding?
4. What positive gains or outcomes have you witnessed?
5. What negative drawbacks have surfaces?
6. How has technology played a role in this endeavor?
7. What areas are in need of assistance?
8. Working toward the goals in the achievement compacts, what changes in curricula
are needed or have been observed?
9. How has instruction changed?
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 164

Training & Professional Development:
1. How have you addressed and informed stakeholders during informational
meetings?
2. How are teacher trained and how do you know that the training is being
implemented?
3. What type of leadership training was provided?
Assessment, Intervention & Evaluation:
1. What is the level of support from the district, staff and parents?
2. What process have you developed to assess the master schedule and Literacy and
Stem program?
3. What assessments are used to determine program effectiveness and how often are
they implemented? How do you use the data to inform practice?
4. What interventions do you provide for struggling students?
5. How does the district assess the progress and success of the programs and sites?
6. How do you monitor or evaluate the progress of Literacy and STEM programs?
Resources:
1. What is the current class size?
2. What is the current schedule for professional development, PLC time and
department time?
3. Do you have instructional coaches, facilitators or district led content mentors?
4. What resource needs do you have that are not being met?
5. What resources do you have that have provided assistance?

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 165

Appendix E
Depths of Knowledge Levels

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 166

Appendix F
Depths of Knowledge Question Stems

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 167

Appendix G

Hess’s Cognitive Rigor Metric and Curricular Examples

Math and Science

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 168

Appendix H

Hess’s Cognitive Rigor Metric and Curricular Examples

Reading

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 169

Appendix I

Descriptors of Depths of Levels for

Social Studies 1 of 3

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 170

Appendix J

Descriptors of Depths of Levels for

Social Studies 2 of 3

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 171

Appendix K

Descriptors of Depths of Levels for

Social Studies 3 of 3

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 172

Appendix L

P21 Framework for 21st Century Learning

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 173

Appendix M

P21 Skills

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 174

Appendix N: Case Study

School A Background

School A is one of the 33 traditional elementary schools in District A. School A’s
enrollment is 622 students, which is comprised of grades K-5. Approximately 10% of the
student population qualify for free or reduced lunch. The student demographics in table
N.1 show 35% of students of color, the largest minority student group is Asian American.
School A is an International Baccalaureate (IB) school that offers diverse and advanced
programs that are aligned with IB framework and vision. Table N.2 lists School A’s state
test scores for various grade levels and content areas in comparison with the district and
state’s test score percentages.

Table N.1: School A Demographics 2012-2013

Table N.2: School A’s State Test Score 2013
Test School District State
Grade 3 Reading* 92% 73% 66%
Grade 3 Math* 95% 73% 61%
Grade 4 Reading* 95% 77% 73%
School Year Enrollment
American Indian 0.80%
Asian or Pacific Islander 18.30%
Black 1.00%
Hispanic 6.00%
White 65.00%
Other 9.00%
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 175

Grade 4 Math* 90% 75% 64%
Grade 4 Writing** - - -
Grade 5 Reading* 91% 74% 68%
Grade 5 Math* 91% 70% 58%
Grade 5 Science* 91% 75% 67%

Note. *Math standards for grades 3-8 were raised for the 2011 test year; reading
standards for grades 3-8 and science standards for all grades were raised for the 2012 test
year. **Writing tests for grades 4 and 7 were canceled for the 2012 and 2013 test years.

According to School A’s 2013-2014 school improvement plan, the OAKS
percentage of all students meeting and exceeding benchmark will be 90% or higher in 3-5
grades. And 85% of all students will meet their growth targets in grades 4 and 5. The
combined median growth percentile for economically disadvantaged students will
increase from 55% to 65% in reading and 68% to 75% in mathematics. The combined
median growth percentile for Special Education Learners will increase from 55% to 60%
in reading and 65% to 70% in math.
The instructional focus in mathematics is aligned to the district’s goal for the
2013-14 school year in a Standards Based Learning System. School A will support that
focus on mathematics. All classroom teachers, ESL, and our Special Education teacher,
along with the principal, will share and develop skills and strategies to support the two
subgroups aforementioned in the area of math with response to intervention process for
mathematics.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 176

The following three learning strategies will be implemented school wide:
1. Creating inclusive classrooms where teachers are intentional about creating
inclusive classrooms to ensure that students feel safe and are able to take risks in
their learning. Staff members will have deliberate conversations and reflection on
the needs of all learners in the classroom in addition to creating safe learning
environments where all learners can grow academically.
2. Implementing standards-based learning system where teachers are committed
to implementing and supporting learning targets to provide a guaranteed and
viable curriculum across the grade levels. School A is in the process of
developing common assessments aligned to math long term and supporting
learning targets. In addition, the staff is engaging in standards-based grading and
reporting.
3. Designing learning teams where teachers participate in learning teams twice per
month. School A is committed to the development of meaningful teams that focus
collaborative conversations on action research, with the primary focus of
improving classroom instruction. Learning teams provide teachers the structure to
ensure they are implementing a guaranteed and viable curriculum, develop and
utilize common assessments, as well as plan for intervention and extension
strategies to meet the learning needs of all students. School A’s definition of
successful learning teams are those that collaboratively reflect on instruction,
adapt instruction to meet the needs of all learners, analyze student learning,
develop and utilize common assessments, plan, as well as share personal practice.

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 177

School A students and staff can also benefit from various programs to enrich learning
opportunities and environment. In Table N.3, various school and community
organizations are available for all stakeholders to participate to enrich and extend
learning beyond the classroom.

Table N.3. School and Community Organizations
Sponsored programs  After School Programs
 Art Literacy
 Artist in Residence
 School A Trail Club
 Community Garden
 Community Outreach
 Earth Sustainability
 Friends of the Library
 Geography Club
 Oregon Battle of the Books
 Outdoor School
 Primary Years Programme
 Production Team
 Science Classes
 Staff Appreciation
 Student Directory
 Teacher Grants
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 178

 Visiting Author
 Yearbook
 Website
Sponsored Events  Art Fair
 Back to School Picnic
 Carnival
 Monster Mash
 Science Fair
Teacher Support  Classroom coordinator
 Classroom volunteer
 Party coordinator
 Party helper
 Production volunteer
 Volunteer at home
Fundraisers  Write a Check
 Jog a Thon
 Scrip & eScrip Programs
 Box Tops for Education

School A offers a variety school and community organizations. These
organizations and opportunities help students to be well-rounded learners. These deeper
learning philosophies are reflected in a required exhibition that students have to complete
in 5th grade as a culminating project.
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 179

Table N.4: Primary Years Programme Exhibit Explanation and Purpose
PYP
Exhibition

The
PYP
Exhibition
represents
a
significant
event
in
the
life
of
a
PYP
school
and

student,
synthesizing
the
essential
elements
of
the
PYP
and
sharing
them
with
the

whole
school
community.
As
a
culminating
experience,
it
is
an
opportunity
for

students
to
exhibit
the
attributes
of
the
student
profile
that
have
been
developing

throughout
their
engagement
with
the
PYP.

In
the
final
year
of
the
PYP,
there
are
five
units
of
inquiry
and
the
Exhibition.
The

Exhibition
unit
takes
place
under
any
organizing
them
at
the
discretion
of
the

school.
Students
are
required
to
engage
in
a
collaborative,
transdisciplinary
inquiry

process
that
involves
them
in
identifying,
investigating,
and
offering
solutions
to

real-‐life
issues
or
problems.
The
central
idea
selected
must
be
a
sufficient
scope
and

significance
to
warrant
a
detailed
investigation
by
all
students.

The
PYP
Exhibition
has
a
number
of
key
purposes:

 Students
to
engage
in
an
in-‐depth,
collaborative
inquiry

 Provide
students
with
an
opportunity
to
demonstrate
independence
and

responsibility
for
their
own
learning

 Provide
students
with
opportunity
to
explore
multiple
perspectives

 Students
to
synthesize
and
apply
their
learning
from
previous
years
and
to

PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 180

reflect
upon
their
journey
throughout
the
PYP

 Provide
an
authentic
process
for
assessing
student
understanding

 Demonstrate
how
students
can
take
action
as
a
result
of
learning

 Unite
students,
teacher,
parents
and
the
outside
community
in
a

collaborative
experience
that
incorporates
the
essential
elements
of
the
PYP

 Celebrate
the
transition
from
primary
to
middle
school

Note. PYP criteria. Adapted without permission.

The exhibitions allow students to plan, think critically, and design their capstone.
In addition, students have to use literary, communication, and technical skills to complete
this task. This system of assessment approach widens the array of measurement
instruments and approaches for students to increase ownership of their work. A system of
assessments such as student profiles or capstones can capture students’ college and career
readiness because it is a comprehensive portrait and evaluation of student performance.
A student profile or capstone can be comprised of multiple grade levels, multiple
disciplines, and state accountability measurements as a holistic system of evaluation for
real world application.
According to Conley (2013), the key indicators of deeper learning allows students to:
 Excel in scientific inquiry
 Generate new solutions to old problems
 Create and manage self-directed teams that work with a high degree of
independence to design original solutions to complex problems
 Are not afraid to make up their own rules and figure out how to take on
ambiguous tasks
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 181

Deep learning can occur with thoughtful integration of a wider range of teaching and
learning activities. Project based learning (PBL) teaching methods allow students to gain
knowledge and skills in the extended thinking zone in Bloom’s Taxonomy and DOK.
PBL essential elements include:
School A is using PBL and the habits of mind to help students to critically think,
take ownership, use technology to research, and communicate their findings. Tables N.5
and N.6 list essential elements that are required for students to complete their exhibition.

Table N.5: Project Based Learning Essential Elements

Significant Content

At its core, the project is focused on
teaching students important knowledge and
skills, derived from standards and key
concepts at the heart of academic subjects.

21st century competencies

Students build competencies valuable for
today’s world, such as problem solving,
critical thinking/problem solving,
collaboration, communication, and
creativity/innovation, which are explicitly
taught and assessed.

In-Depth Inquiry

Students are engaged in an extended,
rigorous process of asking questions, using
resources, and developing answers.

Driving Question

Project work is focused by an open-ended
question that students understand and find
intriguing, which captures their task or
frames their exploration.

Need to Know

Students see the need to gain knowledge,
understand concepts, and apply skills in
order to answer the Driving Question and
create project products, beginning with an
Entry Event that generates interest and
curiosity.
Voice and Choice Students are allowed to make some choices
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 182

about the products to be created, how they
work, and how they use their time, guided
by the teacher and depending on age level
and PBL experience.

Critique and Revision

The project includes processes for students
to give and receive feedback on the quality
of their work, leading them to make
revisions or conduct further inquiry.

Public Audience

Students present their work to other people,
beyond their classmates and teacher.

Adapted from http://bie.org

Table N.6: Habits of Mind identified by Costa and Kallick

Habits of Mind

 Persisting
 Thinking and communicating with
clarity and precision
 Managing impulsivity
 Gathering data through all senses
 Listening with understanding and
empathy
 Creating, imagining, innovating
 Thinking flexibly
 Responding with wonderment and
awe
 Thinking about thinking
(metacognition)
 Taking responsible risks
PREPARING STUDENTS TO BE COLLEGE AND CAREER READY 183

 Striving for accuracy
 Finding humor
 Questioning and posing problems
 Thinking interdependently
 Applying past knowledge to new
situations
 Remaining open to continuous
learning

School A’s exhibition provides students opportunities for deeper learning and
integrates the habits of mind. These learning opportunities from primary grades equip
students to become critical thinkers, problem solvers, and effective communicators.
School A endeavors to prepares students to be college and career ready in the 21st
century.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine two districts’ implementation and evaluation of literacy programs in connection to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) to prepare students to be college and career ready. CCSS has been adopted by 46 states nationwide to prepare students for college and careers. The State of Oregon has sought to cultivate young Oregonians to become 21st global leaders by creating an achievement compact across many school districts. A series of Oregon educational reform initiatives have been aligned with the achievement compacts endeavor to achieve the 40/40/20 goal. The aim of this study is to examine the implementation of literacy and CCSS in the pursuit of preparing students to be college and career ready in the Oregon Public School system. ❧ Governor Kitzhaber, the Oregon Educational Investment Board (OEIB), and the Educational Funding Team (EFT) have developed a comprehensive funding and accountability plan to support the implementation of statewide educational reform to foster productive citizenry through a rigorous educational system. The implementation of literacy and beginning stages of CCSS, and resource allocations were examined through the Evidence‐Based Model (EBM) for educational adequacy. ❧ Four themes emerged from the findings: (a) the Common Core connection to college and career readiness, (b) the need to provide students opportunities for deeper learning and foster ownership of learning to prepare them for college and career, (c) the need for effective systems of assessments and evaluation to ensure success for all students to be successful (d) the need for effective resource allocation to execute educational reform. ❧ This study validated the conclusion that it is critical for all stakeholders to prepare students for college and career readiness with strong foundations in literacy, effective deeper learning strategies, comprehensive evaluation system, and resources which are all essential elements confirmed by research. It is important for a state education system to prioritize and align its goals by providing effective systems of implementation, evaluation, and resources to live out its endeavors. The proper alignment can prepare students to be college and career ready as global competitors in the 21st century.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

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

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

PDF

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

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 special education accountability, goal setting, and reform

PDF

Analysis of STEM programs in Oregon public high schools

PDF

The role of district administrators in developing career technical education programs to assist students in becoming college- and career-ready

PDF

The formation and implementation of a regional achievement collaborative

PDF

Instructional leadership: the practices employed by elementary school principals to lead the Common Core State Standards and 21st century learning skills

PDF

The allocation of resources for career technical education programs that improve college and career readiness

PDF

The role of superintendents and district administrators in developing career technical education programs to assist students in becoming college‐ and career‐ready

PDF

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

PDF

Common Core State Standards: implementation decisions made by middle school English language arts teachers

PDF

A case study of the instructional leader's role in leading change: preparing for the implementation of Common Core State Standards in elementary schools

PDF

Providing parents the necessary resources to comprehend the common core state standards: a guide for schools

PDF

Creating changemakers: integrating social innovation and service-learning to empower student voice and bolster college, career, and civic readiness

PDF

Shifting educator’s paradigm from the practice of implementing standards based learning and assessments to project based learning and assessments for the Common Core State Standards

PDF

Assessing college and career readiness through the Senior Project program

PDF

Common Core implementation: decisions made by Southern California superintendents of unified school districts

Asset Metadata

Creator Cho, Esther So Jung Kim (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/19/2014

Defense Date 05/13/2014

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

Tag career,college,common core,Literacy,OAI-PMH Harvest,readiness

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 esthersojungkim@ucla.edu,misskim115@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-463214

Unique identifier UC11286796

Identifier etd-ChoEstherS-2831.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-463214 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ChoEstherS-2831.pdf

Dmrecord 463214

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Cho, Esther So Jung Kim

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