University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: case studies of five California schools

(USC Thesis Other)

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: case studies of five California schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

ALLOCATION OF EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO
IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
CASE STUDIES OF FIVE CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

by
James M. Elsasser, Jr.

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

May 2011

Copyright 2011 James M. Elsasser, Jr.
ii

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Lori, whose support and love
throughout the years has made this possible. I also dedicate this dissertation to my three
children, Corey, Brooke, and Nicholas. Thank you all for your patience and
understanding as I’ve worked toward this goal. I love you all very much.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to Dr. Larry Picus for serving
as the chair of my dissertation committee and spending countless hours reading drafts of
my work. You served as an outstanding mentor and guide and provided invaluable
suggestions and directions throughout this process. I would like to thank Dr. Guilbert
Hentschke and Dr. John Nelson for agreeing to serve on my dissertation committee and
for sacrificing your personal time to read my dissertation and offer professional expertise.
I would also like to thank the members of my cohort and dissertation group. It
has been a blessing working with each and every one of you. Finally, I would like to
express my sincere appreciation to my parents for instilling in me the value of education
and the importance of working hard to reach my goals.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
ABSTRACT x
CHAPTER ONE – OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of the Study 6
Research Questions 7
Importance of the Study 8
Summary of Methodology 8
Limitations 10
Delimitations 11
Assumptions 11
Definition of Terms 12
Dissertation Organization 16
CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW 17
Introduction 17
Federal Government’s Role in School Finance 18
California School Finance 19
Resource Allocation 30
Educational Adequacy 43
Instructional Improvement 57
Summary 65
CHAPTER THREE – METHODS 66
Introduction 66
Research Questions 67
Purposeful Sample and Population 68
Identifying Schools 68
Instrumentation and Data Collection 73
Data Analysis 75
Summary 76
v

CHAPTER FOUR – FINDINGS 77
Introduction 77
Summary of Sample Schools’ Characteristics and Performance 78
Achievement Data 80
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Strategies 92
Resource Allocation 118
Impact of Current Funding Crisis 121
Conclusion 123
CHAPTER FIVE – DISCUSSION 126
Background 126
Overview of the Study 126
Summary of Findings 127
Limitations 133
Recommendations for Future Research 134
Conclusion 135
REFERENCES 140
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN STUDY 148
APPENDIX B – DOCUMENT REQUEST LIST 150
APPENDIX C – SCHOOL VISIT/PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW DATES 153
APPENDIX D – LIST OF DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY SCHOOLS 154
APPENDIX E – DATA COLLECTION CODEBOOK 155
APPENDIX F – OPEN-ENDED DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL 167
APPENDIX G – DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL 170
APPENDIX H – CASE STUDY: WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 181
Background on School and District 181
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 186
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 197
Summary and Lessons Learned 199
Future Considerations 200
vi

APPENDIX I – CASE STUDY: LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 201
Background on School and District 201
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 206
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 216
Summary and Lessons Learned 218
Future Considerations 219
APPENDIX J – CASE STUDY: KENNEDY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 220
Background on School and District 220
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 226
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 239
Summary and Lessons Learned 241
Future Considerations 241
APPENDIX K – CASE STUDY: REAGAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 243
Background on School and District 243
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 249
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 264
Summary and Lessons Learned 266
Future Considerations 266
APPENDIX L – CASE STUDY: BUSH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 268
Background on School and District 268
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 273
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 282
Summary and Lessons Learned 284
Future Considerations 285
APPENDIX M – INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL 286

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Tax Rates and Expenditure Levels in Selected Counties (1968-1969) 22
Table 2.2: Estimated Tax Reductions to LEAs under Proposition 13 25
Table 2.3: Evidence-Based Model Suggestions for Prototypical Elementary Schools 56
Table 3.1: School Sample Demographics 69
Table 3.2: 2008 – 2010 API Scores 70
Table 3.3: Adequate Yearly Progress and Program Improvement 72
Table 3.4: School Expenditure Structure 74
Table 4.1: Enrollment of Sample Schools and Districts 78
Table 4.2: Statewide Ranking & Similar School Ranking of Sample Schools 82
Table 4.3: Implementation Level of Odden & Archibald’s (2009) Strategies 117
Table 4.4: Class Size at Sample Schools Compared to EBM 118
Table 4.5: Schools’ Resource Allocation Comparison to EBM 120
Table W.1: Washington and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 196
Table W.2: Washington and Evidence-Based Resource Use Comparison 197
Table L.1: Lincoln and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 215
Table L.2: Lincoln and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison 216
Table K.1: Kennedy and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 238
Table K.2: Kennedy and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison 239
Table R.1: Reagan and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 263
Table R.2: Reagan and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison 264
Table B.1: Bush and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 281
Table B.2: Bush and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison 282
viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators 38
Figure 2.2: The Evidence-Based Model 55
Figure 4.1: Ethnic Composition of Sample Schools 79
Figure 4.2: Percentage of SED and EL Students at Sample Schools 80
Figure 4.3: API Five Year Change in Sample Schools 81
Figure 4.4: Students Proficient School Wide on English Language Arts AYP 83
Figure 4.5: English Language Arts AYP for Hispanic Students 85
Figure 4.6: English Language Arts AYP for English Learners 86
Figure 4.7: English Language Arts AYP for SED Students 87
Figure 4.8: Students Proficient School Wide on Mathematics AYP 88
Figure 4.9: Mathematics AYP for Hispanic Students 89
Figure 4.10: Mathematics AYP for English Learners 90
Figure 4.11: Mathematics AYP for SED Students 91
Figure W.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Washington School 182
Figure W.2: Washington School’s API 183
Figure W.3: Washington School ELA AYP – Percent & Advanced 184
Figure W.4: Math AYP for Washington School 186
Figure L.1 Ethnic Breakdown of Lincoln School 202
Figure L.2 Lincoln School’s API 203
Figure L.3 Language Arts AYP for Lincoln School 204
Figure L.4: Math AYP for Lincoln School 206
Figure K.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Kennedy School 221
ix

Figure K.2: Kennedy School’s API 222
Figure K.3 Language Arts AYP for Kennedy School 224
Figure K.4: Mathematics AYP for Kennedy School 225
Figure R.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Reagan School 244
Figure R.2: Reagan School’s API 245
Figure R.3: Language Arts AYP for Reagan School 247
Figure R.4: Mathematics AYP for Reagan School 249
Figure B.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Bush School 269
Figure B.2: Bush School’s API 270
Figure B.3: Language Arts AYP for Bush School 271
Figure B.4: Math AYP for Bush School 273

x

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze school level data related to
the allocation of resources, and to determine how those resources are used to increase
student achievement. The study was based on an analysis of five elementary schools
with similar demographics and challenges located throughout two counties in Southern
California. All the schools studied were Title I, non-charter public schools with student
populations that were at least 50% Hispanic, 42% English learners, and over 75%
socioeconomically disadvantaged.
In reviewing the level to which each of the schools is implementing Odden and
Archibald's (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance, the three successful
schools were found to be implementing – at least to some degree – all of Odden and
Archibald's (2009) strategies. The three successful schools were all found to have a
strong understanding of the performance problem and challenge. The principal and
instructional leadership teams at each successful school have created a new instructional
vision. Each school's vision has included setting high expectations and ambitious goals
for all students. All three successful schools have also implemented a strategic
professional development plan that focuses on best instructional practices.
Although the sample schools in this study did not have access to the level of
resources suggested by the Evidence-Based Model (EBM), many of the strategies in the
EBM were found to improve student achievement, even when not funded at levels
suggested by the EBM.
1

CHAPTER ONE – OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
California has more residents and students than any other state in the nation
(EdSource, 2008). In 2007-08, 6,343,471 students attended California public schools,
nearly 2 million more students than in Texas, the next largest state. Nearly half of
California’s students are enrolled in schools within four counties in Southern California:
Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and San Bernardino (EdSource, 2010a). The National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported that in 2005-06, student ethnicity in
California was as follows: White – 31%; Native American – 1%; Latino – 49%;
Asian/Pacific Islander – 12%; and African American – 8%. Approximately 44% of
children in California ages five to 17 speak a language other than English at home, the
highest of any state, and 10 percent above the next highest state, Texas. California has
nearly 28% of all of the country’s children who speak a language other than English at
home.
According to NCES data, 10% of the students across the United States are
classified as English learners (EdSource, 2008). Approximately 25% of California’s
public school students are classified as English learners, which is 5% higher than the
next-highest state, New Mexico. California English learners account for 37% of the total
English learner population in the nation.
Nearly 50% of California students are classified as socioeconomically
disadvantaged, which in some definitions would be considered impoverished (EdSource,
2

2010a). One measure used to identify families living in poverty is based on students who
participate in the National School Lunch Program. This program provides free and
reduced-price meals to nearly 50% of California students based on their family income.
A second measure used to identify families living in poverty is parent education levels.
Nearly 25% of students in California live with a parent considered head of the household
who did not graduate from high school. This percentage was the highest in the nation in
2006 (EdSource 2010a). While the student demographics in California and across this
nation have included more diversification over the last century, it wasn’t until the 1960s
that education for all students, regardless of ethnicity or socioeconomic status became a
priority.
In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson created the 1965 Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) as a commitment to equal access to education for all students.
ESEA has been reauthorized numerous times over the years. The most recent
reauthorization came from President George W. Bush and was entitled the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002. NCLB created a system to hold states and school districts
accountable for ensuring that all students become proficient in English language arts and
mathematics by spring 2014. A primary reason the United States Department of
Education developed NCLB was because standardized test results show a nationwide
trend where white students outperform minority students, socioeconomically
disadvantaged students, English learners, and students with special needs; therefore
creating an achievement gap (EdSource, 2008). As a result of NCLB, local education
agencies (LEAs) and schools are required to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
3

targets for the entire student population, as well as for students in each significant
subgroup. These targets started out low in 2001 (12% proficient or advanced in English-
language arts and 12.8% proficient or advanced in mathematics) and increased
significantly until all students are required to be proficient by 2014. California utilizes
the results from the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program to determine
whether or not students have attained proficiency. In the event that the entire student
population or any significant subgroup does not meet the annual AYP benchmark in ELA
and/or mathematics for two consecutive years, the school enters into Program
Improvement (PI), a status which requires schools to develop an improvement plan and
has potential consequences if future benchmarks are not met (California Department of
Education, 2009c).
At a time when accountability for increasing student achievement for all students
is greater than ever before, schools in California as well as other states across the nation
are facing unprecedented budget reductions due to a nation-wide recession. Economists
have reported that Americans have not experienced a recession of this magnitude since
the Great Depression in the 1920s. Before exploring current budget reductions to
educational funding and the effects that these reductions are having on California
schools, a brief review of the history of educational funding in California is in order.
Since 1968, California's school finance system has been shaped by a variety of
laws, court decisions, and ballot measures (EdSource, 2010e). The three most significant
events were: the Serrano v. Priest court decision in 1971; the passage of Proposition 13
in 1978; and the passage of Proposition 98 in 1988. Prior to the Serrano v. Priest court
4

decision, 60% of school funding came from local property taxes, 30% from state
revenues; and the remaining five percent from federal sources (Timar, 2004). That
funding structure created discrepancies in the quality of education students received
because it resulted in schools within affluent areas receiving more funding than schools
located in poor communities. As a result of these inequities, the Serrano v. Priest lawsuit
was settled in 1971 and included revenue limits for school funding which balanced the
amount of funding LEAs received. In 1978, Proposition 13 passed and a property tax
rate of one percent of the assessed value was set. This voter-approved initiative
significantly reduced the amount of revenue that LEAs could receive from property taxes.
Finally, the current structure of school financing in California came as a result of the
passage of Proposition 98 in 1988, which guarantees that approximately 50% of
California’s general fund be designated to funding education (EdSource, 2009).
Although 50% of California’s general funds are supposed to be designated to
funding education, there has been a large budget deficit that has significantly reduced
funding to school districts over the past two years. In an effort to offer assistance to
LEAs and schools across the nation during this economic recession, President Obama and
the federal government created the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
The ARRA provided more than $100 billion dollars nationally, with California receiving
nearly $8 billion (EdSource, 2010c). The Act provided substantial one-time funds to help
struggling states and created competitive programs designed to encourage reform.
However, as ARRA funds are being depleted, and with California continuing to deal with
a large budget deficit, educators are forced to examine their diminishing resources and
5

make critical decisions regarding what will continue to be funded in order to maximize
student achievement. As educators attempt to make these decisions, it is important that
the research on educational adequacy is reviewed.
Educational adequacy funding is defined as the level of funding that would allow
each LEA to provide a range of instructional strategies and educational programs so that
each student is afforded an equal opportunity to achieve to the state’s education
performance standards (Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden & Picus, 2008). The attention
on necessary funding to provide an adequate education, together with high-stakes
accountability to raise student achievement has resulted in a significant increase in
adequacy studies on the amount of funding that is actually needed to provide students
with a meaningful and adequate education (Rebell, 2007).
Odden (2003) summarizes the four adequacy models currently used to determine
adequate levels of expenditures. The first model is the Successful Schools Model, which
identifies schools that have been successful in achieving student outcomes and
establishes the adequacy level at the weighted average of the expenditure per pupil in
those districts. The second model is the Cost Function Model, which uses advanced
statistical methods to estimate how much a district needs to spend compared to the
average district to ensure students perform to a predetermined level. The Professional
Judgment Model is the third model. This approach relies on the input of educational
professionals, either through focus groups or surveying educational experts to identify
effective educational strategies for students at all grade levels, including students with
special needs, and assigning a cost to each strategy. Finally, the Evidence-Based Model
6

identifies a set of research based strategies that are required to deliver a high quality,
comprehensive instructional program for all students and assigns a cost to each strategy.
Odden and Picus (2008) have developed an Evidence-Based Model that outlines their
suggestions for adequate school resources and that model will be used as a framework
throughout this study.
Statement of the Problem
NCLB has increased accountability which requires LEAs and schools to
demonstrate continual increases in student achievement for all students at a time when
the student population in California has become increasingly diversified. As AYP
benchmarks continue to increase toward the goal that all students will be proficient in
ELA and mathematics within the next three years, California schools are facing
tremendous budget reductions which will directly impact the services and programs
schools can afford to offer. As educational leaders are faced with the daunting task of
determining which services and programs should be cut, a study of schools utilizing the
Evidence-Based Model by Odden and Picus (2008) is timely and appropriate. It is
important to understand how schools are aligning their diminished resources to support
student achievement, while at the same time studying the research on best instructional
practices to increase achievement.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is two-fold: 1) to collect and analyze school level data
related to the allocation of resources and determine how those resources are used to
increase student achievement; and 2) to consult the research on best instructional
7

practices for increasing student achievement. Five elementary schools in Southern
California were selected to participate in this study based on similar student
demographics. All five schools are in the same Similar School Report produced by the
California Department of Education (CDE). While all five schools have a student
population that is at least 50% Hispanic, at least 42% English learners, and over 75%
socioeconomically disadvantaged, their student achievement as measured by the
Academic Performance Index (API) varied from a 50 point gain to a 47 point decline
between 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. The researcher used the Evidence-Based Model by
Odden and Picus (2008) as a framework, while analyzing school-level resources to
determine whether or not these five schools have aligned their resources to support
student achievement.
Odden and Archibald (2009) have studied schools and districts throughout the
nation that have doubled student performance and found that there were a similar set of
10 strategies found in these schools. The framework by Odden and Archibald (2009) was
also used to determine which strategies the five schools are implementing in an effort to
support and increase student achievement at their respective sites. The data from this
study will provide educators with an understanding of school level resource use and
which resource allocation patterns have implications for improved outcomes.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study are:
 What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?
8

 How are resources at the school and district used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?
 How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in response to
the recent budget adjustments, including overall funding reductions and changes
in the use of categorical funds?
 How are the actual resource-use patterns at the school sites aligned with, or
different from, the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based or other
Model?
Importance of the Study
Analyzing the use of school-level resources is necessary now more than ever. At
a time when school resources are becoming more and more scarce, educational leaders
are forced to make choices in how they distribute and efficiently use resources to support,
maintain, and increase student achievement. McEwan and McEwan (2003) devote an
entire chapter of their book to the importance of addressing costs and asking whether the
resources educational leaders devote to programs and practices are worthwhile. It is
critical that school and district leaders consult the research on which strategies are most
effective for increasing student achievement and meeting the needs of a very diverse
group of students. The Evidence-Based Model developed by Odden and Picus (2008)
offers leaders and researchers a framework to analyze such data.
Summary of Methodology
This study provides a detailed analysis of how resource allocation at the school
level is used to support student achievement. As a result, a purposeful sample of five
9

elementary schools was selected to participate in this study. Schools were selected based
on the CDE’s Similar Schools Report. While all schools that participated had similar
student demographics, the API growth experienced by the five schools between 2008 and
2009 varied from a 50 point increase to a 47 point decline. Their Similar Schools ranking
from one to 10, with 10 considered high, also varied from a score of two to nine.
The data collected was derived from DataQuest, which is a statistical search
engine created and maintained by the CDE’s Policy and Evaluation Division. This search
engine is the primary resource used by public school districts in California, as well as
parents and other members of the public to review all components of Accountability
Progress Reporting (APR). All reports generated from DataQuest are part of the 2008-
2009 APR, which is based on the 2009 administration of the STAR program.
The researcher who conducted this study participated in a one-day training
session in March 2010. During this training, the researcher received data collection
protocols and codebooks as well as comprehensive instruction in their use.
Each school visit consisted of an interview with the school principal and a follow
up phone interview to clarify information that was missing or incomplete. Documents
including each school’s Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA), School
Accountability Report Card (SARC), mission and vision statements, budget, master
schedule, and staff roster were obtained from the school’s website or during the course of
the interview with the principal. Quantitative school resource data was collected,
uploaded into a password protected on-line database, and compared to the level of
resources the Evidence-Based Model would suggest for each school. Qualitative data
10

was collected and used to create an in-depth case study of each school that describes how
each school uses its resources to support student achievement. Each case study was
analyzed in an effort to make comparisons regarding the differences and similarities in
resources used across all five schools, and to identify how each school’s resource use is
aligned to the best practices detailed in the Evidence-Based Model. Qualitative data was
also collected and used to analyze whether or not each school has implemented any or all
of Odden and Archibald’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance and
the degree to which each strategy is being implemented.
Limitations
The following limitations are present in the study:
 Due to the size of the sample, the findings may not be generalized to other schools
and student populations, especially those with different student demographics.
 The method of data collection was based upon a structured and semistructured
interview process, with the possibility that the results may be subjective.
 The information gathered from the interview was derived from the perceptions of
the five principals surveyed and who might not have constituted a representative
sample of all other principals.
 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was enacted in February
2009. School districts across the nation received one-time additional federal
funding that will be required to be spent by September 30, 2010. The outcome of
this study may be skewed as a result of the various ways in which districts and
schools chose to spend the additional one-time dollars.
11

Delimitations
The following delimitations are present in the study:
 Principals selected for this study were restricted to those who had been assigned
to an elementary school within the Similar Schools Report produced by the CDE.
 The study was directed to the elementary school level within two counties in
Southern California. Five of those elementary schools were selected based on the
following similar student demographics: 1) at least 50% Hispanic population; 2)
at least 42% identified as English learners; and 3) at least 75 % of students
identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED).
 The study focused on resource allocation for the 2009-2010 school year only.
Assumptions
The following assumptions are made in this study:
 The methods and procedures chosen for this study are appropriate for the subject
of the study.
 The principals interviewed in this study were honest and candid in their
responses.
 All school documents and existing data collected and analyzed from each school
and district were assumed to be complete, accurate, and reflective of how
resources are allocated to support the current instructional practices at each school
site.
12

Definition of Terms
 Academic Performance Index (API): The API is a single number, ranging from a
low of 200 to a high of 1000, that reflects a performance level of a LEA, a school,
or a subgroup based on results of the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)
program. Its purpose is to measure the academic performance and growth of
schools (California Department of Education, 2009a).
 Accountability Progress Reporting (APR): California's integrated accountability
system that reports the state Academic Performance Index (API), the federal
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Program Improvement (PI) (California
Department of Education, 2009b).
 Achievement Gap: A difference in scores on student achievement tests between
groups of students.
 Adequacy: Framed and interpreted within each individual state constitution,
adequate educational funding is defined as the level of funding that would allow
each LEA to provide a range of instructional strategies and educational programs
so that each student is afforded an equal opportunity to achieve to the state’s
education performance standards (Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden & Picus,
2008).
 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): AYP is a series of annual academic
performance goals established for each school, LEA, and the state as a whole.
Schools, LEAs, and the state are determined to have met AYP if they meet or
exceed each year’s goals (California Department of Education, 2009b).
13

 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA): Also known as the federal
stimulus package, President Obama and Congress passed the ARRA to provide
more than $100 billion to education, with California receiving nearly $8 billion
(EdSource, 2010c).
 Average Daily Attendance (ADA): The number of students present on each school
day throughout the year, divided by the total number of school days in a year
(EdSource, 2010d).
 Base Revenue Limit (BRL): The amount of general purpose funding per ADA that
a LEA receives in state aid and local property taxes to pay for the basic cost of
educating a student regardless of special classifications or categories (EdSource,
2009). In California the base revenue limit equals the state aid to the LEA plus
local property tax collected by the LEA (Timar, 2006).
 California Standards Tests (CSTs): A series of tests that measure students’
achievement of California’s content standards in the areas of English-language
arts, mathematics, science, and history-social sciences (California Department of
Education, 2009d).
 Categorical Funds: Federal and state funds allocated for specific students and
programs.
 Discretionary Funds: Unrestricted funds provided by the state to be used for the
daily operations of LEAs. Funding is provided to LEAs based on ADA.
 Equity: Within education, the term is used to measure horizontal equity or the
equal access of education from individual to individual; and vertical equity or the
14

appropriate treatment of each individual based on their unique needs (Bhatt &
Wraight, 2009).
 Evidence-Based Model: An educational funding approach based on identifying
individual, school-based programs and educational strategies that research has
shown to improve student learning (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
 Excess Taxes: Considered an add-on in California, LEAs are allowed to keep any
excess taxes they generate beyond their revenue limits and is calculated by
determining the difference between a LEA’s revenue limit and property tax
revenues (Timar, 2006).
 Expenditures: For elementary and secondary schools, all charges incurred, both
paid and unpaid debt, applied to the current fiscal year (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2010a). Expenditure types include current expenditures,
instructional expenditures, and expenditures per student.
 No Child Left Behind (NCLB): NCLB is the 2002 reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and increased the federal
government’s focus on assessment, accountability, and teacher quality. It also
holds schools and LEAs accountable for increasing student achievement for all
students, including minorities, English learners, students who are
socioeconomically disadvantaged, and students with disabilities (EdSource,
2010d).
 Program Improvement (PI): A formal designation required under NCLB (2002)
for Title I funded LEAs and schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive
15

years (California Department of Education, 2009c). While a LEA or school is
under PI status, they are obligated to implement certain federal and state
requirements.
 Significant Subgroups: Each significant subgroup within a school must make
AYP. For purposes of participation rate, a subgroup is considered numerically
significant if 100 or more students are enrolled on the first day or testing or if 50
or more students enrolled on the first day of testing make up at least 15 percent of
the total population. For purposes of percent proficient, a subgroup is considered
numerically significant if there are 100 or more students with valid scores or if
there are 50 or more students with valid scores who make up at least 15 percent of
the total valid scores (California Department of Education, 2009b).
 Similar Schools Rank: The Similar Schools rank indicates the decile rank of a
school’s API compared with the API scores of 100 other schools with similar
demographic characteristics. The Similar Schools ranks allow schools to look at
their academic performance compared to other schools with similar student
populations (California Department of Education, 2009c).
 Subgroups: The following are subgroups used for APR purposes: African
American or Black (not of Hispanic origin); American Indian or Alaska Native;
Asian; Filipino; Hispanic or Latino; Pacific Islander; White (not of Hispanic
origin); socioeconomically disadvantaged; English learners; and students with
disabilities (California Department of Education, 2009b).
16

 Title I: A federal program that provides financial assistance to LEAs and schools
with high numbers and percentages of poor children in order to help all children
meet state adopted academic standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2010b).
Dissertation Organization
Chapter I 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 II of the study presents a review of the literature in the following areas:
the federal government’s role in school finance, California school finance, resource
allocation, educational adequacy, and instructional improvement.
Chapter III of the study presents the research methodology used, the data
collection process, and the methods used to perform the data analyses.
Chapter IV reports the findings from the study including a summary of the sample
schools’ characteristics and performance, achievement data, key elements and themes of
the improvement strategies, resource allocation, and impact of the current fiscal crisis.
Chapter V provides a summary of the study, research conclusions, and
implications from the study.
17

CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the literature related to school finance and
resource allocation that supports the implementation of the most effective practices for
creating instructional reform. The chapter has been separated into the following five
areas:
1. Federal Government’s Role in School Finance – a summary of the federal
government’s role in funding public education.
2. California School Finance – an overview of the four most significant events that
have changed the funding structure of California schools over the past 30 years
and contributed to schools’ financial hardship during today’s recession: A)
Serrano v. Priest; B) Categorical Programs; C) Proposition 13; and D)
Proposition 98.
3. Resource Allocation – a review of: A) national funding trends; B) changes in
school resource allocation; and C) evaluating resource use at the school level.
4. Educational Adequacy – an overview of the following four approaches that have
been used to estimate adequate funding levels needed to achieve specific
performance goals: A) the Successful District Approach; B) the Cost Function
Approach; C) the Professional Judgment Approach; and D) the Evidence-Based
Approach.
5. Instructional Improvement – a review of five meta-analyses of research-based
instructional strategies that support increasing student achievement.
18

Federal Government’s Role in School Finance
United States public school funding was originally financed at the local level.
During the 1920s, less than one percent of public school funding came from the federal
government (Hoover Institution, 2010). In the 1930s, states began to take a more active
role in school funding and increased their contribution from 17% in the 1920s to 30%.
Despite the increase in state funding, the inequality in funding of school districts
remained a problem that was related to the relative wealth or poverty of the individual
state. States such as South Carolina, one of the poorest states in the nation in the early
1900s, could not raise the funds necessary to finance schools on the level of a wealthy
state such as Delaware (Bookrags, 2010). As a result of this inequality, the federal
government commissioned a study of inequalities in education among the states. The
National Survey of School Finance recommended that the national government provide
foundation grants to the states (Bookrags, 2010). A $15 per pupil per year expenditure
was recommended to assist schools with raising their level of instruction; however, that
expenditure was never approved. In 1936, Mississippi senator Patrick Harrison proposed
a federal grant of $100 million to the states, and yet that bill was also defeated (Bookrags,
2010).
As various funding initiatives progressed, the landmark and perhaps most widely
known federal initiative occurred in 1965 through the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), which was originally signed into law by President
Johnson. ESEA was divided into various sections called Titles. One of the most well
known is Title I: Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged. Title I
19

was created to improve the reading and mathematics achievement of children from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds (Kersten, 2010). Since 1965, ESEA has been periodically
reauthorized. In 2001, Congress and President George W. Bush reauthorized ESEA as
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. President Barack Obama has recently unveiled
his Blueprint for Reauthorizing ESEA which focuses on raising standards and rewarding
success (U.S. Department of Education, 2010a).
With the various reauthorizations throughout the last 45 years, federal funding
rose as high as 10% and stabilized in the early 80s between seven and eight percent.
Most recently, President Obama and Congress created the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and allocated more than $100 billion dollars to education
nationally, with California receiving nearly $8 billion (EdSource, 2010c). The ARRA
provided substantial one-time funds to help struggling states and created competitive
programs designed to encourage reform. These funds were required to be spent by
September 30, 2010, and it is not yet clear what the federal role in financing education
will be in the future.
California School Finance
School finance in California is complex. When comparing California to all other
states in the nation, it ranks among the top in total dollars allocated to K-12 education
(Picus, 2006). This is primarily due to the fact that more than six million of the nation’s
48 million students attend school in California. However, in 2007-2008, California’s per
pupil spending ranked 41
st
in the nation at $8,586 per pupil which was only 86% of the
national average of $9,934 (EdSource, 2010f). The minimum guarantee for funding K-14
20

education in 2009-2010 is $49.9 billion. The K-14 school finance system also supports
the salaries of thousands of employees and the construction and maintenance of more
than 9,000 public schools (EdSource, 2010g).
Over the past 30 years, a combination of court rulings, legislative enactments, and
voter initiatives have changed education funding in California. Until 1978 and the
passage of Proposition 13, K-12 funding was primarily a local matter, with approximately
60% of the funding coming from local property taxes, 34% from state revenues, and the
remaining six percent from federal sources (Timar, 2004). As a result, the state
legislature did not have significant control over how LEAs chose to spend the funding
they received. The current system is significantly different.
Funding for LEAs throughout California is currently comprised of five primary
sources: approximately 60% of the funds from the state; 23% from local property taxes,
although these funds may also be indirectly considered state funds due to the fact that the
tax rate and assessed property values are controlled by the state; 10% from federal
sources; six percent from miscellaneous revenues such as special elections for parcel
taxes, contributions from foundations, businesses, and individuals, and interest on
investments; and nearly two percent from state lottery funds (EdSource, 2009). While
nearly 60% of funding is provided by the state, 40% of those funds are restricted which
means those funds must be used for specific purposes (Timar, 2006). Hill, Roza, and
Harvey (2008) summarize the current funding structure as funds being handed down to
the school level after passing through the agency hierarchy, and that by the time those
21

funds reach the school level they have been assigned and accounted for by those in
charge of policy and management.
The four most significant events that have changed the funding structure of
California schools over the past 30 years have been: the Serrano v. Priest I and II court
decisions in 1971 and 1977 respectively; the creation of categorical programs; the
passage of Proposition 13 in 1978; and the passage of Proposition 98 in 1988. The
following sections will include a review of each of those cases and how they have
contributed to schools’ financial hardship during today’s recession.
Serrano v. Priest
The two Serrano v. Priest rulings by the California State Supreme Court in the
1970s were a result of discrepancies in the quality of education students were receiving.
Prior to 1970, LEAs received 60% of their funding from local property taxes; therefore,
students who lived in affluent areas attended schools that received more money than
schools that were located within poorer communities. Table 2.1 provides a comparison
of selected tax rates and expenditure levels in selected counties in 1968 and 1969, prior
to Serrano v. Priest.
22

Table 2.1: Tax Rates and Expenditure Levels in Selected Counties (1968-1969)
County District ADA Assessed
Value per
ADA
Tax Rate Expenditure
per ADA
Alameda Emery
Unified
586 $100,187 $2.57 $2,223
Newark
Unified
8,638 6,042 $6.65 $616
Fresno Coalinga
Unified
2,640 33,244 $2.17 $963
Clovis
Unified
8,144 6,480 $4.28 $568
Kern Rio Bravo
Elem
122 136,271 $2.38 $1,232
Lamont
Elem
1,847 5,971 $3.06 $533
Los Angeles Beverly
Hills
Unified
5,542 50,855 $2.38 $1,232
Baldwin
Park Unified
13,108 3,706 $5.48 $577
Note: Adapted from How California Funds K-12 Education by Timar (2006), p. 34.
Copyright 2006 by Stanford University. Adapted with permission.

Table 2.1 shows a significant difference in expenditures per student between two
districts within the same county. An example that demonstrates the disparity between the
funding of two schools located within the same county is in Alameda County. Newark
Unified School District and Emery Unified School District are located only 26 miles
from one another, and yet the funding each district received was significantly different.
Students attending Emery Unified were attending a school that was receiving more than
350% of the amount of money per pupil as compared to Newark Unified.
In anticipation of the Serrano v. Priest decision, the legislature established
revenue limits for California public schools. These revenue limits placed a ceiling on the
23

amount of tax funding each district could receive per pupil. The 1972-1973 spending
level became the base amount of tax funding each district could receive per pupil
(EdSource, 2010e).
In the Serrano v. Priest decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that students attending
schools in low assessed valuation of property were denied an equal educational
opportunity; therefore violating the Equal Protection clause of the California Constitution
(Timar, 2006). As a result of Serrano v. Priest I and II, the California Supreme Court
ruled the school finance system unconstitutional and a violation of tax protection
principles (Merrow, 2004). The Supreme Court required all wealth-related spending
differences between school districts be eliminated or reduced to no more than $100 per
pupil (Policy Analysis for California Education, 2006). The legislature then developed a
plan to equalize school revenues between the affluent and poor schools. A cap on the
rate of growth in per-pupil expenditures in affluent districts, balanced with redistribution
of some of their local property taxes to poor districts, proved to be a success as per-pupil
revenue limits reached within a $350 range for 97% of California students (Merrow,
2004). The reason that the range has grown from $100 to $350 per pupil is due to
inflation over the past 30 years.
While this ruling would appear to equalize funding across all districts, 40% of
state funds provided to LEAs are in the form of categorical programs and those programs
do not fall within the Serrano requirement to reduce spending differences among school
districts. In most cases, regulations accompany the categorical funds to ensure that the
money is spent on the targeted children or a special purpose that the state or federal
24

government intended (EdSource, 2010b). The targeted population and special purposes of
categorical funds have once again resulted in substantial inequities in the level of
resources available to children across school districts (Sonstelie, Brunner, and Ardon,
2000).
Categorical Programs
Currently, California has more than 100 state categorical programs (Policy
Analysis for California Education, 2006). LEAs may also receive federal categorical
funding. Although most federal funds are dispersed to LEAs through the California
Department of Education, some funds are provided directly to the LEAs. Some state
categorical allocations, such as funds for instructional materials, come automatically to
school districts. Other allocations, such as class size reduction, require LEAs to apply for
the funds. There are also some categorical funds that are based on characteristics of the
children or families in a school district, such as low-income, English learners, and
migrant students. Other programs are for specific activities or expenses, such as
transportation or professional development (EdSource, 2010b). In 2009-2010,
approximately $9,621,000,000 was allocated to LEAs through categorical programs. In
2008-2009 and 2009-2010, extraordinary circumstances have created temporary changes
in some aspects of school funding, including additional one-time monies from the federal
government and the state allowing LEAs to divert funds from 42 categorical programs.
This flexibility will be further explored in another section of this literature review.
25

Proposition 13
In 1978, Proposition 13 passed and once again had a significant affect on school
funding, including giving the authority to the state legislature to determine how much
money schools would receive and what type of restrictions would come with those funds
(Timar, 2004). LEAs no longer had control over the amount of revenues they would
receive from property taxes. Approximately 60% of local property tax revenues were
extinguished, which significantly limited the amount of funding provided to LEAs
(California School Finance, 2008). Table 2.2 shows the estimated 1978-1979 total
revenues for school districts statewide, total estimated 1978-1979 property tax revenues,
and the estimated tax reduction upon the passage of Proposition 13 (EdSource, 1978).
Table 2.2: Estimated Tax Reductions to LEAs under Proposition 13
California School
Districts
Estimated Total
Revenues
1978-79
Estimated Property
Tax Revenues
1978-79
Estimated Tax
Reduction Under
Prop. 13
K-12 (all
expenditures)
$9,860 billion $5,553 billion $3,332 billion
Note: Adapted from California Coalition for Fair School Finance – A Community
Education Project by EdSource (1978), p. 2. Copyright 1978 by EdSource. Adapted with
permission.

Proposition 13 created a statewide property tax rate of 1% of the property’s
assessed value, prohibited local governments from increasing the tax rate, and restricted
the growth in assessed value for properties that do not change owners to no more than 2%
or the percentage growth in the Consumer Price Index, whichever is less (Hill, 1999;
EdSource, 2010e). Property taxes were distributed by a formula; therefore, state aid,
including income taxes and sales taxes, were necessary to fund schools to the revenue
26

limit (Sonstelie, Brunner, & Ardon, 2000). The change in funding resulted in shifting
control of district funding from local to the state government.
Proposition 98
The final event that had a dramatic impact on school funding was the passage of
Proposition 98. This constitutional amendment, approved in November 1988, continues
to be the structure used to fund schools today. Proposition 98 guarantees a minimum
level from the state and property taxes for K-14 public schools. This foundation baseline
is a minimum guarantee of funding per pupil. This number is multiplied by the number
of students attending school each day, which is known as average daily attendance
(ADA). The district’s per pupil revenue limit equals its total revenue limit income, which
is the majority of funds available for general purposes. General purposes include
employee salaries, supplies, materials, utilities, and maintenance. The annual calculation
of the guarantee uses a complex formula based on state tax revenues allocated to LEAs
(EdSource, 2010). If the revenues fall below the guaranteed minimum per pupil funding,
the state is then required to supplement the remaining amount.
Other Proposition 98 mandates include a requirement for each school to prepare
and publicize an annual School Accountability Report Card (SARC) that covers the
following eight topics: demographic information; school safety and climate for learning;
academic data; school completion class size; teacher and staff information; curriculum
and instruction; postsecondary preparation; and fiscal and expenditure data (California
Department of Education, 2010). A two-thirds vote of the legislature and a signature
from the governor are required to suspend Proposition 98 for one year.
27

Today’s Recession
Although 50% of California’s general funds are supposed to be designated to
funding education, districts and schools in California as well as throughout the United
States are facing unprecedented budget reductions due to a nation-wide recession.
California’s governor has made significant reductions to K-14 funding over the past two
years that have resulted in many districts making dramatic reductions to programs and
staff.
Due to the significant budget reductions that schools are facing, the 2008-2009
Budget Act allowed funding from 42 categorical programs that were eliminated to be
redirected to the general fund for other educational purposes. Ending balances for other
state categorical programs also became flexible. Two other significant changes were
reducing penalties for K-3 class size reduction and extending timelines for
implementation of state-approved instructional materials (Bennett, 2010).
In an effort to offer assistance to LEAs and schools across the nation during this
economic recession, President Obama and the federal government created the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The Budget Act provided more than $100
billion dollars nationally, with California receiving nearly $8 billion (EdSource, 2010c).
Substantial one-time funds to help struggling states and competitive programs designed
to encourage reform were also included in the Budget Act.
While having the flexibility of how categorical funds can be spent as well as
receiving ARRA funds from the federal government, school districts across California are
still being forced to make dramatic ongoing reductions as they prepare 2010-2011
28

budgets. In January 2009, the governor released his first budget proposal for 2010-2011.
While it was stated several times there is protection of funding for public education, there
was no specific definition of what was meant when using the word protection, and
unfortunately, that promise did not include avoiding additional cuts to education
(Bennett, 2010). These cuts include a reduction of -0.38% to be applied to revenue limits
because the statutory cost-of-living adjustment formula is negative for 2010-2011. The
governor also proposed a targeted cut of $1.5 billion to the revenue limit that is directed
to the administration portion of the district budget. This cut results in an ongoing revenue
limit reduction of approximately $201 per pupil for an average unified district (Bennett,
2010).
The significant reductions LEAs have faced over the past year and, according to
the governor’s proposed 2010-2011 budget will continue to face in 2010-2011 and
beyond, have resulted in many districts reporting that they may not meet their financial
obligations during the current year or two future years. California school districts are
required to submit a first interim budget report to their respective county offices of
education on December 15
th
and a second interim budget report on March 15
th
. The
budgets are certified as either positive, qualified, or negative as follows: 1) positive if the
budget shows that the LEA is able to meet its financial obligation during the current year
and two future years; 2) qualified if the LEA can meet its current year financial
obligations but cannot meet its financial obligations in the two future years; or 3)
negative if the LEA cannot meet its current year financial obligations. Based on the
analysis of first interim reports, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack
29

O’Connell announced on March 22, 2010, that 126 LEAs have submitted first interim
reports that were certified as either qualified or negative. This is a 17% increase among
the nearly 1,000 California school districts that may be unable to meet either current or
future year financial obligations because of the continuing state budget crisis and budget
reductions to public education (EdBrief, 2010; SSC, 2010a).
Most recently, there have been signs that the California economy may be in the
beginning stages of recovery. General fund revenues for California have come in higher
than expected and the rate of job losses has fallen from last year’s levels. California
added 32,500 jobs in January 2010. This is a significant turnaround from December 2009
when the state lost 41,200 jobs. (SSC, 2010c). The national economy is also showing
signs of recovery. The stock market is up more than 60% from the March 2009 low and
home prices are stabilizing (SSC, 2010b). A report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
revealed that the national unemployment rate held steady at 9.7% in February 2010,
which was better than anticipated (SSC, 2010c). Gross (2010) reported that the Dow
Jones industrial average, hovering near 11,000, is up 70% in the past 13 months, auto
sales in the first quarter of 2010 were up 16% from 2009, and the economy added
162,000 jobs in March 2010. As a result of these positive signs, educators are trying to
anticipate whether or not the governor’s May Revision of the 2010-2011 budget may
eliminate some of the reductions included in the budget proposal that was presented in
January. Economists from School Services of California are warning districts not to
count on the May Revision reducing the amount of cuts to education in 2010-2011. They
have pointed out the fact that while state revenues have exceeded the forecast during
30

January and February 2010, yielding approximately $2 billion more than anticipated in
the governor’s 2010-2011 budget, the governor had also lowered the estimate for current-
year revenues. As a result, revenue collections for January and February are measured
against lowered expectations (SSC, 2010b). While there is uncertainty as to whether or
not the 2010-2011 budget will improve over what was presented in the January release of
the governor’s proposed budget, school district officials are preparing their budgets based
on that initial proposed budget.
During these unprecedented times of budget reductions, educators are forced to
examine their diminishing resources and make critical decisions regarding what will
continue to be funded in order to maximize student achievement. However, before those
decisions are made, it is important that the current use of resources is explored to
determine if they are being used to maximize student achievement.
Resource Allocation
The allocation of school resources has become a popular discussion as
educational policies shift from equity to adequacy models. However, before studying
educational adequacy, it is important to understand how schools allocate their resources
and whether or not their current allocation of resources has the potential to provide an
adequate education for all students. In exploring resource allocation, the following three
areas will be reviewed: 1) an overview of national funding trends; 2) change in school
resource allocation; and 3) evaluating resource use at the school level.
31

National Funding Trends
Hanushek and Rivkin (1997) provided a meta-analysis of a century of data
concluding that between 1890 and 1990, per pupil expenditures increased by 3.5 percent
annually due to increases in teacher compensation, diminishing student to staff ratios, and
greater expenditures outside the classroom. Their findings considered inflation, rising
student populations, and the increase in the number of students attending high school
from 1925 to 1950. Additionally, the results of their study found most of the increases in
funding during that 100 year period were devoted to increasing costs of instructional
staff, reducing student-teacher ratios, and rising costs of non-instructional staff
(Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997).
Over the last 50 years, the pattern of school district funding nationally has been
consistent. 60% of district funds were spent on instruction, eight to 10% on professional
development, nine percent on operations and maintenance, four to six percent on
transportation, four to six percent on food service, seven percent on site administration,
and three percent on district office administration (Odden, 2007; Odden, Monk, Nakib, &
Picus, 1995; Odden & Picus, 2008).
As part of an incentive funding program, Picus conducted a study in 1991 on how
resources were allocated in California between 1980 and 1986 (Picus, 1991). This
program was designed to support districts with increasing the instructional day and
increasing salaries for new teachers. Picus (1991) concluded that the majority of schools
increased the instructional day; however, only approximately 50% of districts increased
the salaries for new teachers.
32

Some studies have found that salaries for teachers did not keep up with wages in
other industries. Odden, Monk, Nakib, and Picus (1995) found that teacher salaries
increased in the 1970s but have been stagnant through the mid-1990s. Other research
reveals that increases in funding to school districts lead to increases in teacher salaries
and benefits (Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997; Lankford & Wykoff, 1995; Picus, 1994).
According to the National Education Association (2008), over the decade from 1997-
1998 to 2007-2008, in constant dollars, average salaries for public school teachers
declined one percent while inflation increased 31.4%. Hurley (2002) states the mid-to-
late 1990s, a period of national economic growth, was a particularly bad time for teacher
pay relative to the pay of other occupations. Throughout the nation the average earnings
of workers with at least four years of college are now over 50% higher than the average
earnings of a teacher (Hurley 2002). In 2007-2008, the average salary of public school
teachers throughout the nation was $52,308, while the average salary of public school
teachers in California during that same year was $64,424.
In addition to increases in teacher salaries, research also reveals increases in
school funding lead to small class sizes and more teachers. Picus (1993) found that a
10% increase in district funding would, on average, lead to a four percent increase in
spending to create lower class sizes and a one percent increase in spending to raise
teacher salaries. Other studies have found increasing funding decreases class size,
increases the number of teachers, and leads to facilities improvement and more social
services offered at schools (Odden, Monk, Nakib, & Picus, 1995; Hanushek & Rivkin,
1997; Picus, 1994; & Odden & Picus, 2008).
33

Researchers also agree that a disproportionate percentage of the funding increases
over the last 50 years have gone to special education costs (Lankford & Wykoff, 1995;
Hanushek & Rivken, 1997; and Odden & Picus, 2008). While there have been dramatic
increases for funding special education programs, there is little evidence of effective
strategies for improving achievement of students with special needs (Odden et al., 1995).
The National Center for Education Statistics (2010b) reported that in the 2003-
2004 school year, expenditures per pupil averaged just below $9,000. These
expenditures continued to rise. In the 2005-2006 school year, the National Education
Association (2005) reported that expenditures per pupil increased to $9,102. In the 2007-
2008 school year, expenditures per pupil again increased to $9,934 (EdSource, 2010f). It
is yet to be reported how the recession beginning in December 2007 will have impacted
national funding trends for 2009-2010.
Changes in School Resource Allocation
This review of literature has explored school funding reform with an emphasis on
reform in California dating back to Serrano v. Priest. This section of the literature
review will include examples of how various funding reforms have changed school
resource allocation in different school districts throughout the nation. One example is
when the California legislature passed Senate Bill 90 in 1972, resulting in many poor
districts receiving a 15% increase in funding (Kirst, 1977). The study reported the total
percentage of the budget spent on teachers’ salaries as well as the salaries of principals
and superintendents declined after SB 90. Most of the additional resource allocations
went to hire additional instructional personnel, including more classroom teachers as well
34

as additional math specialists, teacher aides, career education specialists, and other
similar positions (Kirst 1977).
Adams (1994) found that poorer districts in Kentucky showed a greater increase
in per-pupil spending compared to wealthier districts. Firestone, Goertz, Nagle, and
Smelkinson (1994) found that poor districts in New Jersey used additional resources to
improve facilities. Firestone et al. (1994) found that many of these districts did not invest
in programs due to the uncertainty that the additional resources would continue.
Several court rulings in Texas resulted in poorer districts receiving substantial
increases in resources that were originally designated for more affluent districts. Picus
(1994) found that these poorer districts chose to allocate the additional resources to
construction projects rather than anything ongoing due to the disbelief that these funds
would be available on a long-term basis.
In 1983, California offered a funding incentive program that encouraged districts
to extend school days and increase beginning teacher salaries. This program proved to be
more effective than other types of grants offered to districts because of the clarity of the
intentions by the legislature (Picus 1991). Studies on school resource reform demonstrate
that additional funds without mandates or incentives that require schools and districts to
spend additional resources in a specific way are not likely to be used as originally
intended by the legislator.
Evaluating Resource Use at the School Level
Educational resources, in general, are spent in many ways and fall into several
categories. Odden and Picus (2008) have identified seven functions, as follows:
35

1. Instruction – all resources that are directly linked to providing instruction to
students. This includes benefits and salaries for teachers and instructional aides,
instructional coaches, books, purchased services, tuition, and other instructional
supplies.
2. Instructional Support: expenditures for the development of curriculum, staff
training, libraries, and computer and media centers. This also includes the
salaries and benefits, purchased services, tuition, and supplies dedicated to
supporting these programs.
3. Administration: salaries and benefits of principals, assistant principals, other
administrators, and secretarial staff at the district and school levels. It also
includes purchased services, tuition, and supplies dedicated to supporting this
purpose at the district level.
4. Student support: salaries, benefits, purchased services, and supplies dedicated to
counseling/guidance, health, attendance, speech pathology services, social
workers, family outreach, and other functions that support the instructional
program or are focused on students’ well-being.
5. Operations and maintenance: salaries, benefits, purchased services, and supplies
for facilities and maintenance workers, including custodians, carpenters,
plumbers, electricians, groundskeepers, and other support personnel as well as for
utilities and other expenditures designated to operating, maintaining, heating,
cooling, and cleaning schools.
36

6. Transportation: salaries, benefits, purchased services, and supplies dedicated to
transporting students to and from schools as well as to and from school events and
activities.
7. Food services: salaries, benefits, and all costs related to providing meals for
students at school.
In order to determine the efficiency of a school’s resources and how they support
student achievement, a systematic data collection process should be created. Research
has found that too many schools have engaged in resource use and allocation practices
that have been unproductive (Odden et al., 1995). Odden and Picus (2008) state that in
order to properly evaluate resource use at the school level, the following data must be
identified: 1) staffing and expenditures by program – the regular instructional program,
programs for special needs students, administration, staff development, and instructional
materials; 2) staffing and expenditures by educational strategy – class size reduction,
professional development, and instructional materials; 3) staffing and expenditures by
content area; 4) interrelationships among these staffing and expenditures patterns; and 5)
relationships of these staffing and expenditure patterns to student performance.
In order to collect these data at the school level, a structure is necessary to assist
researchers in acquiring and organizing all of the information. Hartman, Bolton, and
Mink (2001) have identified two methods for reporting expenditures at the school level:
the accounting approach and the resource cost model (RCM). The accounting approach
is based on the district’s current accounting system to report actual expenditures as
detailed in school accounting records (Hartman et al., 2001). This approach focuses on
37

expenditures rather than on student and/or staff data. Expenditures are often reported by
numerical function codes. The RCM uses an economic base to establish costs for
providing resources and uses a formal method for transforming physical resources into
appropriate costs (Hartman et al., 2001). In order to implement the RCM approach, the
following four steps are required: 1) specify the structure of the service delivery system
and types of individual ingredients that will be required (teachers, books, supplies, etc.);
2) quantify these resources (full-time, part-time, etc.); 3) assign a price to each ingredient;
and 4) use the price data to aggregate resources across the entire program to determine its
overall cost.
Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003) have created a third way to
report expenditures at the school level that essentially combines the accounting and RCM
approaches. The authors propose an expenditure structure representing an improvement
over the other methods in the following three ways: 1) it is specifically designed to
report school level expenditures; 2) it can differentiate the spending of multiple education
units within a school building to account for schools within schools; and 3) it categorizes
expenditures in ways that reflect current thinking about effective instructional strategies
and resource use. Figure 2.1 represents the nine identified expenditure elements within
the School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators developed by Odden et al.
(2003).
38

Figure 2.1: School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators
School Resource Indicators
School Building Size
School Unit Size
Percent Low Income
Percent Special Education
Percent ESL/LEP
Expenditures Per pupil
Professional Development
Expenditures Per Teacher
Special Academic Focus of
School/Unit
Length of Instructional Day
Length of Class Periods
Length of Reading Class (Elementary)
Length of Mathematics Class (Elementary)
Reading Class Size (Elementary)
Mathematics Class Size (Elementary)
Regular Class Size (Elementary)
Length of Core* Class Periods (Secondary)
Core Class Size (Secondary)

Non-Core Class Size (Secondary)
Percent Core Teachers

*Math, English/LA, Science, & Social Studies
School Expenditure Structure
Instructional 1. Core Academic Teachers
- English/ Reading/ Language Arts
- History! Social Studies
- Math
- Science
2. Specialist and Elective Teachers/Planning and Preparation
- Art, music, physical education. etc.
- Academic Focus with or without Special Funding
- Vocational
- Drivers Education
- Librarians
3. Extra Help
- Tutors
- Extra Help Laboratories
- Resource Rooms (Title 1. special education or other part-day pullout
programs)
- Inclusion Teachers
- English as a second language classes
- Special Education self-contained classes for severely disabled students
(Including aides)
- Extended Day and Summer School
- District-Initiated Alternative Programs
4. Professional Development
- Teacher Time - Substitutes and Stipends
- Trainers and Coaches
- Administration
- Materials, Equipment and Facilities
- Travel & Transportation
- Tuition and Conference Fees
5. Other Non-Classroom Instructional Staff
- Coordinators and Teachers on Special Assignment
- Building Substitutes and Other Substitutes
- Instructional Aides
6. Instructional Materials and Equipment
- Supplies, Materials and Equipment
- Computers (hardware, software, peripherals)
7. Student Support
- Counselors
- Nurses
- Psychologists
- Social Workers
- Extra-Curricular and Athletics
39

Figure 2.1, Continued
Non-Instructional 8. Administration
9. Operations and Maintenance
- Custodial
- Utilities
- Security
- Food Service
Note: Adapted from Defining School-Level Expenditure Structures by Odden et al.
(2003), pp. 323-356. Copyright 2003 by Journal of Education Finance. Adapted without
permission.

The following is a description of each of the nine expenditure elements developed
by Odden et al. (2003):
1. Core academic teachers: Credentialed classroom teachers primarily
responsible for teaching a school’s core academic subjects, including language
arts, mathematics, science, and social science. In secondary schools, special
education and English Language Development teachers would also be
considered as core academic teachers.
2. Specialists and elective teachers: Credentialed teachers who teach non-core
academic classes and may provide planning and preparation time for core
academic teachers. The following are examples of specialists and/or elective
teachers:
a. Specialist teachers, such as art, music, and physical education teachers
who usually provide regular classroom teachers with planning and
preparation time.
b. Teachers who provide instruction in a subject area that represent the
special academic focus of a school. For example, if a school offers a
40

foreign language magnet program, the foreign language teachers
would fall into this category.
c. Vocational education teachers such as auto mechanic and fire science
teachers.
d. Drivers education teachers.
e. Licensed librarians and media specialists.
3. Extra help: Credentialed teachers designed to assist struggling students, or
students with special needs, to learn the school’s regular curriculum. The
following are examples of teachers and/or programs that are considered extra
help:
a. Tutors who are credentialed teachers providing one-on-one assistance
to students. This model is primarily used in elementary schools.
b. Extra help laboratories, which typically provide extra help in reading
and mathematics for students struggling to meet academic
performance standards through additional classes. This model is
primarily used in secondary schools.
c. Resource rooms that provide small groups of students with extra help,
usually remedial reading or mathematics that are not directly related to
the school’s regular curriculum or standards. Resource rooms have
been the typical use of compensatory, bilingual, and special education
funds.
41

d. Inclusion teachers who assist regular classroom teachers with
mainstreamed students who have physical or mental disabilities, or
some type of learning disability. Typically these students have less
severe disabilities.
e. Teachers of English as a second language (ESL) who work with non-
English speaking students as they acquire the English language.
f. Self-contained special education classrooms in which teachers and
instructional aides work with severely disabled students for most or all
of the day.
g. Extended day or summer programs that provide students with
additional instructional time to achieve the standards included in the
regular curriculum.
h. District alternative programs that are located in a school. These
programs serve students who have trouble learning in a traditional
classroom setting. While these programs are often administratively
and instructionally separate from the host school, they may be located
in the school building or reported as part of the school’s operating
budget.
4. Professional development: This encompasses the amount of spending that is
related to the professional development (PD) received by a school’s staff. It
includes costs of teacher time for PD; trainers and coaches; PD
42

administration; materials, equipment, and facilities; travel and transportation;
and tuition and conference fees.
5. Other non-classroom instructional staff: Credentialed teachers and non-
credentialed instructional assistants that support a school’s instructional
program, such as program coordinators, substitutes, and instructional aides
other than those working in self-contained special education classrooms.
6. Instructional materials and equipment: This includes books, instructional
supplies, materials, equipment, and computer hardware and software for all
instructional programs, including regular education and all extra help
programs.
7. Student support: School-based student support staff such as counselors,
nurses, social workers, psychologists, attendance monitors, or parent liaisons,
as well as school expenditures for extra-curricular activities and athletics.
The final two expenditures are non-instructional:
8. Administration: All expenditures pertaining to the administration of a school,
including the principal, assistant principal, clerical staff, administrative office
supplies, equipment and technology, and school reserve funds.
9. Operations and maintenance: Costs of staff, supplies, and equipment for
custodial services, food services, and security, as well as utilities and building
and grounds maintenance charged to the school.
Odden et al. (2003) explain that by presenting a school’s fiscal data according to
the expenditure structure and resource indicators, it creates an analytical tool for
43

comparing resource use across schools. While the expenditure structure provides a
school’s fiscal information, the resource indicators provide greater detail about school
instructional strategies (Odden et al., 2003).
The validity of this model was demonstrated through multiple studies, including
one that is applicable to elementary schools. A study of two urban mid-sized elementary
schools within the same district in the Midwest was conducted by Odden et al. (2003).
Although both schools in the study were in the same district, there were additional
resources at one school due to its designation as a high poverty school and its recent
restructuring due to low student achievement. The expenditure structure and resource
indicators were used and demonstrated significant differences between the two schools in
several areas, including but not limited to the percentage of students who are considered
socioeconomically disadvantaged, the amount of professional development spent on a per
teacher basis, the amount spent on providing special education self-contained classes, and
total expenditures per pupil. The researchers concluded that this analytical tool was
successful in providing a detailed analysis into how resources were actually used at the
school level. The Evidence-Based Model, which will be discussed in the following
section, is utilized with the School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators by
Odden et al. (2003) to estimate resources needed for educational adequacy.
Educational Adequacy
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has increased accountability by requiring
districts and schools to demonstrate continual increases in student achievement for all
students, including students in all significant subgroups. Districts and schools that do not
44

meet annual AYP benchmarks enter into Program Improvement and ultimately face
sanctions if unable to make achievement targets for two or more consecutive years. The
problem is this high-stakes accountability system focuses on proficiency for all students,
but does not include measures to provide districts and schools with adequate funding.
As a result of the pressure districts and schools are facing with the current
accountability system, many public education systems throughout the nation have been
involved with educational adequacy studies (Baker, Taylor, & Vedlitz, 2008). An
adequate level of funding is defined as the amount of funding required to ensure that all
students are meeting high academic standards (Baker, 2005; Clune, 1994; & Odden,
2003). Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) argue that it is not an easy task to calculate the
cost of providing an adequate education. The authors go on to state that calculating the
cost of an adequate education would be simple if scholars could consistently show that
spending an additional $1,000 per pupil will translate into an average of a five-point gain
in student proficiency. Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) found that despite decades of
research, there is no clear relationship between the amount that schools spend and student
achievement.
There are four methods the school finance community has developed to determine
an adequate set of resources (Odden & Picus, 2003): 1) Professional Judgment Model; 2)
Successful Schools Model; 3) Cost Function Model; and 4) Evidence-Based Model. The
following four sections will provide an overview of each model.
45

Professional Judgment Model
The Professional Judgment Model is the most commonly applied approach to
costing-out an adequate education. This approach involves asking a chosen panel of
educators, including teachers, principals, superintendents, and other educational experts,
to develop an educational program that would produce certain specified student
achievement outcomes for all students at all grade levels (Baker et al., 2008; Hanushek &
Lindseth, 2009; Odden, 2003). After identifying these strategies, a price is assigned to
each strategy and a total cost per pupil is estimated (Odden & Picus, 2008). Studies using
the Professional Judgment Model may collect data using professional panels, randomized
surveys, or a combination of both (Loeb, 2007).
Getting Down to the Facts was a project in California that was designed to
provide California’s policymakers and other education stakeholders with comprehensive
information about the state’s school finance and governance systems, and lay the
foundation for a conversation about needed reforms. As part of that project, a
Professional Judgment study was conducted in California by Chambers, Levin, and
DeLancey (2007). Two panels were developed consisting of a school superintendent, and
principals, teachers, and specialists representing all grade levels. As this model would
suggest, the panel members were to identify a list of programs and resources that would
be necessary for a typical school to achieve or exceed their goals in the area of student
achievement. The panel was to make accommodations for schools that serve diverse
populations. At the end of the study, both panels made similar recommendations that
would significantly change the approach to educating students in California (Chambers et
46

al., 2007). Their recommendations included but were not limited to reducing class sizes
and targeting specific interventions for students at risk of not reaching proficiency.
Chambers et al. (2007) determined that if all of the panel members’ suggestions were
implemented, an increase between 53% and 71% in per pupil spending would be
required, totaling an additional $24 to $32 billion per year.
There are several advantages to using the Professional Judgment Model. One
advantage is the ability to identify effective instructional strategies needed at the school
level to produce student achievement (Odden, 2003). Another advantage is that the
outcomes of the studies are coming from a group of distinguished and qualified educators
who understand the educational system (Rebell, 2007). This approach also allows the
panel members to assess the desired outcomes of a school that are not easily measured by
test scores (Rebell 2007).
Critics point out several disadvantages to this model. Hanushek (2006) believes
that although the panel members are educators, they may not always have the knowledge,
experience, and background to develop a model for school improvement. A second
disadvantage is that the panel is instructed to “dream big”; therefore, they may not be
mindful of costs as they develop their model schools (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). This
could result in their recommendations exceeding the minimum funding actually needed to
provide an adequate education. Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) also point out that there is
a conflict of interest by panel members who may personally benefit from higher spending
they recommend. These educators make recommendations to legislatures on what they
feel should be spent on education and their recommendations may be nothing more than
47

an attempt to meet their own needs or personal agendas. The Professional Judgment
Model by nature is more subjective than objective. This approach relies on a collection
of judgments which is less reliable than a statistical model (Rebell, 2007). Finally, it is
assumed that by mandating spending levels that the panels of educators suggest, desired
results in student achievement will be met. Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) not only
believe that this assumption is not true, but believe the opposite is true. Professional
Judgment summary reports include disclaimers to explain why student achievement may
not increase after schools have implemented such a model.
Successful Schools Model
The second method most commonly used to determine the cost of an adequate
education is the Successful Schools Model. It begins by identifying schools or districts in
a state that have been most effective in meeting a set of educational goals. The focus is
generally on student achievement. Spending on programs such as special education and
intervention are taken out of the budgets in order to obtain a base cost in providing an
education to regular education students (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). This approach
eliminates exceptionally high-spending and low-spending schools, and the remaining
schools’ per pupil spending is averaged to create a base dollar amount that can be
reasonably expected to result in increasing student achievement.
Another study as part of Getting Down to Facts was conducted by Perez, Parrish,
Ananad, Speroni, Esra, Socias, and Gubbins (2007). The study included an investigation
of 61 elementary schools, seven middle schools, and 35 high schools that were
considered as “beating the odds” according to their California Standards Test results in
48

English-language arts and mathematics. Perez et al. (2007) analyzed schools that were
beating the odds (BTO) with regard to student achievement and compared them to lower
performing (LP) schools. The study concluded there was no relationship between school
resources and academic resources except when comparing the socioeconomically
disadvantaged students in both types of schools. It was determined that an additional
$266 per pupil was spent on socioeconomically disadvantaged students at the BTO
schools than at the LP schools. There were no significant differences in the number of
personnel working in BTO and LP schools, but the BTO schools had a larger number of
experienced teachers and administrators than the LP schools, especially at the secondary
level. They also found the LP schools had a significantly higher number of teachers who
were not properly credentialed. Finally, the researchers concluded that traditional
resource measures do not capture the difference in school success, but that what matters
is how those resources are used (Perez et al., 2007).
While the main advantage to the Similar Schools Model is its ease of
understanding by legislatures, there are several disadvantages to this approach. Perez et
al. (2007) found that BTO and LP schools were difficult to identify because test scores
varied from year to year. Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) point out that the selected
schools may differ from others in terms of students’ backgrounds. Many of the highest
performing schools, according to student test scores, are included in the studies, and these
schools are almost always predominantly white and middle class; therefore, the base cost
does not include nonschool factors that affect student performance in many of the less
successful schools (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). The authors found that in most studies,
49

the consultants add a weighting that increases funding for various student subgroups;
however, it is unclear as to how to choose the proper weighting. Without an objective
and consistent weighting formula, the results will be skewed. Another disadvantage is
that it is difficult to compare the financial needs of large, urban districts to smaller, rural
districts, even after adjustments are made which attempt to account for those differences
(Odden, 2003). Odden and Picus (2008) found that studies of this nature are generally
not specific enough when it comes to describing how funds should be spent to produce an
increase in student achievement.
Cost Function Model
The Cost Function Model examines current spending and achievement patterns
across all schools within a state to determine optimum levels of spending (Hanushek &
Linseth, 2009). A Cost Function study would attempt to determine how much a school
district would need to spend compared to the average district to ensure students achieve
specific performance targets (Rebell, 2007). The most popular forms of Cost Function
studies use statistical methods to describe how spending across a given state varies with
achievement and with characteristics of the districts and their students. The results of
their analysis are then used to determine appropriate spending levels for each district
depending on its student population (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2007).
Another study as part of Getting Down to Facts that used a Cost Function Model
was conducted in California by Imazeki (2007). The purpose of this study was to
quantify the relationship between student outcomes and costs for districts with a variety
of characteristics. Imazeki collected district level spending data based on the general
50

fund for the 2004-2005 school year, enrollment and student demographic data, and
student achievement data based on each district’s California Standards Test results in
English-language arts and mathematics, as well as each district’s API score. One of the
results of this study revealed that districts in California would need up to an additional
$1.7 billion in funding in order to have all schools reach the state’s API target score of
800 or above.
The Cost Function Model has been criticized by many researchers. One of the
biggest criticisms is that it is complex and much more difficult to use than the models
previously studied. Guthrie and Rothstein (1999) found that using statistical modeling as
the primary means of calculating the cost of an adequate education is not effective due to
its technical complexity (Guthrie & Rothstein, 1999, as cited in Hanushek & Lindseth,
2009). Hanushek (2006) found that this approach can only be used when analyzing one
or two performance targets. A final criticism of this model is that it analyzes district
level data rather than school level data (Odden, 2003).
Evidence-Based Model
The Evidence-Based Model (EBM) is the final model that will be reviewed and is
explored in greater detail as it will be the model used for this study. Odden and Picus
developed the EBM as they conducted state adequacy studies in Kentucky, Arkansas,
Arizona, Wyoming, Washington, and Wisconsin (Odden & Picus, 2008). The EBM is
based on a cost reporting structure framework developed by Odden, Archibald,
Fermanich, and Gross (2003), establishes prototypical school models, and adjusts for the
size and demographics of the school. This approach is designed to provide schools with
51

specific details about strategies proven effective in raising student achievement and
specifies which resources must be used to implement those strategies. The EBM is based
on evidence from three sources: 1) research with randomized assignment to the
treatment; 2) research with other types of controls or statistical procedures that can help
separate the impact of a treatment; and 3) best practices either as codified in a
comprehensive school design or from studies of impact at the local district or school level
(Odden & Picus, 2008).
As with all other costing-out studies, the research includes support and criticism
of the EBM. Odden (2003) believes that this model is the most accurate approach to
identifying educational strategies that produce high student achievement, and can assist
schools in using their resources effectively. The level of funding in this model would
allow schools to implement nearly every research-based strategy that has had a
statistically significant impact on student learning (Odden, 2003). Loeb (2007) states the
primary drawback of using this model is that the research does not provide enough
conclusive evidence about educational interventions to justify necessary expenditures.
Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) refer to this approach as the State-of-the-Art or Evidence-
Based Approach in their research because the consulting firms using this model refer to it
as such in order to enhance their superior status. Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) believe
that the programs included in this model are nothing more than repackaged versions of
various existing programs. They also claim that not only does this model purposely
avoid attempts to calculate the minimum costs of reaching any level of achievement, but
that the consultants seek to maximize expenditures (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). One
52

final criticism by Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) is that the consultants claim that in order
for the EBM to increase student achievement, the states and school districts must spend
their money on the approaches they recommend and upon which their cost estimates are
based. Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) do not believe this to be true. They claim, for
example, that Wyoming continues to spend money much as they did in the past, and that
they paid significantly higher salaries to existing teachers, increased the use of
instructional aides, and created additional elective classes rather than concentrating
attention on the core classes. As a result, any increased student achievement experienced
in Wyoming may or may not be attributable to the recommendations made from the
consultants (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009).
Odden and Picus (2008) have created prototypical elementary (K-5), middle (6-8),
and high schools (9-12). The staffing and programs are illustrated in Figure 2.2. For
purposes of this study, five elementary schools will be explored. Table 2.3 includes
specific details about staffing and resources suggested at a prototypical elementary level.
A prototypical elementary school would encompass kindergarten through fifth
grades and have 432 students with a class size average of 15 in kindergarten through third
grade and 25 students in fourth and fifth grades (Odden & Picus, 2008). All suggested
staffing will be described in terms of full-time equivalents (FTE). An elementary school
with 432 students would result in the need for 24 core teachers as well as 4.8 specialist
teachers and 2.2 instructional facilitators or mentors/coaches.
The EBM includes resources for additional support and staff to assist with
meeting the needs of disadvantaged students. The level of resources varies depending on
53

the number of disadvantaged students in each school. The model includes one
credentialed tutor for every 100 students identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged
and one additional teacher for every 100 students identified as English learners.
Funding for programs outside of the regular school day is also included in the
EBM. The researchers suggest one teacher position for every 15 eligible students (they
define eligible students as 50% of the adjusted students considered socioeconomically
disadvantaged) and that the teacher should be compensated at 25% of the position’s
annual salary. It is also suggested that this program should be offered for approximately
three hours per day, five days per week (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Three additional teachers for students with mild learning disabilities are also
included in the EBM. Odden and Picus (2008) suggest that students with severe
disabilities should be fully funded by the state; therefore, they are not included in the
EMB.
The use of substitutes is also included in the EBM. Odden and Picus (2008)
suggest allocating five percent of all teacher resources for substitute teachers, which
would allow teachers to be released from the classroom for purposes of staff development
as well as illness.
The EBM includes one pupil support staff member for every 100 students
identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged. While many schools use instructional
assistants to provide additional academic support, the EBM does not support the use of
instructional assistants other than for providing additional support to students with special
54

needs. The EBM includes two non-instructional aides to assist with providing
supervision and support.
One principal per school unit is included in the EBM. There could be additional
principals at one school facility if a site were using a school within a school model. The
EBM also includes one secretary, one clerk, and one library media specialist.
Professional development includes a ten-day summer institute with teachers paid
at their daily rate as well as coaching throughout the school year. Professional
development opportunities are funded at $100 per pupil for summer and ongoing training.
Finally, the EMB funds technology and equipment at a rate of $250 per pupil for
purchasing and maintaining computers, software, and copy machines (Odden & Picus,
2008). $140 per pupil should be allocated to instructional materials and $200 per pupil
should be allocated to student activities.
55

Figure 2.2: The Evidence-Based Model

Instructional
Materials
Pupil Support:
Pa rent/Commu nity
Outreach/
Involvement
Gifted
Tutors and pupil support:
1 per 100 at risk
Ele m
20%
Middle
20%
High School 33%
The Evidence Based Model:
A Research Driven Approach to Linking Resources to Student Performance
K -3: 15 to 1
4-12: 25 to 1
State and CESAs
District Admin
Site-based Leadership
Teacher
Compensation
ELL
1 per
100
Tec hnolog y

Note: Adapted from Did increased flexibility in the use of categorical grants help
California schools and community colleges improve student performance? A thematic
dissertation proposal by Picus (2009). Adapted with permission.
56

Table 2.3: Evidence-Based Model Suggestions for Prototypical Elementary Schools
School Element Evidence-Based Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students
Class Size K-3: 15; 4-5: 25
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for intensive PD training
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten
Administrative Support
Principal 1.0 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and 1.0 FTE Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers
Instructional Facilitators/Mentors 2.2 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100 poverty students
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE teacher for every 100 EL students
Extended Day 1.8 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled students Additional 3.0 professional teacher positions
Severely disabled students 100% state reimbursement minus federal funds
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel resources and special education personnel
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty students
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE
Resources for gifted students $25 per student
Technology $250 per pupil
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil
Student Activities $200 per pupil
Professional Development $100 per pupil for other PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc. not included above
Note: Adapted from School finance: A policy perspective (4
th
ed.) by Odden
and Picus (2008), pp. 132-133. Copyright 2008 by McGraw-Hill. Adapted with
permission.
57

The final area to be explored in this review of literature is research-based
instructional strategies known to be effective in increasing student achievement.
Instructional Improvement
Instructional improvement is a very broad topic and cannot be thoroughly
explored in the context of this study; however, a brief overview of the research on the
following five meta-analyses of instructional improvement will be examined:
1. Odden and Archibald’s (2009) strategies for doubling student performance,
which is the framework used with the Evidence-Based Model by Odden and
Picus (2003) throughout this study;
2. Research by Odden (2007) in Washington and Wisconsin, which is supported
by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE);
3. A study by Fermanich, Mangan, Odden, Picus, Gross, and Rudo (2006) on a
successful school district in Washington;
4. Duke’s (2006) research on what is known and unknown about improving low-
performing schools; and
5. Marzano’s (2003) school, teacher, and student-level factors affecting student
achievement.
Odden and Archibald (2009)
Odden and Archibald (2009) base their strategies for doubling student
performance on the research conducted on schools and districts that dramatically
improved student performance as well as on schools and districts that have reallocated
58

their resources to support student achievement. For the purposes of their study, the
authors define doubling student performance as a benchmark for identifying significant
improvements in student academic achievement (Odden & Archibald, 2009). In several
cases, the sample districts and schools profiled in their study doubled student
performance as measured by student scores on state tests. Most of their examples of
doubling student performance are from the midrange of performance, which include from
40% of students scoring at or above a proficiency level to 80% or more of students
scoring at or above a proficiency level. In some cases, they are referring to a significant
student subgroup within the school that doubled performance. They also include schools
where they doubled the percentage of students scoring at the advanced level.
The following are 10 steps Odden and Archibald (2009) found to double student
performance:
1. Understanding the performance problem and challenge – engaging in a variety
of activities to understand the performance problems and to fully understand
the distance between the current and desired performance;
2. Set ambitious goals – set “very” high and ambitious performance goals
regardless of the current performance level or student demographics;
3. Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision – focus
on the curriculum and instructional programs, which are the core educational
issues over which educators have control;
59

4. Formative assessments and data-based decision making – implement
formative assessments to provide teachers with data on what skills and
standards students have mastered and what needs to be retaught;
5. Ongoing, intensive professional development – implement a widespread,
systemic, and ongoing professional development program that includes
training on how to analyze assessments, implement new curriculum and
programs, and incorporate effective research-based instructional strategies;
6. Using time efficiently and effectively – this includes restructuring the school
day to make better use of time. Additional time should be given to reading
and mathematics, and interruptions during those times should not be allowed;
7. Extending learning time for struggling students – provide multiple “extra
help” strategies for students who are struggling to achieve proficiency.
Extended learning time should take place during the instructional day, outside
of the instructional day, and outside of the regular school year;
8. Collaborative, professional culture – work in a collaborative and professional
learning community to create a common, school-wide, professional approach
to good instructional practice;
9. Widespread and distributed instructional leadership – the principal, teachers,
and district office staff provide strong instructional leadership; and
10. Professional and best practices – create highly professional organizations that
actively consult the research about how to improve schools, including how to
60

provide best reading, mathematics, science, and professional development
programs.
Odden (2007)
Odden (2007) also examined research supported by the Consortium for Policy
Research in Education (CPRE) in Washington and Wisconsin. He found examples of
successful schools that doubled student performance over a four to seven year period and
found the following 11 steps to double student performance:
1. Set high goals for all students;
2. Analyzed student data to become knowledgeable about student performance
and the achievement gap;
3. Reviewed evidence on good instruction and effective curriculum and made
decisions on a new instructional program for the site;
4. Invested heavily in teacher training that included summer institutes, longer
work years, as well as providing resources for trainers and placing
instructional coaches in all schools;
5. Provided extra help for struggling students that consisted of tutoring,
extended-day academic assistance programs, summer school, and English
language development for EL students;
6. Created smaller classes of 15 in kindergarten through third grade;
7. Used time more productively, increasing time for core subject areas;
61

8. Created Professional Learning Communities allowing teachers opportunities
to work collaboratively on their instructional program and formative
assessment analyses;
9. Provided instructional leadership by the principal and teachers, including
supporting the district’s change efforts;
10. Connected the school with research on curriculum programs, new ways to
organize the instructional program, and other research-based best practices;
and
11. Used programs, strategies, and resource levels that can be funded with the
national per pupil average expenditure.
Fermanich et al. (2006)
Fermanich, Mangan, Odden, Picus, Gross, and Rudo (2006) conducted case
studies of nine Washington districts and individual schools to understand the instructional
improvement visions and strategies of successful schools and how resources were used to
implement those visions. Their studies found the following six themes were directly
associated with successful school reform:
1. A focus on educating all students to state standards;
2. Data was used to make decisions about curriculum and instruction, and the
use of resources;
3. A comprehensive K-12 curriculum aligned to state standards was
implemented;
62

4. Ongoing commitment to professional development to support instructional
improvement;
5. Restructuring the learning environment by developing small learning
communities for students, including creating multiage classrooms as needed;
and
6. Providing struggling students with extended learning opportunities.
Duke (2006)
Duke (2006) reviewed five studies conducted between 1999 and 2004 of what
were referred to as “turnaround schools.” Through this review of these studies, Duke
(2006) found the following 11 characteristics that the turnaround schools had in
common:
1. Assistance for students experiencing problems with learning the required
content;
2. Teachers working collaboratively to plan, monitor student progress, and
provide assistance to struggling students;
3. Data-driven decision making was used regarding resource allocation, student
needs, teacher effectiveness, and other matters;
4. Leadership was provided by the principal and teachers and set the tone for
school improvement;
5. Organizational structure was adjusted to support efforts to increase student
achievement;
63

6. Staff development was provided for teachers on a continuous basis to support
and sustain school improvement efforts;
7. Tests were aligned with curriculum content, which was aligned with
instruction;
8. Students were assessed on a regular basis to determine their progress in
learning the required content;
9. Teachers held high academic expectations for all students;
10. Parents were involved in the education of their children; and
11. Daily schedules were adjusted in order to increase time for academic work,
especially in the core subject areas of reading and mathematics.
Marzano (2003)
Marzano (2003) studied 35 years of research on school effectiveness and
narrowed it down to five common school-level factors supporting student achievement.
The following is a list and brief description of each factor in the order in which Marzano
(2003) proposes have the greatest impact on student achievement:
1. Guaranteed and viable curriculum – Marzano (2003) refers to this factor as a
composite of opportunities to learn and time. Schools must identify essential
versus supplemental content and ensure the essential content is sequenced
appropriately and can be adequately addressed in the available instructional
time. Teachers must also cover the essential content and protect the
instructional time available.
64

2. Challenging goals and effective feedback – Establish challenging goals for all
students and provide effective feedback that is specific and formative.
3. Parent and community involvement – involve parents and the community in
the daily operations of the school, implement mechanisms for communication,
and create specific structures that allow parents and the community some
voice in key school decisions.
4. Safe and orderly environment – create a safe and orderly environment through
establishing rules and procedures that counteract possible negative
consequences of a school’s physical characteristics; establish school-wide
rules and procedures for general behavior; establish and enforce appropriate
consequences for violations of rules and procedures; establish a program that
teaches self-discipline and responsibility to students; and establish a system
that allows for the early detection of students who have high potential for
violence and extreme behaviors.
5. Collegiality and professionalism – Create a culture where all staff interactions
are collaborative and congenial.
Conclusion
The five meta-analyses included a total of 43 research-based strategies to support
increasing student achievement, with several of the same strategies included in more than
one study. A synthesis of these five studies reveals the following five strategies for
increasing student achievement were included in all studies:
1. Setting high expectations and goals for all students;
65

2. Providing timely and specific intervention to students who have not mastered
grade level standards;
3. Reorganizing the instructional day to maximize time spent on the core
academic subjects;
4. Using data to inform instruction and make decisions when implementing
programs and curriculum; and
5. Providing ongoing professional development that focuses on how to analyze
assessments, implement new curriculum and programs, and incorporate
effective research-based instructional strategies.
Summary
In preparation for this study, the review of literature in this chapter included an
overview of the federal government’s role in school finance, California’s school finance
system, resource allocation, educational adequacy, and instructional improvement. The
purpose of this study is to collect and analyze school level data related to the allocation of
resources, and to determine the connection between resource use and increasing student
achievement. The Evidence-Based Model by Odden and Picus (2003) and the strategies
for doubling student performance by Odden and Archibald (2009) will be used in this
study because they include the effective practices that research shows to increase student
achievement, and they provide a school expenditure structure and resource indicator that
allows for a detailed data analysis on the resource allocation patterns and how they are
related to increasing student achievement. The following chapter will summarize the
methodology that will be used in conducting this study.
66

CHAPTER THREE – METHODS
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to collect and analyze school level data related to the
allocation of resources, and to determine how those resources are used to increase student
achievement. At a time when school resources are becoming more and more scarce,
educational leaders will benefit from consulting research before making decisions on
resource allocation in order to know which choices will be the most effective in
supporting, maintaining, and increasing student achievement. The Evidence-Based
Model by Odden and Picus (2008) was used as a framework to analyze school-level
resources. Additionally, a framework developed by Odden and Archibald (2009)
outlining 10 research-based strategies which were found to double student performance
was used to examine which strategies are being implemented in an effort to support and
increase student achievement at each site. The 10 strategies reported to double student
performance are: 1) understand the performance problem and challenge; 2) set ambitious
goals; 3) change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision; 4)
incorporate formative assessments and data-based decision making; 5) implement
ongoing, intensive professional development; 6) use time efficiently and effectively; 7)
extend learning time for struggling students; 8) create a collaborative, professional
culture; 9) promote widespread and distributed instructional leadership; and 10) establish
professional and best practices (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
This study investigated how five elementary schools are using their resources to
support and increase student achievement. While all five elementary schools have
67

similar demographics, the changes in student achievement, according to API scores from
2007-2008 to 2008-2009, varied by nearly 100 points. The methodology used throughout
this study was collecting both quantitative and qualitative data from five elementary
public schools located within two counties and four districts in Southern California. The
quantitative method included the collection of data to reveal how funding and personnel
are utilized at each school site. Data collected through qualitative instruments revealed
resources and instructional strategies being used to support and increase student
achievement.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study are:
 What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?
 How are resources at the school and district used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?
 How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in response to
the recent budget adjustments, including overall funding reductions and changes
in the use of categorical funds?
 How are the actual resource-use patterns at the school sites aligned with, or
different from, the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based or other
Model?
68

Purposeful Sample and Population
This study focused on schools that have similar student demographics and yet
have very different results in the gains made in student achievement as evidenced by API
scores. The original school selected was a school in its third year of Program
Improvement with a student population that is 82% Hispanic, 56% EL, and 78%
socioeconomically disadvantaged. Despite a high minority student population with a
large percentage of students living in poverty, this school experienced a 50 point API
gain in 2009. The California Department of Education’s Similar Schools Report was
then used to identify other schools with similar student demographics who did not
experience the same amount of growth, or who may have even experienced a drop in API
score (California Department of Education, 2010). Four additional schools were selected
that had similar student demographics and yet experienced anywhere from a 32 point
increase to a 47 point decrease in API scores.
Identifying Schools
The Policy and Evaluation Division of the CDE maintains a search engine,
DataQuest, that is used by public school districts in California, as well as parents and
other members of the public to review all components of Accountability Progress
Reporting (APR). The 2009 database was used to identify potential schools that would
meet this study’s requirements. Prior to finalizing the selection of schools to be included
in this study, their demographics were reviewed to ensure their student populations were
indeed similar. Table 3.1 includes a summary of the student demographics for the
schools that were eventually selected for this study.
69

Table 3.1: School Sample Demographics
School CBEDS
Enrollment
% White

% Hispanic % EL % SED
Washington 805 5 84 56 78
Lincoln 667 4 86 42 85
Kennedy 504 12 51 59 76
Reagan 403 5 77 63 82
Bush 590 21 74 63 91
Source: California Department of Education, 2010
Table 3.2 includes each school’s 2008, 2009, and 2010 API scores, and API
growth.
70

Table 3.2: 2008 – 2010 API Scores
School Subgroup 2008
API
Score
2008 API
Growth
2009
API
Score
2009 API
Growth
2010
API
Score
2010 API
Growth
Washington All 707 55 761 50 770 12
Hispanic 683 52 738 49 744 10
EL 677 48 733 51 750 20
SED 676 56 732 50 745 17
Lincoln All 758 22 769 14 739 -30
Hispanic 756 17 768 16 740 -28
EL 724 2 769 48 734 -34
SED 749 20 761 15 731 -30
Kennedy All 730 -27 757 32 787 39
Hispanic 641 -44 675 35 713 49
EL 720 -35 761 45 752 1
SED 699 -23 731 35 766 45
Reagan All 767 -8 722 -47 779 58
Hispanic 732 -4 695 -40 764 69
EL 765 -16 724 -43 758 34
SED 760 4 704 -59 774 71
Bush All 738 -29 763 19 743 -20
Hispanic 708 -55 741 27 722 -19
EL 695 -46 737 37 717 -20
SED 706 -37 742 30 724 -18
Source: California Department of Education, 2010
71

Table 3.3 includes AYP scores that reflect the percentage of students who scored
proficient or advanced during the STAR administration in 2008, 2009, and 2010. It also
includes Program Improvement status for 2008, 2009, and 2010.
72

Table 3.3: Adequate Yearly Progress and Program Improvement
School Subgroup 2008
ELA
%
Prof
or
Adv
2008
Math
%
Prof
or Adv
2008
PI
2009
ELA
%
Prof
or
Adv
2009
Math
%
Prof
or
Adv
2009
PI

2010
ELA
%
Prof
or
Adv
2010
Math
%
Prof
or
Adv
2010
PI
Washington All 35.5 43.7 Year 2 41.2 55.9 Year 3 47.8 59.0 Year 3
Hispanic 30.3 40.5 - 35 51.6 - 42.8 54.1 -
EL 28.9 38.5 - 35.6 51.4 - 43.8 56.2 -
SED 28.2 38.4 - 34.2 50.8 - 43.1 54.6 -
Lincoln All 41.8 49.1 N/A 47 54.7 N/A 44.4 43.9 N/A
Hispanic 40.8 49.0 - 45.5 54.4 - 44.7 42.7 -
EL 32.5 43.5 - 47.4 56.2 - 43.7 42.6 -
SED 39.7 47.3 - 45.7 52.9 - 43.3 43.0 -
Kennedy All 38.6 51.0 N/A 42.2 52.2 Year 1 47.9 65.8 Year 2
Hispanic 25.3 30.2 - 23.7 34.3 - 31.6 49.7 -
EL 37.6 49.2 - 40.4 54.2 - 37.6 61.9 -
SED 33.8 44.3 - 35.4 46.6 - 43.9 62.6 -
Reagan All 39.4 52.0 N/A 35.8 45.5 Year 1 42.5 61.9 Year 2
Hispanic 31.3 42.8 - 30.4 39.8 - 39.2 59.0 -
EL 39.2 53.0 - 35.8 47.2 - 36.8 58.4 -
SED 36.4 49.4 - 31.3 41.4 - 39.1 61.8 -
Bush All 36.7 55.8 N/A 42.2 58.9 N/A 39.8 51.4 N/A
Hispanic 30.8 50.6 - 36.0 55.6 - 36.3 47.8 -
EL 29.0 48.6 - 35.5 55.7 - 34.3 48.3 -
SED 29.4 50.0 - 36.4 54.7 - 36.7 49.0 -
Source: California Department of Education, 2010
73

Instrumentation and Data Collection
The researcher who conducted this study participated in a one-day training
session in March 2010 conducted by Lawrence O. Picus, Ph.D. The training included
interview protocols, a review of the Evidence-Based Model Codebook, data entry
analysis techniques, and case study preparation. The researcher then contacted the five
principals of the sample schools via email with an introduction, a summary of the study,
and why each school had been selected. After all five principals committed to the
project, an appointment was scheduled to conduct an interview with each principal with
the possibility of an additional abbreviated meeting in the fall. The principals were also
told that the following documents would need to be collected prior to the interview:
Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA), School Accountability Report Card
(SARC), mission and vision statements, school budget, master schedule, and staff roster.
In preparing for the interview with the principal, the data collection protocol from
the codebook was followed. Quantitative data was collected based on a school
expenditure structure and resource indicators developed by Odden et al. (2003). The
structure and resource indicators were classified as either instructional or non-
instructional expenditures as outlined in Table 3.4.
74

Table 3.4: School Expenditure Structure
Instructional Non-Instructional
 Core Academic Teachers  Administration
 Specialist and Elective
Teachers/Planning and Preparation
 Operations and Maintenance
 Extra Help
 Professional Development
 Other Non-Classroom Instructional
Staff
 Instructional Materials and Equipment
 Student Support
Note: Adapted from Defining School-Level Expenditure Structures by Odden et al.
(2003), pp. 323-356. Copyright 2003 by Journal of Education Finance. Adapted without
permission.

Qualitative data focused on student performance was also collected. The
interview included both open-ended and close-ended questions. Open-ended questions
were used to capture each school’s strategies for improving student performance, and was
based on the following themes developed by Picus et al. (2008): 1) curriculum being
implemented; 2) content focus; 3) instruction and the definition of effective teaching; 4)
instructional vision; 5) assessments; 6) instructional implementation; 7) early childhood
program; 8) full day kindergarten and class size reduction; 9) professional development;
10) interventions; 11) parent and community involvement; 12) technology; 13)
instructional leadership; and 14) accountability.
Close-ended questions were generated from the following 14 categories: 1) school
profile; 2) school contacts; 3) district profile; 4) district contacts; 5) school resource
indicators; 6) core academic teachers; 7) specialist and elective teachers; 8) library staff;
75

9) extra staff help; 10) other instructional staff; 11) professional development staff and
costs; 12) student services staff; 13) administration; and 14) elementary class sizes.
All information regarding individual schools and school personnel have been
given fictitious names for purposes of anonymity. All quantitative data was entered into
a password protected document on the Internet. Qualitative data was summarized,
written in a case study, and also uploaded to a password protected document on the
Internet. A waiver was submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and it was
determined this study is not subject to the Human Subjects Review.
Data Analysis
The data analysis occurred immediately following each interview. All data from
each school was verified for accuracy and described in a detailed case study. An
additional phone interview was conducted when it was discovered that clarification on
certain data was unclear or incomplete.
Each case study included an analysis of how the school’s resources are aligned to
the Evidence-Based Model. Additionally, instructional strategies being implemented at
each site were compared to Odden and Archibald’s (2009) 10 strategies to Double
Student Performance. One critical component of the case study was an analysis as to the
similarities and differences between resource allocation and the strategies implemented to
support and improve student achievement among the five schools. Specifically, the
researcher was attempting to determine whether or not the differences in resource
allocation and the implementation of specific research-based strategies for improving
student achievement can be correlated to the varying growth or decline in API scores
76

among the five schools participating in the study. After each case study was completed,
the results were discussed in detail in chapter four and a summary including final
recommendations was included in chapter five.
Summary
This chapter described the data collection procedures and methodology that was
used to conduct the data analysis. Detailed information has been provided on the
purposeful sample and population, identification of schools, instrumentation and data
collection process, and data analysis. The following chapter will include case study
narratives, findings, and an analysis related to the four research questions used in this
study.
77

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 five sample schools. Additional
detailed information on each school is provided in individual school case studies in
Appendices H-L. The research questions were used as a framework to review the
findings from the schools and reveal the following: 1) the current instructional vision and
improvement strategies at the school level; 2) how resources at the school and district
were used to implement the school’s instructional improvement plan; 3) how the
allocation of resources at the school change in response to recent budget adjustments; and
4) how the actual resource use patterns at the school sites are aligned with or are different
from the resource use strategies in the Evidence-Based Model (EBM).
All of the sample schools are Title I, non-charter public schools with similar
student demographics and challenges. The original school selected was a school in its
third year of Program Improvement with a student population that is 82% Hispanic, 56%
EL, and 78% socioeconomically disadvantaged. Despite a high minority student
population with a large percentage of students living in poverty, this school experienced a
50 point API gain in 2009. The California Department of Education’s Similar Schools
Report was then used to identify four other schools with similar student demographics
who experienced anywhere from a 32 point increase to a 47 point decrease in API scores
from 2008 to 2009 (California Department of Education, 2010). The following section
shows a comparison of each school’s profile.
78

Summary of Sample Schools’ Characteristics and Performance
All of the schools analyzed in this study are located within Orange County or Los
Angeles County and are from four different districts. District ADA ranges from 19,200
to 47,000. The sample schools also have a wide range of enrollment; the smallest school
has 403 students, which is close to the EBM’s suggested elementary school size of 432,
while the largest school has 805 students. Table 4.1 is a summary of the sample schools’
and their districts’ enrollment.
Table 4.1: Enrollment of Sample Schools and Districts
WashingtonLincoln Kennedy Reagan Bush
School Enrollment 805 667 504 403 590
District Enrollment 19,200 22,775 47,000 47,000 21,450
Grades K-6 K-5 K-6 K-6 K-6

The five sample schools are within the CDE’s Similar Schools Report due to
similar factors such as student demographics, percentage of socioeconomically
disadvantaged students, and student mobility. The majority of the students are Hispanic;
however, four of the sample schools have a Hispanic population of 74% or higher while
one of the sample schools was just over 50%. The White student population in three of
the schools is 5% or less, while in the other two schools White students make up 12% and
21% of the student population. The two sample schools that are in the same district are
the only two schools with an Asian significant subgroup. The Asian population is 16% at
one school and 33% at the other school. In all schools, the minority students make up the
79

majority of the student population. Figure 4.1 is a summary of the ethnic composition of
the sample schools.
Figure 4.1: Ethnic Composition of Sample Schools
0
20
40
60
80
100
WL K B R
Other
Asian
African‐American
White
Hispanic
Source: California Department of Education, 2010
There is a 19% difference between the school with the lowest percentage of
English learners (42%) compared to the two schools with the highest percentage of
English learners (63%). The most similar demographic across all schools is the
percentage of students considered socioeconomically disadvantaged. This percentage is
determined by the percentage of students receiving free or reduced meals and determines
schools’ Title I funding. The percentage of SED students range from 76% to 91% in the
five sample schools. In comparing the percentages of SED students and English learners,
both subgroups in all schools are higher than the EBM estimate of 50% SED and 10%
English learners. Figure 4.2 is a summary of the ethnic composition of the sample
schools, and shows Bush School has the highest percentage of SED students and is one of
two schools with the highest percentage of English learners.
80

Figure 4.2: Percentage of SED and EL Students at Sample Schools
78
56
85
42
76
59
82
63
91
63
50
10
0
50
100
Washington Lincoln Kennedy Reagan Bush EBM School
SED
EL

Source: California Department of Education, 2010

Achievement Data
Academic Performance Index and State and Similar School Rankings
While all five elementary schools have similar demographics, the changes in
student achievement, according to API scores from 2008 to 2009, varied by nearly 100
points. From 2008 to 2009, Washington’s API score increased by 50 points while
Reagan’s API score decreased by 47 points. In reviewing the sample schools’ five year
API results, the growth ranged from an overall decline of 46 points to an increase of 122
points. Washington had the lowest API score in 2006 but experienced a 122 point
increase over five years. Bush had the highest API score in 2006 but dropped 46 points
over five years and is now only four points from the lowest API score of the five sample
schools. Figure 4.3 shows the API change for each sample school between 2006 and
2010.
81

Figure 4.3: API Five Year Change in Sample Schools
743
779
787
739
770
789
746
741
740
648
640 660 680 700 720 740 760 780 800
Bush
Reagan
Kennedy
Lincoln
Washington
2006
2010

Source: California Department of Education, 2010

While the most recent API scores are based on 2009-2010 data, the statewide
ranking and similar schools ranking of the sample schools are based on 2008-2009 data.
The statewide and similar schools rankings published by the California Department of
Education based on 2009-2010 data will not be available until March 2011. According to
the 2008-2009 data, the statewide rankings for all sample schools are similar; all schools
are in the bottom 40
th
percentile or lower when compared with all schools in California.
Reagan is in the bottom 20
th
percentile, Kennedy is in the bottom 30
th
percentile, and the
other three sample schools are in the bottom 40
th
percentile. A five year comparison of
statewide rankings reveals Washington is the only sample schoool that increased its
ranking; all other sample schools’ ranking decreased by one to three deciles.
82

Similar schools ranking is based on various characteristics including but not
limited to demographics, percentage of English learners, and student mobility. Lincoln is
in the top 30
th
percentile, Reagan is in the bottom 20
th
percentile, and all other sample
schools are in between. A five year comparison of similar school rankings reveals
Washington is once again the only sample school that increased its ranking; all other
sample schools’ similar schools ranking either stayed the same or decreased by four to
seven deciles. Reagan experienced the most significant drop from a score of nine to two.
It should be noted once again that these rankings are based on 2008-2009 data and will
change in March 2011 based on 2010 API scores. Table 4.2 displays the statewide and
similar schools decile rankings for the sample schools.
Table 4.2: Statewide Ranking & Similar School Ranking of Sample Schools
Washington Lincoln Kennedy Reagan Bush

2005 2009 2005 2009 2005 2009 2005 2009 2005 2009
Similar
School
Ranking 1 6 7 7 5 5 9 2 10 6
State-
wide
Ranking 1 4 5 4 5 3 5 2 7 4
Source: California Department of Education, 2010
Adequate Yearly Progress
The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) which is based largely on the California
Standardized Tests (CSTs) was analyzed to evaluate the sample schools’ student
achievement. The AYP 2010 English language arts NCLB benchmark required 56.8% of
students score proficient or advanced but the sample schools did not make this target. A
study of results from 2006 to 2010 reveals four out of five schools increased their
percentage of students scoring proficient by 2.7% at Kennedy up to 21.3% at
83

Washington. Students at Lincoln and Reagan experienced an increase of 8.6% and 7.1%
respectively. Bush experienced a decrease of 1.9% in the percentage of students scoring
proficient or advanced. Washington is currently in Year 3 of Program Improvement and
Kennedy and Reagan are both in Year 2. Lincoln and Bush are not in Program
Improvement; however, neither school made the AYP English language arts 2010 target
and if they do not make the 2011 benchmark which is a minimum of 67.6% of students
scoring proficient or advanced, they will enter Program Improvement next year. Figure
4.4 displays the English language arts performance of students school wide in the sample
schools over the past five years.
Figure 4.4: Students Proficient School Wide on English Language Arts AYP
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Washington
Lincoln
Kennedy
Reagan
Bush

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
An issue that continues to be problematic in most school districts across the
nation is the achievement gap between White students and all other students. In this
study, Hispanic, English learners, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students are
84

significant subgroups in all sample schools. The only sample schools that have a White
significant subgroup are Kennedy (12%) and Bush (21%). In comparing the student
performance data between the Hispanic, English learners, and SED students compared to
the White students at each of the sample schools, they all had varied results in closing the
achievement gap. The only sample schools that have an Asian significant subgroup are
Kennedy (33%) and Reagan (16%) and the Asian students outperformed all other
subgroups at those two schools.
An analysis of the AYP English language arts results for the Hispanic subgroup
reveals all schools with the exception of Bush increased the percentage of Hispanic
students scoring proficient on the ELA CST. Kennedy experienced the least amount of
growth with an increase of 2.7% while Washington experienced the greatest growth at
18.7%. The Hispanic population at Lincoln and Reagan experienced an increase of 9.5%
and 13.1% respectively while the Hispanic population at Bush decreased the percentage
of students scoring proficient by 3.9%. Figure 4.5 displays the English language arts
performance of the Hispanic subgroup in the sample schools over the past five years.
85

Figure 4.5: English Language Arts AYP for Hispanic Students
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Washington
Lincoln
Kennedy
Reagan
Bush

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
An analysis of the AYP English language arts results for the English learner
subgroup reveals that Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan experienced an increase in the
percentage of English learners scoring proficient on the ELA CST. Reagan experienced
the least amount of growth with an increase of 3.5%; Lincoln experienced an increase of
13.1%; and Washington experienced the greatest growth at 21.3%. The English learner
population at Bush and Kennedy experienced a decrease of students scoring proficient or
advanced by 1.7% and 10.3% respectively. Figure 4.6 displays the English language arts
performance of the English learner subgroup in the sample schools over the past five
years.
86

Figure 4.6: English Language Arts AYP for English Learners
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Washington
Lincoln
Kennedy
Reagan
Bush

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
An analysis of the AYP English language arts results for the SED subgroup
reveals all schools with the exception of Bush increased the percentage of students
scoring proficient on the ELA CST. Kennedy experienced the least amount of growth
with an increase of 8.1% while Washington experienced the greatest growth at 21.7%.
The SED population at Lincoln and Reagan experienced an increase of 8.7% and 9.2%
respectively while the SED population at Bush decreased the percentage of SED students
scoring proficient by 1.5%. Figure 4.7 displays the English language arts performance of
the SED subgroup in the sample schools over the past five years.
87

Figure 4.7: English Language Arts AYP for SED Students
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Washington
Lincoln
Kennedy
Reagan
Bush

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
In summarizing the AYP results for English language arts, there are specific
trends in the five sample schools. All schools with the exception of Bush increased the
percentage of students scoring proficient school wide. All schools with the exception of
Bush and Kennedy also increased the percentage of proficiency among the Hispanic,
English learner, and SED subgroups. In each case, Washington experienced the greatest
amount of growth. While Bush experienced a decrease school wide and with each
significant subgroup, Kennedy only saw a decrease in the English learner subgroup.
The AYP 2010 mathematics NCLB benchmark required 58% of students score
proficient or advanced. Although the sample schools did not meet the 2010 English
language arts target, three of the five sample schools did meet the 2010 school wide
mathematics target. The percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced at
Washington, Kennedy, and Reagan were 59%, 65.8%, and 61.9% respectively. A study
88

of results from 2006 to 2010 reveals three out of five schools increased their percentage
of students scoring proficient by 12.9% at Kennedy; 15% at Reagan; and 28.4% at
Washington. Lincoln and Bush experienced a decrease of 7% and 18.5% respectively in
the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced. Figure 4.8 displays the
mathematics performance of students school wide in the sample schools over the past
five years.
Figure 4.8: Students Proficient School Wide on Mathematics AYP
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Washington
Lincoln
Kennedy
Reagan
Bush

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
An analysis of the AYP mathematics results for the Hispanic subgroup reveals
that Washington, Kennedy, and Reagan experienced an increase of the percentage of
Hispanic students scoring proficient or advanced on the mathematics CST. Kennedy
experienced the least amount of growth with an increase of 14.8%; Reagan experienced
an increase of 21.8%; and Washington experienced the greatest growth at 26.9%. The
Hispanic population at Lincoln and Bush experienced a decrease of students scoring
89

proficient by 10% and 23.1% respectively. Figure 4.9 displays the mathematics
performance of the Hispanic subgroup in the sample schools over the past five years.
Figure 4.9: Mathematics AYP for Hispanic Students
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Washington
Lincoln
Kennedy
Reagan
Bush

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
An analysis of the AYP mathematics results for the English learner subgroup
reveals that Washington, Kennedy, and Reagan experienced an increase of the percentage
of English learners scoring proficient or advanced on the mathematics CST. Kennedy
experienced the least amount of growth with an increase of 9.6%; Reagan experienced an
increase of 12.6%; and Washington experienced the greatest growth at 28.5%. The
English learner population at Lincoln and Bush experienced a decrease of students
scoring proficient by 6.8% and 13.7% respectively. Figure 4.10 displays the mathematics
performance of the English learner subgroup in the sample schools over the past five
years.
90

Figure 4.10: Mathematics AYP for English Learners
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Washington
Lincoln
Kennedy
Reagan
Bush

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
An analysis of the AYP mathematics results for the SED subgroup reveals that
Washington, Kennedy, and Reagan experienced an increase of the percentage of SED
students scoring proficient on the mathematics CST. Kennedy experienced the least
amount of growth with an increase of 19.9%; Reagan experienced an increase of 20%;
and Washington experienced the greatest growth at 29.8%. The SED population at
Lincoln and Bush experienced a decrease of students scoring proficient by 6.7% and
17.2% respectively. Figure 4.11 displays mathematics performance of the SED subgroup
in the sample schools over the past five years.
91

Figure 4.11: Mathematics AYP for SED Students
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Washington
Lincoln
Kennedy
Reagan
Bush

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
In summarizing the AYP results for mathematics, there are consistent trends in
the five sample schools. Kennedy, Reagan, and Washington all increased the percentage
of proficiency school wide and for the Hispanic, English learner, and SED subgroups. In
each case, Kennedy experienced the least amount of growth and Washington experienced
the greatest amount of growth. Lincoln and Bush decreased the percentage of proficiency
school wide and for the three significant subgroups with Bush always demonstrating a
bigger decline than Lincoln.
When looking at the data in the percentage of students scoring proficient in ELA
and mathematics, one consistent trend in examining school wide and the Hispanic,
English learner, and SED subgroups is that Washington experienced the most growth
school wide and in all subgroups and Bush experienced the largest decrease school wide
and in all subgroups. Reagan and Kennedy experienced an increase school wide and in
92

every subgroup in both ELA and mathematics with the exception of English language
arts for Kennedy’s English learner subgroup. Lincoln experienced an increase school
wide and in every subgroup in English language arts; however, they experienced a
decrease school wide and in every subgroup in mathematics.
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Strategies
The five sample schools use a variety of improvement strategies in an attempt to
increase student achievement. The improvement strategies used at the five schools were
evaluated through Odden and Archibald’s (2009) framework, 10 Strategies for Doubling
Student Performance. Odden and Archibald (2009) base their strategies for doubling
student performance on the research conducted on schools and districts that dramatically
improved student performance as well as on schools and districts that have reallocated
their resources to support student achievement. All of the sample schools in this study
use most or all of Odden and Archibald’s (2009) strategies in an attempt to increase
student achievement; however, the level of implementation of those strategies varies
across the schools.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge
Odden and Archibald (2009) found the importance of engaging in a variety of
activities to understand the performance problems and to fully understand the distance
between the current and desired performance. The staff at each of the five sample
schools has different levels of understanding the performance problem and challenges
they face at their individual schools in the area of student achievement. After
Washington’s principal had been at that school for one year, the school was performing
93

in the bottom 10% of all schools across the state and entered Program Improvement. One
year later, she and the staff recognized the fact that Washington’s students were failing to
meet both state and federal accountability systems and that they needed to create an
action plan to make a dramatic change to the program they were offering students.
The staffs at Kennedy and Reagan also had a strong understanding of the
challenges they were facing when their current principals transferred to their new sites.
When Reagan’s principal arrived in 2008, she met with each staff member and the
overarching message was the staff felt fragmented and did not feel they worked together.
They blamed the previous principal for a lack of emphasis on best instructional practices,
never holding teachers accountable for their performance in their classrooms, and a lack
of focused professional development. When Kennedy’s principal arrived in 2009, he also
met with each staff member and was told their previous principal had been at Kennedy
for years waiting for her retirement and had not served as an instructional leader for the
last several years. They were also concerned with the lack of site-based professional
development and the lack of support with student discipline.
The staffs at Lincoln and Bush did not have the same understanding of the
performance problems specific to their sites. The principal at Lincoln has been there for
two years. At the end of her first year, Lincoln experienced their second consecutive year
of growth in student achievement; however, at the end of 2009-2010, their scores
declined. The principal and staff were perplexed by the 30 point drop in their API score
and the decrease in the percentage of students scoring proficient in ELA and
mathematics. The Bush staff did not understand why they experienced growth in student
94

achievement at the end of 2008-2009. They attributed the decline in student achievement
at the end of 2009-2010 to losing 24 of their highest performing students to the newly
opened magnet school.
In summary, the staffs at Washington, Kennedy, and Reagan have a strong
understanding of the performance problems and challenges at their respective sites and
those three sample schools experienced an increase in their API scores. While
Washington’s API score grew nine points from 2009 to 2010, it experienced a 122 point
increase over the past five years and currently has the highest API score of the sample
schools. The API scores for Kennedy and Reagan also increased from 2009 to 2010 by
30 points and 57 points respectively. The staffs at Lincoln and Bush have a weak
understanding of the performance problems and challenges at their respective sites and
both schools experienced a decrease in their API scores from 2009 to 2010 of 30 points
and 20 points respectively. This finding supports Odden and Archibald’s (2009) research
on the importance of engaging in a variety of activities to understand the performance
problems and to fully understand the distance between the current and desired
performance.
Set ambitious goals
Research emphasizes the importance of setting “very” high and ambitious
performance goals regardless of the current performance level or student demographics
(Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden, 2007; Duke, 2006; Marzano, 2003). Washington,
Kennedy and Reagan have created a system for establishing ambitious goals for all
students. Kennedy and Reagan are in the same school district where universal goals have
95

been established for all students in grades two through 11. Teachers set individual goals
with each student, discuss those goals with the students and their parents, and follow a
system for progress monitoring through the use of Data Director. Discipline goals are
also set for Kennedy students as needed. The principal at Washington created a culture
of setting high expectations for all students. Students who score proficient or advanced
on the prior year’s CSTs are rewarded with a bracelet that they wear proudly. All
teachers meet with their students individually at the beginning of the school year for a
data conference and create specific goals that are numeric in nature. A second data
conference is conducted after the second trimester to review each student’s progress
toward meeting those goals and to evaluate whether or not additional support is needed
for the remainder of the year. SMART, a district created online student data warehouse
very similar to Data Director, is used for storing assessment data and assists teachers with
progress monitoring.
The staffs at Lincoln and Bush do not set individual goals for all students. The
intervention teachers at Bush set individual goals for students receiving small group
intervention. Teachers set class goals for increasing student achievement on the CSTs. A
few teachers meet with individual students to set goals; however, this is not a school wide
practice or expectation. Lincoln establishes school wide goals for increasing student
achievement on the CSTs; however, they are very broad and are not considered
ambitious. The only real emphasis on the school wide goals is through a message during
the announcements encouraging students to do their best and help increase their school’s
API score.
96

The staffs at Washington, Kennedy, and Reagan have a strong understanding of
the importance of setting ambitious goals and work to establish school wide goals as well
as individual goals with each student. The staffs at Lincoln and Bush do not understand
the importance of setting ambitious goals and, therefore, do not implement this strategy.
This conclusion supports the research by Odden and Archibald (2009), Odden (2007),
Duke (2006), and Marzano (2003) that emphasizes the importance of setting high and
ambitious performance goals to promote an increase in student achievement regardless of
the level or student demographics.
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision
Another important step in doubling student performance is creating a focus on the
curriculum and instructional programs, which are the core educational issues over which
educators have control (Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden, 2007; Fermanich, et al., 2006;
Duke, 2006; Marzano, 2003). Each sample school in this study uses state-adopted and
district-approved curriculum for English language arts, mathematics, science, and social
science. Houghton-Mifflin is the English language arts curriculum that has been used in
all five sample schools since 2000. Washington and Lincoln adopted and implemented
the Pearson/Scott Foresman Envision mathematics series in 2009-2010. Reagan and
Kennedy adopted Harcourt mathematics in 2000 but implemented a new mathematics
lesson delivery model referred to district wide as Project G in 2009-2010. Macmillan
McGraw-Hill is the math curriculum used at Bush. The four districts representing the
sample schools provide curriculum maps or pacing guides that establish instructional
timelines for the core subjects.
97

The instructional vision varies at each of the sample schools. Effective with the
2007-2008 school year, Washington received a three-year High Priority School Grant
(HPSG). As part of the grant requirement, the Washington staff created an action plan
that included developing a new instructional vision. The principal and leadership team
worked with the entire staff to create the new instructional vision that included the
following: 1) extended time for the staff to meet as Professional Learning Communities;
2) additional assessments; 3) increased site-based professional development coaching; 4)
additional intervention; and 5) focus on best teaching/effective instructional strategies.
When Lincoln’s principal was asked what her instructional vision was for her
improvement effort, her response was, “I’m not sure how to answer this.” She eventually
referred to an emphasis on best first teaching. The district provided all principals with
professional development by Dennis Fox. The emphasis of that training was examining
best instructional practices. She felt his training was excellent and hired him to spend
one day in the summer working with her staff on examining data and incorporating best
instructional practices based on the data.
The Kennedy staff worked with their principal during the 2009-2010 school year
to establish a new instructional vision that included the following: 1) incorporating site
based professional development; 2) creating a student discipline program; 3) modifying
the instructional day schedule; and 4) implementing a targeted systematic intervention
program.
After Reagan’s principal had been at that school for one year, the staff worked
together to create a new instructional vision that included the following: 1) on site
98

professional development focused on direct instruction; 2) an emphasis on the research-
based instructional model known as Gradual Release of Responsibility; and 3) backwards
planning and curriculum mapping based on content standards. Although not necessarily
part of the instructional vision, both Reagan and Kennedy also supported their district’s
focus on making changes to the mathematics program (Project G) that included
eliminating lessons that were not standards based, creating new pacing guides, and
replacing old assessments with standards based assessments.
The principal at Bush could not articulate a specific instructional vision. At the
time of the interview, she had been at Bush for one school year and their focus was in the
area of mathematics and utilizing the MIND Institute in first through fourth grades to
support their improvement efforts in mathematics.
The staffs at all five sample schools implement a state-approved, standards based
curriculum in the core subjects; however, not all schools have implemented a strong
instructional vision. The staffs at Washington, Kennedy, and Reagan have all worked
together to create an instructional vision that focuses on student achievement and is the
foundation for all they do. The principals at Lincoln and Bush were not able to articulate
an instructional vision for their schools. They do work toward increasing student
achievement; however, they do not have a well-established vision for their work. Once
again, this finding supports the research by Odden and Archibald (2009), Odden (2007),
Fermanich, et al. (2006), Duke (2006), and Marzano (2003) that emphasizes the
importance of creating a focus on the curriculum and instructional programs, which are
the core educational issues over which they have control.
99

Formative assessments and data-based decision making
Research supports the implementation of formative assessments to provide
teachers with data on what skills and standards have been mastered and what needs to be
taught (Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden, 2007; Fermanich, et al., 2006; Duke, 2006).
All teachers at Washington give district benchmark assessments four times each year.
The results of those assessments along with CST data are used to create individual
learning goals, identify target students, and monitor students’ progress throughout the
year. All assessment data is recorded in the district’s web-based SMART system and is
reviewed by the principal after each assessment is given. Another assessment used at the
beginning of each year is Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS),
which is used to identify students at-risk and in need of additional interventions. Those
students become part of each teacher’s target students and DIBELS assessments are then
given on a regular basis. Teachers record the results of these assessments in each
student’s DIBELS booklet and in the district’s SMART database. The principal collects
the DIBELS booklets from each teacher every Friday, reviews each student’s results, and
writes notes, comments or questions as appropriate.
A variety of assessments are used throughout the year at Lincoln to monitor
student progress. At the beginning of each year, the computerized assessments DORA
(Diagnostic Online Reading Assessment) and DOMA (Diagnostic Online Math
Assessment) are administered to all students. They also take this assessment at the end of
each grading period. Common assessments in language arts are also administered at the
end of each grading period. Beginning in spring 2010, teachers were given an additional
100

hour of release time every three weeks to work in grade level teams to develop additional
common assessments to be used with the assessments that are part of the different tier II
intervention programs so students can be moved in and out of leveled intervention groups
every three to four weeks The district has not had any type of computer system or
program where the results of the assessments are entered and monitored; however, they
just purchased a license agreement with Data Director and teachers are being trained how
to enter assessment data into this on line data management system.
Kennedy and Reagan are in a district that has created common benchmark
assessments that all teachers are required to administer on a regular basis. English
language arts benchmark assessments are administered four times each year and
mathematics benchmark assessments are given at the end of each trimester. The district’s
curricular focus in 2009-2010 was in the area of mathematics. New common formative
mathematics assessments were created and incorporated to replace the assessments
included in the mathematics textbook. Kennedy and Reagan also administer DIBELS at
the beginning of the year. If a student is identified at risk, the teacher administers the
Comprehensive Literacy Assessment (CLA) as an additional assessment that identifies
where students’ literacy skills are lacking. All students in kindergarten through sixth
grades are also assessed on their instructional reading level. This information provides
teachers with data to assist them in differentiating the language arts program. All
assessment data, including CST scores, CELDT scores, and benchmark assessments are
recorded in the district’s online data management system, Data Director.
101

When Kennedy’s principal arrived in 2009, he did not review each teacher’s
assessment results with individual teachers. He reviewed the data by grade level with
each grade level team. He also presented an overview of school wide trends with the
entire staff. However, now that he has established a level of trust with his staff, he will
analyze each teacher’s students’ benchmark and CST results from 2009-10 during his
individual fall meetings to assist each teacher with creating their target list of students
and discuss appropriate action steps.
The principal at Reagan uses the data during her individual data conferences with
each teacher so they can review each student’s progress and discuss appropriate
interventions. The principal also uses data reports to create discussions with her staff in
not only analyzing school wide trends, but creating action steps to address trends.
All first through sixth grade teachers at Bush administer the Houghton Mifflin
theme skills tests as benchmark summative assessments every six to eight weeks.
Mathematics summative assessments are given at the end of each trimester. Teachers use
the mathematics chapter pretests as formative assessments to guide their instruction.
MIND Institute mathematics is also used throughout the year for students in first through
fourth grades and the goal is for each student to have mastered 75% of the Mind Institute
mathematics objectives by May 1. Kindergarten teachers administer their own
diagnostic test. The results of all of these assessments along with CST data are used to
identify students in need of intervention. DIBELS is also administered at the beginning
of each year; however, teachers only administer DIBELS with their students who they
believe may be in need of additional academic support based on other initial assessments.
102

If a student is found to be at risk and is referred for intervention, the intervention teacher
continues to administer DIBELS periodically to assess their progress. All assessment
data are recorded in the district’s online data management system, Data Director.
The staffs at all five sample schools utilize formative assessments to assist them
with data based decisions; however, the degree to which formative assessments are used
varies from site to site. Washington and Reagan have a stronger program in place for
utilizing formative assessments regularly while Kennedy, Lincoln, and Bush have an
average program.
Ongoing, intensive professional development
Odden and Archibald (2009), Fermanich et al., (2006), and Duke (2006)
emphasize the importance of implementing a widespread, systematic, and ongoing
professional development program that includes training on how to analyze assessments,
implement new curriculum programs, and incorporate effective research-based
instructional strategies. Washington’s action plan includes a strong emphasis on
professional development. The grant assisted the school in supporting 2.5 FTE
professional development coaches to work with teachers in their classrooms, modeling
lessons and providing school wide professional development with the ultimate goal of
building capacity among the classroom teachers. Coaches go into classrooms and model
strategies known as first best teaching practices that support student achievement.
Washington also participated in three professional development trainings. In year one of
the HPSG, all staff participated in classroom walk-through training with UCLA. During
these walk-throughs, the principal, vice principal, and trainer would meet with a grade
103

level of teachers who were on release time to walk through all classrooms at two other
grade levels. A focus question was established and after the group left each classroom,
they quickly discussed the focus question as it applied to the classroom they just
observed. Another professional development opportunity provided to the Washington
staff was on Strategic Schooling by Dennis Parker. His presentation emphasized four
strategies: 1) targets; 2) feedback; 3) organizational best practices; and 4) unspoken
beliefs. One final training was UCLA’s Bridges to Understanding. The focus of the
training was scaffolding language and scaffolding learning through various best teaching
practices.
Lincoln’s principal believes one of the school’s and district’s greatest need is in
the area of professional development. There have not been any mandatory staff
development days for years other than on the student free day at the end of the first
semester where a principal can offer no more than 3.5 hours of staff development (per
contract limits). The principal believes her staff is hungry for more professional
development. As mentioned previously, Lincoln teachers were given the opportunity to
attend a workshop by Dennis Fox on best instructional practices in August 2010.
Kennedy and Reagan are in a district that emphasizes district wide professional
development. Project G, the approach to the Harcourt mathematics curriculum, was the
focus during 2009-2010; therefore, the district sponsored and paid all costs associated
with several professional development opportunities in the area of mathematics for all
teachers before the school year began and throughout the year. The staffs at both schools
participate in an annual Action Walk with the 2009-2010 focus on mathematics. The
104

district also provides one week of optional professional development for all teachers
during the summer on various topics and this program is called Super Week. Select
trainings are required for all teachers; however, if the teacher is unable to attend Super
Week, the expectation is that the teacher will attend the training offered during an
instructional day later in the year. Every teacher receives a stipend equivalent to 15 hours
that can be used during Super Week or for other district sponsored trainings offered
throughout the year. During the summer of 2010, the district also offered Super Duper
Week where certain teachers were selected to attend the workshops one week prior to
Super Week with the expectation that they will go back to their sites and serve as a
trainer on the content covered during Super Duper week. One additional district
sponsored professional development opportunity is an annual three-day Leadership
Academy. One teacher from each grade level is selected to attend the Academy with
their principal and district TOSA. All participants are then expected to return to the site
and work together to train the staff on the content presented at the Leadership Academy.
Kennedy and Reagan also participated in site based professional development specific to
the needs of each staff. The Kennedy staff participated in professional development
training on implementing strategies to increase the level of student engagement. The
Reagan staff received professional development training in Advanced Direct Instruction
during 2008-2009 and was able to apply what they learned to the mathematics program in
2009-2010. Universal Access training and professional development on implementing a
systematic ELD program was also a focus of professional development at Reagan during
2009-2010.
105

The Site Staff Development Coordinator (SSDC) is a teacher at Bush who works
closely with the principal to provide site based professional development. Two days each
year are designated for site based professional development. The staff is also required to
attend a monthly one-hour meeting for additional professional development each month.
The SSDC surveys the staff to determine the focus of professional development but it is
not necessarily aligned to any long term plan or goal.
The staffs at all five sample schools offer some professional development;
however, some schools and their districts offer much more staff development than others.
The staffs at Washington, Kennedy, and Regan participate in district wide and site based
professional development. The staffs at Lincoln and Bush only have site based
professional development and it is extremely limited at Lincoln. Once again, this finding
supports the research by Odden and Archibald (2009), Fermanich et al., (2006), and Duke
(2006) that emphasizes the importance of implementing a widespread, systematic, and
ongoing professional development program that includes training on how to analyze
assessments, implement new curriculum programs, and incorporate effective research-
based instructional strategies.
Using time efficiently and effectively
Research by Odden and Archibald (2009), Odden (2007), and Duke (2006)
supports restructuring the school day to make better use of time. Additional time should
be given to reading and mathematics, and interruptions during those times should not be
allowed (Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden, 2007; Duke, 2006). Every public school in
California receiving categorical funds must allocate a specific number of minutes each
106

week for language arts and mathematics instruction as well as English language
development instruction for all identified English learners. All sample schools with the
exception of Bush follow these guidelines.
Prior to 2007-2008, teachers at Washington Elementary were not providing 30
minutes of daily ELD instruction. The decision was made to devote the first 30 minutes
of every school day to ELD instruction and to group students according to their CELDT
results to ensure students are receiving the appropriate level of support. That same year,
the staff incorporated the district’s mandate for Universal Access each day. Universal
Access is a time when all students are divided into three groups: below basic, basic, or
proficient and they spend thirty minutes receiving additional support at their own level in
the core English language arts curriculum, Houghton-Mifflin. Washington’s coaches
“pushed in” to the below basic groups and worked with the lowest five students at that
grade level. The TOSA-PD also use this time to model for the classroom teacher
effective strategies for working with students with the great needs.
Prior to 2009-2010, the Lincoln staff devoted one hour each day to targeted
intervention; this time was referred to as Power Hour. However, with the implementation
of the new mathematics curriculum, they no longer had 60 minutes available in the daily
schedule for intervention; therefore, it was reduced to 30 minutes per day. The principal
believes that 30 minutes each day is ample time for intervention because of a training she
attended where research was presented that if you try to incorporate more than 30
minutes of intervention, students stop paying attention. ELD is taught at the same time of
day by grade level and students are grouped according to their CELDT results. The ELD
107

teacher and instructional staff do not work with students during this time because they
feel the groups are small enough when they level them according to their CELDT results.
The ELD teacher and instructional assistants are a “pull out” model rather than an
inclusion model and specific students are pulled out to work with the ELD teacher and
instructional assistants during other times of the day.
Prior to the arrival of Kennedy’s new principal, there was no common schedule
for the time of day each subject was taught. The schedule that had been in place did not
give him confidence that the appropriate amount of time was being devoted to each
subject every day, and it also did not allow the part-time categorical teacher to maximize
her time supporting students in small group settings. Under his guidance, each grade
level created new common schedules that ensured all core subject areas were being
taught each day for the correct number of minutes as mandated by the state. In addition
to the above schedule, every teacher also incorporates 30 minutes of Universal Access
into their daily schedules.
While Reagan teachers are delivering the appropriate minutes of daily instruction
in the core subjects, they are not all devoting 30 minutes of daily ELD instruction. The
instructional day will be realigned in 2010-2011 to ensure this mandate is also built into
the daily instructional schedule. Fourth and fifth grade teachers devote 30 minutes to
Universal Access every day. During the upcoming year, all Reagan teachers will be
trained in Universal Access and will begin implementing 30 minutes of Universal Access
into their daily schedules.
108

The instructional day at Bush has been designed so that English language arts,
mathematics, and ELD are taught at the same time each day. The instructional day
begins with 90 minutes of English language arts for kindergarten through third grades,
although the state mandate is 150 minutes for kindergarten through third grades, and 120
minutes for students in fourth through sixth grades. Mathematics is taught for 30 minutes
in kindergarten while the state mandate requires 60 minutes of daily mathematics
instruction. Students in first and second grades only receive 40 minutes of daily
mathematics instruction while the state mandate is 60 minutes; however, they spend an
additional 80 minutes each week in the computer lab working with the MIND Institute
mathematics program. English language development is taught daily for 30 minutes in
kindergarten and 45 minutes in first through sixth grades.
In summary, while all schools have reorganized their instructional days over the
past few years in an attempt to utilize their time efficiently and effectively, Washington
has done the most thorough job in this area. Washington has also experienced an API
increase of 122 points, more than double the growth of any other sample school, therefore
supporting the research by Odden and Archibald (2009), Odden (2007), and Duke (2006)
that promotes restructuring the school day to make better use of time.
Extending learning time for struggling students
Odden and Archibald (2009), Fermanich, et al. (2006), and Duke (2006)
emphasize the importance of providing extended learning time for struggling students.
Extended learning time should take place during the instructional day, outside of the
instructional day, and outside of the regular school year (Odden & Archibald, 2009). In
109

addition to 30 minutes of daily ELD instruction and 30 minutes of Universal Access
offered to all students at Washington, there are other opportunities for struggling students
to receive additional learning time and interventions. A portion of the HPSG funding as
well as local categorical funds are used to support 3.5 FTE TOSAs- Instruction. Rather
than using a traditional “pull out” program for students in need of extra support, TOSAs-
Instruction push into the classrooms and provide support to targeted students. One of the
coaches has been trained in Response to Intervention (RTI) and has worked with the
entire staff on implementing RTI throughout the school. The staff devoted the first year
to exploring tier I of the RTI model. They used the Houghton Mifflin (HM) English
language arts adopted curriculum, supporting HM supplemental materials, focus walls,
and Universal Access. The next two years were devoted to broadening their
understanding of tier I while also exploring tiers II and III of the model. Leveled readers,
Read Naturally, Start In, and Positive Behavior Intervention Strategies (PBIS) were all
incorporated as part of the tier II model. Students in tier III receive additional
intervention after school. Read 180 was implemented for the first time in 2009-2010 for
students in grades 4-6 in need of tier III intervention. Although Start In is used for some
students in tier II, it is also used in an after school program for students in need of tier III
support.
At Lincoln, each grade level offers 30 minutes of Hour Power daily and students
are grouped by levels according to assessment results. During this time which they
consider tier II of the RTI model, the Title I teacher, ELD teacher, and instructional
assistants push into the classrooms to work with students to offer smaller groups and
110

more individualized support. The Title I teacher spends most of her time supporting the
most intensive students in the upper grades. Various programs are used to support
students during tier II RTI including a phonics program for primary grades; Building
Levels of Comprehension (BLC) for grades 2 – 5; Reading Fluency for grade 3; and Stars
in Cars for all grade levels. Students are assessed every three to four weeks and change
levels according to their assessment results. Limited intervention is offered after school
by the Title I and ELD teacher as well as by instructional assistants. ELD tutoring is
offered year round. Beginning in January and continuing through STAR testing, tutoring
is available to students with the greatest need. The goal in 2010-2011 is to expand after
school interventions to better meet the needs of those students who truly fall into tier III
of the RTI model.
Kennedy and Reagan are part of a district that holds the expectation that all
schools will provide appropriate interventions based on the RTI model; however during
2008-09, there were no after school interventions for struggling students at Kennedy or
Reagan. Individual teachers offered some additional support in the classroom during the
instructional day when they could find the time; however, it was not systematic or
targeted. Reagan’s principal was new to the school in July 2008 and did not address the
lack of interventions with her staff until the end of the 2008-2009 school year.
Kennedy’s principal arrived in July 2009, and made the decision to address the lack of
interventions within the first three months of his arrival. Both principals worked with
their staffs to begin incorporating the district’s intervention model. The district has not
adopted separate intervention programs or curriculum; rather, teachers are expected to
111

use the core curriculum. The staffs began looking at assessment results and offering
more systematic and targeted interventions during the instructional day as well as after
school. In kindergarten and first grade, teachers concentrate on phonemic awareness, and
DIBELS is used to place students in appropriate intervention groups and to monitor
student progress. In addition to DIBELS, first grade teachers also use a comprehension
assessment from the Houghton Mifflin (HM) English language arts curriculum. Second
grade teachers use DIBELS to identify those students at risk and any student found to be
at risk is also given the Comprehensive Literacy Assessment. Teachers of third through
sixth grade students use the prior year’s CST scores and district benchmark data to
identify those students at risk. As in second grade, students found to be at risk are then
given the Comprehensive Literacy Assessment. HM English language arts curriculum is
used for tier II interventions which occur during Universal Access time. HM assessments
are used for progress monitoring. Tier III interventions occur after school. First through
third grade students in tier III receive phonics intervention and are monitored through
DIBELS while Language! is used for tier III students in third through sixth grades.
Second grade students in tier II and tier III also receive fluency practice from the HM
program. All assessments are administered every two to three weeks and students are
moved from one intervention group to another based on their latest assessment results.
While the staffs made significant progress in providing interventions in 2009-2010, both
principals realize this must continue to be a focus for the 2010-2011 school year.
Another district expectation is that the kindergarten teachers also spend one hour
each day working with first and second grade students in an intervention setting after the
112

kindergarten students go home, providing extra support to those students as needed.
This expectation was being implemented at Kennedy; however, it was never implemented
at Reagan until the 2009-2010 school year.
Bush has implemented several different interventions following the RTI model for
students in need of additional academic support in English language arts. In 2009-2010,
tier II interventions were provided by two part-time intervention teachers and one part-
time instructional assistant who worked with targeted students in small groups of no more
than five students, four days each week, in a pull out model during the instructional day.
Due to very small groups of students, the principal stated they have to be “choosy” on
who is selected so they attempt to select students who do not respond to classroom tier I
interventions. Teachers use their own curriculum to preview and review reading
strategies and comprehension skills. Bush also received an additional $20,000 for
intervention support; therefore, a certificated substitute intervention teacher was hired 30
hours per week from December through April to work with students in need of additional
intervention. Project Success is a grant given to Bush to provide an after school
intervention program for 130 of the school’s most at risk students. The curriculum used
for the tier III model is research based and provided by the district. Classified employees
are hired to work with 130 students with class sizes between 20 and 25 students. The
staff considers the Mind Institute computerized mathematics program an intervention
program as well. This is offered to all students in first through fourth grades for 80
minutes each week. Teachers who use this program found that although it takes an
additional 80 minutes of time each week, their direct instruction has become more
113

efficient because of the skills covered in this program. Students are applying and
connecting the conceptual skills they receive in this program to the mathematics
curriculum.
While all schools have incorporated extended learning time for struggling
students, Washington has once again done the most thorough job in this area and has
experienced the most significant increase in student achievement, 122 point gain over
five years. This finding also supports the research by Odden and Archibald (2009),
Fermanich, et al. (2006), and Duke (2006) that emphasizes the importance of providing
focused and targeted extended learning time for struggling students.
Collaborative, professional culture
Research supports the importance of school staffs working in a collaborative and
professional learning community to create a common, school-wide, professional
approach to good instructional practices (Odden and Archibald, 2009; Odden, 2007;
Duke, 2006; Marzano, 2003). Teachers at Washington, Kennedy, and Reagan are
meeting in grade level teams each week to analyze common assessment results and
discuss best instructional practices. All three principals stated some grade level teams
work more collaboratively than others and while progress has been made in working as
Professional Learning Communities, there is room for growth. Teachers at Lincoln and
Bush only meet together in grade level teams once each month. The principal at Lincoln
shared that the third grade team does not work well together and she believes that is one
reason her third grade students’ scores decline. The principal at Bush believes working
114

collaboratively in grade level teams is one of her staff’s greatest strengths, even though
they only meet officially one hour per month.
While none of the sample schools have established a strong collaborative,
professional culture, the three schools that have experienced gains in student achievement
over the past five years have established an average collaborative culture and the two
schools that experienced a decline in student achievement have a weak collaborative
culture. This finding once again supports the research by Odden and Archibald (2009),
Odden (2007), Duke (2006), and Marzano (2003) that emphasizes the importance of
school staffs working in a collaborative and professional learning community to create a
common, school-wide, professional approach to good instructional practices.
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership
Another important step when increasing student achievement is the principal,
teachers, and district office staff working together to provide strong instructional
leadership (Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden, 2007; Duke, 2006). The principals at the
sample schools have developed instructional leadership teams; however, the degree to
which they are being used as instructional leaders varies from school to school. For
example, the leadership team at Washington worked with the principal to create the
school’s action plan. That team also works collaboratively with the principal to bring
about instructional change and carry out the school’s new vision. The leadership team at
Kennedy worked closely with the principal to bring about change within his first year at
Kennedy. The principal believes he would not have been successful in bringing the
necessary changes to Kennedy within such a short time if it was not for the support of his
115

leadership team and their willingness to assist him with leading new initiatives. The
principal at Reagan attributes their gains in student achievement in 2010 to the work of
her leadership team. Her leadership team assists her with bringing about necessary
changes to increase student achievement. The leadership team at Lincoln assists the
principal with developing school wide goals in the Single Plan for Student Achievement.
They also meet with the principal on a monthly basis to discuss issues related to
curriculum, assessment, and improving student achievement. The leadership team at
Bush works with the principal to develop the school wide goals in the Single Plan for
Student Achievement and also assists with communication to the staff.
In summary, the principal at Kennedy developed an instructional team that has
been used most effectively to bring about necessary changes and lead new initiatives
while the principal at Bush uses her team for nothing more than developing goals for the
Single Plan for Student Achievement and assisting with communication to the staff. The
effectiveness of the instructional leadership teams at the other three sample schools
would fall in between Kennedy and Bush.
Professional and best practices
The final step in Odden and Archibald’s (2009) framework for doubling student
performance is creating highly professional organizations that actively consult the
research about how to improve schools, including how to provide best reading,
mathematics, science, and professional development. All sample schools in this study
use research-based instructional strategies and best practices in an attempt to increase
student achievement; however, the degree to which the schools implement various
116

instructional strategies and best practices varies. One example of a best practice is
professional development. Due to the HPSG, Washington has had several opportunities
for professional development. Kennedy and Reagan are in a district that values
professional development and offers a wide variety of professional development
throughout each school year and during the summer. Lincoln is part of a district that
doesn’t financially support professional development. The principals at Washington,
Kennedy, and Reagan work with their leadership teams to assist them with the
implementation of best instructional practices while the principals at Lincoln and Bush
are not as effective in this area.
In summary, all of the sample schools with the exception of Bush have done an
average job of implementing professional and best practices. Bush has done a weak job
in this area.
Table 4.3 shows a summary of the level of implementation for each of Odden and
Archibald’s (2009) 10 Steps for Doubling Student Performance.
117

Table 4.3: Implementation Level of Odden & Archibald’s (2009) Strategies
Odden &
Archibald’s 10
Washington Lincoln Kennedy Reagan Bush
Understanding
performance
problem and
challenge

Strong

Weak

Strong

Strong

Weak
Set ambitious
goals

Strong

Weak

Strong

Strong

Weak
Change
curriculum
program/create
new instructional
vision

Strong

Average

Strong

Strong

Average
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions

Strong

Average

Average

Strong

Average
Ongoing PD Strong Average Strong Strong Weak
Using time
efficiently &
effectively

Strong

Average

Average

Average

Average
Extended
learning time for
struggling
students

Strong

Average

Average

Average

Average
Collaborative,
professional
culture

Average

Weak

Average

Average

Weak
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership

Average

Average

Strong

Average

Weak
Professional and
best practices

Average

Average

Average

Average

Weak

The current economy has resulted in many school districts across California and
throughout the country reducing the level of financial support and resources provided to
schools. The sample schools in this study use their own site categorical funds and
minimal district funds to implement the strategies found to double student performance.
Washington, Kennedy, and Reagan have the support of a coach to work with staff on
professional development while Lincoln and Bush do not have this resource. All five
118

schools have the support of additional credentialed teachers to work with struggling
students; this support ranges from almost 50% FTE at Kennedy to 3.5 FTE at
Washington. All sample schools employ instructional assistants to work with students at
risk or students with an IEP. Three out of five of the sample schools have specialist
teachers who provide general education classroom teachers release and planning time.
The correlation of how the five sample schools choose to spend their resources to the
changes in student achievement over the past five years will be discussed in chapter five.
The following section compares the resource allocation for the sample schools with the
Evidence-Based Model.
Resource Allocation
Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence-Based Model (EBM) will be used to analyze
resource allocation and levels of support at the five sample schools. One noticeable
difference observed in the sample schools and the EBM prototype is class size. All of the
class sizes exceed the EBM, and as a result of additional reductions to school districts’
revenues for the 2010-2011 school year, many sample schools will once again increase
class size effective with the 2010-2011 school year. Table 4.4 compares class sizes of the
sample schools in 2009-2010 to the EBM prototype.
Table 4.4: Class Size at Sample Schools Compared to EBM
Grade
Level
EBM Washington Lincoln Kennedy Reagan Bush
K 15 30 29 33 33 33
1 15 25 21 20 20 20
2 15 25 21 20 20 20
3 15 30 21 20 20 20
4 25 33 29 36 36 36
5 25 33 29 36 36 36
6 25 33 N/A 36 36 36
119

There is a large discrepancy between the prototype elementary school and the five
sample schools in almost all areas included in the EBM. In analyzing the number of core
teachers each sample school should employ based on their enrollment, every school falls
short by 6.4 FTEs at Reagan to 16.7 FTEs at Washington. In totaling the number of
certificated teachers working as specialist teachers, instructional facilitators/mentors,
teachers supporting struggling students, and teachers working with English learners, the
EBM would provide a total of 90.1 additional teachers above the designated core and
specialist teachers to the five sample schools. The total of those same specialist teachers
at the five sample schools is 12.4, which is only 13.8% of the EMB’s prototypical school.
Significant discrepancies from the EBM prototype school to the sample schools
also include the amount of funding each school receives for professional development,
technology, instructional materials, supporting gifted students, and student activities. The
amount each school spent on professional development was below the EBM suggestion
between $2,902 and $55,358. Technology was also under funded between $53,950 at
Reagan and $122,580 at Bush. The largest discrepancy was in the area of student
activities where schools were under funded between $76,654 at Reagan to $159,786 at
Washington. Table 4.5 compares various school elements of the sample schools to the
EBM prototype.
120

Table 4.5: Schools’ Resource Allocation Comparison to EBM
Washington Lincoln Kennedy Reagan Bush
School
Element
EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual
Core Teachers 44.7 28 41.7 27 28 21 22.4 16 32.8 24
Specialist
Teachers
8.9 0 8.34 0 5.6 .8 4.5 .2 6.6 1.3
Instructional
Facilitators
Mentors
4.1 1.5 3.4 0 2.6 .3 2.1 .3 3.0 0
Tutors 6.3 3.5 5.7 1.0 3.8 .46 3.3 1.1 5.4 .925
Teachers for EL 4.5 0 2.8 1.0 3.0 0 2.5 0 3.7 0
Extended Day
FTE
3.4 0 3.4 0 2.1 0 1.7 0 2.5 0
Summer School
FTE
3.4 0 3.4 0 2.1 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.5 0
Learning
Disabled FTE
5.7 2.13 4.6 3.3 3.5 4.0 2.8 2.5 4.1 4.0
Substitutes
a
28,710 3,798 28,080 5,000 23,760 3,885 17,820 6,300 23,085 3,595
Pupil Support 6.3 2.705 5.7 0 3.8 .92 3.3 .75 5.4 1.5
Non-
Instructional
Aides
3.8 0 3.1 0 2.3 0 1.9 0 2.7 0
Librarian
Media
Specialists
1.9 2.0 1.54 1.7 1.2 .92 .9 .2 1.4 1.0
Principal 1.9 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.0
School
Secretaries
Clerks
3.8 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.4 1.92 1.9 1.8 2.8 2.0
PD
a
80,500 25,142 66,700 23,400 50,400 28,706 40,300 37,398 59,000 33,235
Technology 201,250 91,904 166,750 47,235 126,000 46,403 100,750 46,800 147,500 24,920
Resources for
GATE
Students
a
20,125 0 16,675 0 12,600 0 10,075 0 14,750 0
Instructional
Materials
a
112,700 108,230 93,380 62,735 70,560 11,478 56,420 39,801 82,600 33,100
Student
Activities
a

161,000 1,214 133,400 3,225 100,800 4,550 80,600 3,946 118,000 3,232
a
Resource allocations in dollars.
Many of the sample schools use a variety of methods to provide additional
support for students. Research by Odden and Picus (2008) includes using certificated
teachers as tutors and intervention teachers and not using instructional assistants in this
capacity; however, due to the difference in the cost of employing certificated staff versus
121

part-time instructional assistants, the sample schools all have minimal certificated staff
and several part-time instructional assistants working in this capacity.
While the sample schools offer after-school intervention, it is limited due to
financial constraints as well as finding staff who want to teach intervention groups after
school. Due to recent budget constraints, summer school has been eliminated for all
general education students in three out of four districts represented in this study.
Impact of Current Funding Crisis
The impact of California’s budget crisis has had a direct effect on all five of the
sample schools in different ways. Some schools have felt less of an impact because their
district had larger reserves compared to other districts. All sample schools are Title I
schools and receive federal categorical funding to assist them with sustaining current
programs and staffing. State categorical funds that schools have received for many years
have become flexible through June 30, 2012; therefore, many districts took those funds
away from the schools sites and used them to support the district’s general fund.
In an effort to offer assistance to districts and schools across the nation during this
financial crisis, President Obama and the federal government created the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The ARRA provided more than $100 billion
dollars nationally, with California receiving nearly $8 billion (EdSource, 2010c). The
ARRA provided substantial one-time funds to help struggling states and created
competitive programs designed to encourage reform. The sample schools in this study
received anywhere from $16,000 to $151,000 to be spent during the 2009-2010 and
2010-2011 school years; however, each school lost their School and Library
122

Improvement Program (SLIP) funding at the same time because SLIP funds are state
categorical funds that became flexible, and the four districts representing the five sample
schools swept the SLIP funds into the district’s general budget.
As a direct result of the state categorical dollars becoming flexible, the sample
schools have all increased class size. In 2009-2010, Washington’s class sizes increased
in first and second grades from 20 to 25. The other four sample schools were able to
maintain current class sizes through 2009-2010; however, effective with the 2010-2011
school year, the other four sample schools will experience an increase in class sizes in
first through third grades. Bush will also increase class size in kindergarten and
Washington will again increase class size in first and second grades from 25 to 30.
Another option many districts are implementing is reducing the number of school
days from 180 to 175. This reduction of five days is most commonly known as furlough
days in which all staff work five less days during the school year and their salary is
reduced on a per diem basis; therefore, resulting in a savings to the district. Although
none of the sample schools reduced the school year in 2009-2010, three of the five
sample schools have reduced the school year in 2010-2011 either four or five days;
Lincoln and Bush are the exceptions as they are not taking any furlough days this year.
Professional development is another area that has been affected as a result of the
current financial crisis. Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush are in districts that have continued
to designate specific days for district wide professional development while the district
wide professional development days for Lincoln have been eliminated and are offered on
123

a voluntary basis for Washington. All sample schools continue to offer site-based
professional development.
One final example that should be highlighted affects Washington which is the
sample school that has experienced the largest gains in student achievement over the past
five years. As previously noted, Washington received a three year High Priority School
Grant (HPSG) effective July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2010. Washington’s district had to
reduce its budget for 2009-2010 by $10.3 million which was the third and final year
Washington was to receive its HPSG funding. Those funds became flexible and the
district could have made the decision to take those funds from Washington; however, due
to the success Washington experienced during the first two years of the HPSG, the
district made the decision to allow 100% of the grant funding to remain at Washington to
support the instructional practices they put in place for the past two years.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze school level data related to
the allocation of resources, and to determine the connection between resource use and
increasing student achievement. The Evidence-Based Model by Odden and Picus (2008)
was used as a framework while analyzing school-level resources to determine whether or
not the sample schools have aligned their resources to support student achievement. 10
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance by Odden and Archibald (2009) was also
used as a second framework to determine which strategies the sample schools are
implementing in an effort to support and increase student achievement.
124

While the sample schools were all in the California Department of Education’s
Similar Schools Report, their API scores from 2008 to 2009 varied from a 50 point gain
at Washington to a 47 point decrease at Reagan. When comparing the sample schools to
all other schools in California, Reagan is in the bottom 20
th
percentile, Kennedy is in the
bottom 30
th
percentile, and the other three sample schools are in the bottom 40
th

percentile. Similar schools rankings for the sample schools vary from Reagan scoring in
the bottom 20
th
percentile to Lincoln scoring in the top 30
th
percentile.
The sample schools are all attempting to implement strategies similar to those
described by Odden and Archibald (2009) but they are all implementing the strategies at
different levels. One example is setting ambitious goals for student achievement. The
teachers at Washington have data conferences with every student to review CST and
benchmark results and set goals for the upcoming year. Those goals are discussed with
parents during parent teacher conferences and monitored closely throughout the year.
The other extreme can be found at Lincoln and Bush where the staffs do not set
individual goals for all students. Minimal attention is given to creating a school wide
API goal at Lincoln and the intervention students at Bush are the only students who are
involved in setting any type of a personal goal.
Using resource allocation levels suggested for a prototypical elementary school by
the Evidence-Based Model, it is apparent that none of the sample schools have adequate
resources to support learning for all students. The EBM prototype school would have a
total enrollment of 432 students; the sample schools vary in enrollment from 403 at
Reagan to 805 at Washington, nearly double the size of the EBM prototype. The EBM
125

suggests a school have a student population with no more than 50% socioeconomically
disadvantaged students and 10% English learners. In 2008-2009, each school’s
population ranged between 76% SED at Kennedy to 91% SED at Bush and between 42%
English learners at Lincoln to 63% English learners at both Reagan and Bush. In
analyzing the number of core teachers each sample school should employ based on their
enrollment, every school falls short by 6.4 FTEs at Reagan to 16.7 FTEs at Washington.
The number of specialist teachers, instructional facilitators/mentors, teachers supporting
struggling students, and teachers working with English learners is also well below the
EBM prototype school at each of the sample schools.
It is difficult to imagine the sample schools in this study will ever receive the
resources supported by the literature to adequately educate all students. Chapter 5 will
discuss this issue further and provide additional summary, conclusions, and suggestions
for further research.

126

CHAPTER FIVE – DISCUSSION
Background
This final chapter presents a brief overview of the study, a summary of the
findings, limitations of the study, and recommendations for future research.
Overview of the Study
This study used a purposeful sample of five middle schools with similar
characteristics and demographics. The original school selected was a school in its third
year of Program Improvement with a student population that is 82% Hispanic, 56% EL,
and 78% socioeconomically disadvantaged. Despite a high minority student population
with a large percentage of students living in poverty, this school experienced a 50 point
API gain in 2009. The California Department of Education’s Similar Schools Report
was then used to identify four other schools with similar student demographics and
characteristics who did not experience the same amount of growth, or who may have
even experienced a drop in API score (California Department of Education, 2010).
The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze school level data related to
the allocation of resources, and to determine how those resources are used to increase
student achievement. The Evidence-Based Model by Odden and Picus (2008) was used
as a framework to analyze school-level resources. Additionally, a framework developed
by Odden and Archibald (2009) outlining 10 research-based strategies which were found
to double student performance was used to examine which strategies are being
implemented and to what level at each of the sample schools in an effort to support and
increase student achievement.
127

Summary of Findings
The research questions for this study are:
 What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?
 How are resources at the school and district used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?
 How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in response to
the recent budget adjustments, including overall funding reductions and changes
in the use of categorical funds?
 How are the actual resource-use patterns at the school sites aligned with, or
different from, the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based or other
Model?
In reviewing the level to which each of the schools is implementing some or all of
Odden and Archibald’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance, it
became clear that the three schools that have experienced growth over the past five years
have a strong level of implementation of four to seven of the 10 strategies and have an
average level of implementation of the remaining strategies. To the contrary, the two
schools that have declined over the past five years were found to have a weak level of
implementation of three to six of the 10 strategies and only an average level of
implementation of the remainder of the strategies.
Washington’s API score increased 122 points over the past five years and
currently has the highest API score of the sample schools. Washington also has a strong
128

level of implementation of seven of the 10 strategies and an average level of
implementation of the other three strategies.
The API scores for Kennedy increased by 46 points over five years; however,
they experienced their biggest increase of 30 points from 2009 to 2010, the year after the
new principal arrived at Kennedy and began working with his leadership team to bring
about significant changes to improve student achievement.
When the sample schools were selected based on the 2009 API scores, Reagan
had just experienced a 47 point decrease from 2008 to 2009 which was at the end of the
current principal’s first year at that school. The principal admitted she spent her first year
evaluating their program and building relationships; she did not make any changes to
their instructional program that year. She felt she had to go slow to go fast. At the
beginning of her second year, she felt confident that she had established trust with her
staff and she began working with her leadership team to implement significant changes to
improve student achievement. At the end of that year, her school’s API score increased
by 57 points, the largest gain in a single year between 2006 and 2010 of any of the
sample schools.
The API scores for Lincoln decreased by one point over five years. In reviewing
the level of implementation of the 10 strategies, Lincoln was only found to have an
average level of implementation in seven strategies and had a weak level of
implementation in the remaining three strategies. The school did not have a strong level
of implementation of any of the ten strategies. The principal arrived at Lincoln in July
2008 and at the end of her first year, the school’s API score increased by 11 points;
129

however, after interviewing the principal, the researcher believes the reason for the API
growth at the end of her first year was due to programs that her predecessor had in place
prior to her arrival. When the current principal was asked what the instructional vision
was for the school, her response was, “I’m not sure how to answer that question.” She
eventually talked about a professional development training she was going to provide for
her staff in August 2010, but never did describe an instructional vision for Lincoln.
The API score for Bush decreased by 46 points over five years. In reviewing the
level of implementation of the 10 strategies, Bush was only found to have an average
level of implementation in four strategies and had a weak level of implementation in the
remaining six strategies. Similar to Lincoln, this school did not have a strong level of
implementation of any of the ten strategies. When the sample schools were selected
based on the 2009 API scores, Bush had just experienced a 25 point increase from 2008
to 2009 but that was the only year in the last five years that Bush experienced an increase
in API scores. The current principal arrived at Bush in the summer 2009 but was not able
to have any type of transition meeting or even speak with the previous principal to
discuss his perspective on the growth Bush experienced in 2008-2009. During the
interview, it became clear that Bush was not implementing the 10 strategies to the same
level as the other sample schools and Bush had the largest decline in student achievement
of the sample schools over the past five years. Similar to Lincoln, this principal also did
not have a clear and focused vision. However, it is also important to note that Bush has
undergone significant changes over the past four years that may have contributed to the
decrease in API scores each year. Until June 1, 2006, Bush had been an elementary
130

school that only served students in kindergarten through grade three; therefore, the only
students who participated in the California Standards Test were in second grade. In 2007,
Bush added fourth grade; in 2008, fifth grade was added, and effective with the 2009-
2010 school year, Bush became a K-6 school. Another change effective with the 2009-
2010 school year was the district opened a new magnet school which resulted in 24 of
Bush’s highest performing students leaving Bush to attend the magnet school.
The three sample schools that experienced an increase in their API scores over the
past five years were all found to have a strong level of implementation in four of the 10
strategies. The first strategy was understanding the performance problem and challenge.
Research by Odden and Archibald (2009) validates the importance of engaging in a
variety of activities to understand the performance problems and to fully understand the
distance between the current and desired performance. The staffs at Washington,
Kennedy, and Reagan understood the problems they were facing and the need to make
changes to their instructional program to better support student achievement. The staffs
at Lincoln and Bush did not have this same understanding because their principals
themselves did not appear to fully understand the issues and challenges they were facing.
The next strategy was setting ambitious goals. Research by Odden and Archibald
(2009), Odden (2007), Duke (2006), and Marzano (2003) validates the importance of
setting high and ambitious performance goals to promote an increase in student
achievement regardless of the level or student demographics. Washington, Kennedy, and
Reagan have created a system for establishing ambitious goals for all students. Kennedy
and Reagan are in the same school district where universal goals have been established
131

for all students in grades two through 11. Teachers at all three schools set individual
goals with each student, discuss those goals with the students and their parents, and
follow a system for progress monitoring. The staffs at Lincoln and Bush do not set
individual goals for all students.
The third strategy was changing the curriculum program and creating a new
instructional vision. Research by Odden and Archibald (2009), Odden (2007),
Fermanich, et al. (2006), Duke (2006), and Marzano (2003) validates the importance of
creating a focus on the curriculum and instructional programs, which are the core
educational issues over which they have control. While the staffs at all five sample
schools implement a state-approved, standards based curriculum in the core subjects,
only the staffs at Washington, Kennedy, and Reagan have all worked together to create
an instructional vision that focuses on student achievement.
The final strategy the three sample schools that experienced an increase in their
API scores over the past five years were all found to have a strong level of
implementation was in providing ongoing professional development. Research by
Odden and Archibald (2009), Fermanich et al., (2006), and Duke (2006) validates the
importance of implementing a widespread, systematic, and ongoing professional
development program that includes training on how to analyze assessments, implement
new curriculum programs, and incorporate effective research-based instructional
strategies. The staffs at all five sample schools offer some professional development;
however, some schools and their districts offer much more staff development than others.
The staffs at Washington, Kennedy, and Regan participate in district wide and site based
132

professional development. The staffs at Lincoln and Bush only have site based
professional development and it is extremely limited at Lincoln.
When studying how schools and districts are allocating resources to support
student achievement, the Evidence-Based Model by Odden and Picus (2008) was used as
a framework. In comparing the prototype elementary school and the five sample schools,
a large discrepancy was found in almost all areas included in the EBM. In analyzing the
number of core teachers each sample school should employ based on their enrollment,
every school falls short by 6.4 FTEs at Reagan to 16.7 FTEs at Washington. The
combined total of specialist teachers at the five sample schools is only 13.8% of what the
EBM suggests. Significant discrepancies from the EBM prototype school to the sample
schools also include the amount of funding each school receives for professional
development, technology, instructional materials, supporting gifted students, and student
activities. The amount each school spent on professional development fell below the
EBM suggestion between nearly $3,000 at Reagan to over $55,000 at Washington.
Technology was also under funded according to the EBM suggestion between almost
$54,000 at Reagan and over $122,000 at Bush. The largest discrepancy was in the area
of student activities where schools were under funded between over $76,000 at Reagan to
almost $160,000 at Washington.
133

Limitations
The following limitations were present in the study:
 Due to the size of the sample, the findings may not be generalized to other schools
and student populations, especially those with different student demographics.
 The method of data collection was based upon a structured and semistructured
interview process, with the possibility that the results were subjective.
 The information gathered from the interview was derived from the perceptions of
the five principals surveyed and who might not have constituted a representative
sample of all other principals.
 With the exception of the principal at Washington, all other principals in the
sample schools were relatively new to their respective sites. The sample schools
were selected for the study based on student achievement data from the 2008-
2009 school year. The principals at Brookhurst and Bush were not at their
respective schools until 2009-2010 and their predecessors were unavailable to
provide any information about their school or instructional program during 2008-
2009. The principals at Lincoln and Reagan were new to their sites beginning
with the 2008-2009 school year. They were able to speak to the differences of
their instructional programs between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010; however, their
predecessors were not available to provide any information prior to July 2008.
 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was enacted in February
2009. School districts across the nation received one-time additional federal
funding that is required to be spent by September 2011. The outcome of this
134

study may have been skewed as a result of the various ways in which districts and
schools chose to spend the additional one-time dollars.
 Bush school transitioned from a K-3 school to a K-6 school over the past four
years. Prior to the transition, second grade students were the only students at
Bush to participate in the CST; therefore, student achievement results may have
been impacted due to students in fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students now
participating in CSTs.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study supplements the body of research on school-level resource allocation
and effective strategies to improve student achievement. The focus was to compare how
five elementary schools with similar demographics and characteristics and yet have
experienced very different results in increasing student achievement are aligning their
resources to support student achievement compared to Odden and Picus’ (2008)
Evidence-Based Model and implementing Odden and Archibald’s (2009) 10 Strategies
for Doubling Student Performance. This study included five sample elementary schools
within Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Based on the findings of this study, the
following recommendations are made regarding future research in this area:
 It will be helpful to study additional schools with similar demographics and
characteristics that are being successful in increasing student achievement to
further determine what resource allocation and instructional strategies are
contributing to their success.
135

 It will also be advantageous to further explore the depth of the implementation of
each of the strategies at these schools.
 This study found the effectiveness of the principal as an instructional leader
directly impacted student achievement. It would be beneficial to study the
research on effective principals and how their leadership is impacting student
achievement at their respective schools.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study is two-fold: 1) to collect and analyze school level data
related to the allocation of resources and determine how those resources are used to
increase student achievement; and 2) to consult the research on best instructional
practices for increasing student achievement. NCLB has increased accountability, which
requires LEAs and schools to demonstrate continual increases in student achievement for
all students at a time when the student population in California has become increasingly
diversified. As AYP benchmarks continue to increase toward the goal that all students
will be proficient in ELA and mathematics within the next three years, California schools
are experiencing tremendous budget reductions which directly impact the services and
programs schools can afford to offer. The voters of California elected a new governor
who took office in January 2011 and his message was clear that California continues to
have a revenue problem. While his initial budget proposal for 2011-2012 did not include
midyear cuts during the current year, further cuts in 2011-2012 appear likely and the
level of those cuts will be dependent upon whether or not the voters of California support
extending temporary tax increases (R. Bennett, personal communication, January 17,
136

2011). Therefore, as educational leaders are faced with the difficult task of increasing
student achievement with diminishing resources, a study to determine effective resource
allocation and best instructional practices to support student achievement is appropriate.
In reviewing the findings of this study, the researcher would recommend any
school leader focused on improving student achievement, whether a site principal or a
superintendent of an entire school district, begin by using Odden and Archibald’s (2009)
10 strategies for Doubling Student Performance as a framework to guide their
improvement process. In reviewing the level to which each of the sample schools is
implementing some or all of Odden and Archibald’s (2009) 10 Strategies for Doubling
Student Performance, it became clear that the three schools that have experienced growth
over the past five years have a strong level of implementation in four to seven of the 10
strategies and have an average level of implementation for the remaining strategies. To
the contrary, the two schools that have declined over the past five years were found to
have a weak level of implementation in three to six of the 10 strategies and only an
average level of implementation for the remainder of the strategies. In looking closely at
the three successful sample schools, the researcher believes in order to make true school
reform, all ten strategies should be implemented; however, realizing change takes time,
he believes the site leader should begin by implementing the following four strategies as
early as possible: 1) understanding the performance problem and challenge; 2) changing
the curriculum program and creating a new instructional vision; 3) setting ambitious
goals; and 4) implementing a strategic professional development program focused on
strategies to increase student achievement.
137

This study validated the conclusion that it is critical that not only the site leader
but the entire staff understand the performance problem and challenges specific to their
school. The principals at Washington, Kennedy, and Reagan understood the problems
they were facing and the need to make changes to their instructional program to better
support student achievement, and they were able to help their staffs understand those
same challenges. The understanding of their specific challenges assisted the principals in
creating a sense of urgency with their staffs that now was the time for change.
This study also validated the importance of a leader working collaboratively with
the staff to create a new instructional vision that focuses on student achievement. While
this was evident at Kennedy and Reagan, it was the foundation to the change that
occurred at Washington, the school that has seen its API increase by 122 points over the
past five years.
The third strategy the researcher believes is critical to begin the school reform
process is creating a system for establishing ambitious goals for all students.
Washington, Kennedy and Reagan have done a thorough job in creating school wide
goals as well as individual student goals. Systems have been developed that allow the
staff to continually monitor progress of the established goals.
Finally, the researcher would recommend the site leader ensure the
implementation of a strategic professional development program focused on strategies to
increase student achievement. This study found some level of professional development
at all five sample schools; however, some schools and their districts offer much more
staff development than others. Once again, Washington, the sample school that has
138

experienced the most growth over the past five years, has had a strategic staff
development program that is focused on implementing best instructional practices in the
classroom. Washington took their commitment to professional development one step
further by hiring professional development TOSAs to work individually with teachers on
implementing what they learned through the professional development training. The
researcher believes the success Washington has had in implementing best instructional
practices has come as a direct result of the TOSAs’ commitment to working with each
teacher in their individual classrooms as they begin implementing what they learned
through their professional development program.
The researcher would also recommend any school leader focused on improving
student achievement consult Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence-Based Model as they
allocate school resources. Although the sample schools in this study did not come close
to allocating resources to the levels suggested in the EBM, many of the suggestions in the
EBM, including but not limited to, targeted, small group intervention, professional
development, including release time for teachers and the use of professional development
coaches to support the new learning, and additional certificated staff to support small
group instruction were found to improve student achievement, even when not
implemented to the levels suggested in the EBM. The researcher believes it will be years
before school funding returns to the level it was prior to the recession. Although the
funding California schools received in the mid-2000s was not enough to support the
suggested levels of funding in the EBM, it should not preclude school leaders from
working toward that goal. This is why it is critical that school leaders committed to
139

improving student achievement study this research and work closely with their
instructional leadership teams, School Site Councils, PTAs, Foundations, and any other
organizations that provide support to schools to begin allocating resources to the areas in
the EBM.

140

REFERENCES
Adams, J. E. (1994). Spending school reform dollars in Kentucky: Familiar patterns and
new programs, but is this reform? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
16(4), 375-390.
Baker, B. (2005). The emerging shape of educational adequacy: From theoretical
assumptions to empirical evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30(3), 259-
287.
Baker, B. D., Taylor, L. L., & Vedlitz, A. (2008). Adequacy estimates and the
implications of common standards for the cost of instruction. Washington, DC:
National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.
Bhatt, M. P., & Wraight, S. E. (2009). A summary of research and resources related to
state school funding formulas. Naperville, IL: Regional Educational Laboratory
Midwest at Learning Point Associates.
Bookrags. (2005). America 1930-1939: Education: Federal funding. Retrieved from
http://www.bookrags.com/history/america-1930s-education/sub15.html
California Department of Education. (2009a). 2008-09 Accountability Progress
Reporting System: 2008-09 Academic Performance Index Reports – Information
Guide. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/documents/infoguide08.pdf
141

California Department of Education. (2009b). 2008-09 Accountability Progress
Reporting System: 2008-09 Adequate Yearly Progress Report - Information
Guide. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/infoguide09.pdf
California Department of Education. (2009c). APR Glossary – Base API. Sacramento,
CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/glossary09b.asp#ga5
California Department of Education. (2009d). Communicating with parents and
guardians about 2009 STAR program tests: Resources for use by school district
and school staff. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/resources.asp.
California Department of Education. (2010). DataQuest [Data file]. Retrieved February
27, 2010, from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
Chambers, J., Levin, J., & Delancey, D. (2007). Efficiency and adequacy in California
school finance: A professional judgment approach. Stanford, CA: Institute for
Research on Education Policy and Practice, Stanford University.
Clune, W. H. (1994). The shift from equity to adequacy in school finance. Educational
Policy, 8(4), 376-394.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Inequality and the right to learn: Access to a qualified
teacher in California's public schools. Teachers College Record, 106(10), 1936-
1966.
Duke, D. (2006). What we know and don’t know about improving low-performing
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 729-734.
142

EdBrief. (2010). Budget crisis leads to dramatic rise in school districts on fiscal early
warning list. Retrieved from
http://www.educationmediagroup.com/budFin100325_warningList.php
EdSource. (1978). California Coalition For Fair School Finance. Mountain View, CA:
Author.
EdSource. (2008). How California Compares – Demographics, Resources, and
Student Achievement. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2009). The Basics of California’s School Finance System. Mountain View,
CA: Author.
EdSource, (2010a). California’s Students. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2010b). Dollars to Districts. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2010c). The Federal Stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act)
and Education. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2010d). Glossary of Terms. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2010e). History. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2010f). Resource Cards on California Education. Mountain View, CA:
Author.
EdSource. (2010g). School Finance Basics. Mountain View, CA: Author.
Fermanich, M., Turner Mangan, M., Odden, A., Picus, L., Gross, B., Rudo, Z.
(2006). Washington Learns: Successful School District Study. Study
prepared for Washington Learns, September 2006.
143

Firestone, W. A., Goertz, M. E., Nagle, B., & Smelkinson, M. F. (1994). Where did the
$800 million go? The first year of New Jersey's Quality Education Act.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(4), 359-374.
Gross, D. (2010). The comeback country. Newsweek. Retrieved from
http://www.newsweek.com/id/236190
Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (1997). Understanding the twentieth-century growth in
U.S. school spending. Journal of Human Resources, 32(1), 35-68.
Hanushek, E. A. (2006). Courting failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges’
good intentions and harm our children. Stanford, CA: Hoover 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.
Hartman, W. T., Bolton, D., & Monk, D. H. (2001). A synthesis of two approaches to
school-level financial data: The accounting and resource cost model approaches.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Hill, E. (1999). A K-12 Master Plan. Sacramento, CA: LAO Publications.
Hill, P. T., Roza, M., & Harvey, J. (2008). Facing the future: Financing productive
schools. Bothell, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of
Washington.
Hurley, E. (2010). Teacher pay 1940-2000: Losing ground, losing status. Washington,
DC: National Education Association. Retrieved May 13, 2010, from
http://www.nea.org/home/14052.htm
144

Imazeki, J. Assessing the Costs of K-12 education in California public schools. Stanford,
CA: Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice, Stanford University.
Kersten, T. (2008). Historical basis for public school funding. Connexions. Retrieved
from http://cnx.org/content/m18332/1.6/
Kirst, M. (1977). What happens at the local level after school finance reform? Policy
Analysis, 3(3), 301-324.
Institution, H. (2006). Facts on policy: School funding shift. Retrieved from
http://www.hoover.org/research/factsonpolicy/facts/4249156.html
Lankford, H., & Wyckoff, J. (1995). Where has the money gone? An analysis of school
district spending in New York. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
17(2), 195-218.
Lindseth, A. A. (2006). The legal backdrop to adequacy. In E. Hanushek (Ed.), Courting
failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges' good intentions and harm our
children (pp. 33-78). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good,
what’s not, and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
National Center for Edcuation Statistics. (2010a). The condition of education: Glossary.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved March
6, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/glossary/
145

National Center for Edcuation Statistics. (2010b). NAEP overview. U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/
NEA (2005). Rankings and estimates. Washington DC: National Education Association
(June).
NEA (2008). Rankings and estimates. Washington DC: National Education Association
(December).
Odden, A. R. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120-125.
Odden, A. R. (2007). Redesigning School Finance Systems: Lessons from CPRE
CPRE Research. CPRE Policy Briefs. RB-50.
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. R., & Archibald, S. J. (2009). Doubling student performance:... and finding
the resources to do it. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Odden, A. R., Monk, D., Nakib, Y., & Picus, L. (1995). The story of the education dollar:
No academy awards and no fiscal smoking guns. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(2), 161-
168.
Odden, A. R., & Picus, L. O. (2008). School finance: A policy perspective (4th ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
146

Perez, M., Parish, T., Anand, P., Speroni, C., Esra, P., Socias, M., et al. (2007). Schools,
resources, and efficiency. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Education
Policy and Practice, Stanford University.
Picus, L. O. (1991). Incentive funding programs and school district response: California
and Senate Bill 813. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(3), 289-308.
Picus, L. O. (1993). The allocation and use of educational resources: District level
evidence from the schools and staffing survey. Los Angeles, CA: Consortium for
Policy Research in Education, University of Southern California.
Picus, L. O. (1994). The local impact of school finance reform in four Texas school
districts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(4), 391-404.
Picus, L. O. (2009). Did increased flexibility in the use of categorical grants help
California schools and community colleges improve student performance? A
thematic dissertation proposal. PowerPoint slides.
University of Southern California. Los Angeles, CA.
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.
Policy Analysis for California Education. (2006). Crucial issues in California education
2006: Rekindling reform. Berkeley, CA: Author, University of California
Berkeley.
147

Rebell, M. (2007). Professional rigor, public engagement and judicial review: A proposal
for enhancing the validity of education adequacy studies. The Teachers College
Record, 109(6), 1303-1373.
School Services of California (SSC). (2010a). 2009-10 first interim report negative and
qualified certifications. The Fiscal Report, 30(6). Retrieved from
http://www.sscal.com
School Services of California (SSC). (2010b). Outlook for the May revision. The Fiscal
Report, 30(7). Retrieved from http://www.sscal.com
School Services of California (SSC). (2010c). Signs of economic recovery emerging. The
Fiscal Report, 30(5). Retrieved from http://www.sscal.com
Sonstelie, J., Brunner, E., & Ardon, K. (2000). For better or for worse? School finance
reform in California. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
Timar, T. B. (2004). Categorical school finance: Who gains, who loses. Berkeley, CA:
Policy Analysis for California Education, University of California Berkeley.
Timar, T. B. (2006). How California Funds K-12 Education. Davis, CA: Institute for
Research on education Policy and Practice, University of California, Davis.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010a). A blueprint for reform. Author. Retrieved
April 14, 2010, from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/publicationtoc.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2010b). Improving basic programs operated by local
education agencies (Title I, Part A). Author. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html
148

APPENDIX A – INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN STUDY

Initial Email:
Dear -----

I am a student in the USC doctoral program and am involved in a thematic study on
allocating educational resources to double student performance. I will be using Odden
and Picus' Adequacy Model as well as Odden and Archibald’s (2009) 10 Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance as my frameworks. Your school is one of five local
schools that have very similar demographics (all five schools are in the same Similar
Schools report for 2009). Your school's EL and socioeconomically disadvantaged
populations are very similar to the other four schools I'm proposing to study. I would
very much appreciate being able to use ----- School as a school to study. The only thing
I'd need from you to be able to make this work is an interview with you at some point in
the future (probably late summer). Right now, I'm starting chapters 1 -
3 of my dissertation and I'm going to have my qualifying exams on those chapters on
May 25. Once I pass that exam, I'll start the actual study and it would be sometime after
that date that I would need to interview you.

Please let me know if you would be comfortable with me studying ----- School.

Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,

Jim Elsasser
149

Follow-Up Email:
Dear -----,

Thank you again for agreeing to allow me to include ----- in my study.

I’m not sure what your summer schedule is like. Originally, I suggested we meet after
school resumes; however, if you’re working during August and would be okay to meet
before school begins I would love to talk to you sooner rather than later; however, only if
that is convenient for you.

When we meet, I will need to get a copy of the following documents:

1. Single Plan for Student Achievement for 09-10
2. Most recent School Accountability Report Card
3. Mission and Vision statements
4. School Budget for 09-10
5. Master Schedule for 09-10
6. Staff Roster for 09-10
7. School Calendar
8. Student/Parent Handbook

If you don’t have easy access to all of the documents when we meet, I can always pick
them up later.

Please email me back at your convenience with any proposed dates/times that would
work for you. If you would rather connect via phone, my cell phone number is -----.

Thank you again for your help!

Jim Elsasser

150

APPENDIX B – DOCUMENT REQUEST LIST

All of these documents should be for the current 2009-10 school year.
1. Staff List (School)

This list will likely include any person who works in the physical space of the school. It
is necessary to understand the full-time equivalent (FTE) status of each employee, as well
as what their job entails (for a principal or classroom teacher, this may be obvious, for
special education staff or student support staff, this is not readily clear).

 Some staff are paid to work less than 1.0 FTE with the school, yet are housed at
the school full-time. Only the portion of the day that the staff person provides
services to the individual school should be recorded.
 Special education and ELL staff, especially, may be dedicated to more than one
project (e.g. 0.5 FTE reading coach, 0.5 FTE resource room).
 Distinguish how special education and EL staff provide support (e.g. do they
work with an individual child or a classroom, etc.).
 Individuals who serve the school may not be listed and instead are based out of
the district or regional education agency (e.g. speech therapy, visiting coaches) so
you will need to ask them about these people—see below.

2. Staff List (District)

A list of all district employees who do not appear on school staff roster, but who provide
direct services to schools (guidance counselors, psychologists, special education
diagnosticians, etc) and which schools they provide services to, expressed in FTE units.
For instance, a special education diagnostician who works with 3 schools might be listed
three times on this sheet (0.5 FTE, 0.3 FTE, 0.2 FTE) depending upon the number of
days she is allocated to the various schools. Note: You will only be recording the
proportion of FTEs that she spends providing services to the individual school you are
studying.

151

3. School Schedule (School)

It is helpful to have a copy of the bell schedule to talk through the amount of instructional
time for reading, math, etc.

4. Consultants (School, District, and State)

Budgeted dollar amount for all other consultants other than professional development
contracted services.

5. Class Sizes
You want a copy of the master class schedule to enter this data. Make sure to enter the
class size for every class that is taught at the school.

6. Funds for Daily Substitutes

Daily rate for substitute teachers who replace sick teachers. (This is not for substitutes
who replace teachers who are participating in professional development.)

7. Professional Development Budget

 Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time): Dollar amount for substitutes and
stipends that cover teacher time for professional development.
 Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide training
or other professional development services.
 Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional development
activities, and costs of transportation within the district for professional
development.
 Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development including the cost of classroom materials, equipment
needed for professional development activities, and rental or other costs for
facilities used for professional development.
152

 Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or reimbursement
for college-based professional development, and fees for conferences related to
professional development.
 Other Professional Development: Dollar amount for other professional
development staff or costs.

153

APPENDIX C – SCHOOL VISIT/PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW DATES

School 1 Washington Elementary School June 24, 2010
School 2 Lincoln Elementary School July 9, 2010
School 3 Kennedy Elementary School September 1, 2010
School 4 Reagan Elementary School August 25, 2010
School 5 Bush Elementary School August 19, 2010

154

APPENDIX D – LIST OF DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY SCHOOLS

1. SARC (School Accountability Report Card)
2. SPSA (School Plan for Student Achievement)
3. School Budget
4. Staff List
5. School Schedule
6. School Calendar
7. Student/Parent Handbook
8. Mission and Vision statements

155

APPENDIX E – DATA COLLECTION CODEBOOK

DATA COLLECTION CODEBOOK

This Codebook is intended to be used solely for EDUC 790 and 792 (Picus) – School Resource
Use and Instructional Improvement Strategies. It identifies data collection items and their
definitions. This document is organized according to the corresponding Data Collection Protocol
and the web portal for data entry (www.lopassociates.com).

I. School Profile

Each data item has a place for notes. This section is meant to be used for any notations
that you would like to record as a personal reminder. Notes fields will not be used in
data analysis.

A. School Name: In your training binder, there will be a group of schools for which you
are responsible. The school name and contact information are located under the
Schools tab.
B. School State ID: This is the identification number that the state has assigned the
school. You do not need to enter this; it has been entered for you.
C. Address Line 1: Street address of the school
D. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the school
E. City: City of the school
F. State: “CA” is automatically entered for you.
G. Zip: Postal zip code of the school
H. Phone: Main office phone number for the school
156

I. Fax: Main office fax number for the school
J. Website: School’s official website

II. School Contacts

This section is for recording the contact people at the school. This will include the
principal, and most likely the secretary. Anyone else you interview should also be
recorded here. Any notes you’d like to make about this person (E.g. phonetic spelling of
their name) should go in the notes sections, as well as what the data source is.

A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school.
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (E.g. Michael instead of Mike)
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: “WY” is automatically be entered for you.
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

III. District Profile

A. District Name: This is the name of the district where the school is located. District
State ID: This is the identification number that the state has assigned to the district
within which the school resides.

157

IV. District Contacts

This section is for recording the contact people at the district office. This will include the
superintendent, and possibly an assistant superintendent and/or director of curriculum
and instruction. Anyone else you interview should also be recorded here. Any notes
you’d like to make about these individuals (e.g. phonetic spelling of their name) should
go in the notes sections, as well as what the data source is.

A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school.
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (E.g. Michael instead of Mike)
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: “WY” is automatically be entered for you.
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

V. School Resource Indicators

School resource indicators should be collected for the 2009‐2010 school year. Enter
personal notations pertaining to the data in the yellow notes fields.

A. Current Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled at the school on the
day of the site visit minus any pre‐kindergarten students.
B. Pre‐kindergarten Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled in any pre‐
kindergarten programs at the school on the day of the site visit. These students
should not be included in the previous category, Current Student Enrollment. Make
sure to also ask this question at secondary schools.
C. Grade Span: Range of grades that the school provides instruction in. (E.g. K‐5)
158

D. Number of ELL/Bilingual Students: As of the day of the site visit, the number of
students eligible for services as an English language learner (ELL) as defined by the
federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
E. Number of Students Eligible for Free‐ or Reduced‐Price Lunch (FRL): Number of
enrolled students who are eligible for the federal free‐ and reduced‐price lunch
program.
F. Total number of Special Education Students (IEPs): As of the day of the site visit,
number of students in the school with an Individualized Education Program (IEP)
indicating their eligibility for special education services. (This will most likely be a
larger number than the number of students who are in a self‐contained special
education classroom.) Does not include gifted and talented students.
G. Number of Special Education Students (self‐contained): Number of students in the
school with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) indicating their eligibility for
special education services.
H. Total Length of School Day: Number of minutes per day that students are required
to be present at school. If multiple grade spans are present for different amounts of
time, report the average length. (e.g. If the school day begins at 8:30am and ends at
3:15pm, then the total length of the school day is 405 minutes.)
I. Length of Instructional Day: Number of minutes per day that students are present
for instruction. This information should be available from the school bell schedule or
a school staff member. Subtract recess, lunch, and passing periods time from the
total minutes in the school day. This calculation is different from how the state
measures the “instructional day.” (E.g. If the length of the school day is 405
minutes, and the students have 20 minutes for lunch and 25 minutes for recess,
then the length of the instructional day is 360 minutes.)
J. Length of Mathematics Class: Number of minutes of mathematics class periods per
day. These include periods when students are specially grouped for extended
mathematics instruction. Report an average per day length.
K. Length of Reading/English/LA Class: Number of minutes of reading, English, and
language arts (LA) class periods. These include periods when students are specially
grouped for extended literacy instruction. (E.g. reading, writing, comprehension)
Report an average per day length.
L. Length of Science Class: Number of minutes of science class periods per day. These
include periods when students are specially grouped for extended science
instruction. Report an average per day length.
M. Length of Social Studies Class: Number of minutes of social studies and history class
periods per day. These include periods when students are specially grouped for
extended history or social studies instruction. Report an average per day length.
N. AYP: This is a measure as to whether the school made Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) during the previous school year (2007‐08). Enter “Y” or “N” or “NA.”
O. API

159

VI. Core Academic Teachers

The classroom teachers primarily responsible for teaching a school’s core academic
subjects of reading/English/language arts, mathematics, science, history/social studies,
and foreign language. In elementary schools, core academic teachers consist of the
teachers in the self‐contained regular education classrooms. Some elementary schools
may also departmentalize certain core subjects such as math or science, especially in
the upper grades. These teachers are also to be included as core teachers. In middle
schools, high schools, or any other departmentalized school, core teachers consist of
those teachers who are members of the English/language arts, mathematics, science,
social studies, and foreign language departments along with special education or
ESL/bilingual teachers who provide classes in these subjects. The teachers should be
entered as full‐time equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. (E.g. a half‐time
teacher would be entered as 0.5) If teachers are assigned to multiage classrooms, divide
up the FTEs weighted by students per each grade. Enter each teacher’s name that
corresponds to the FTEs entered in the corresponding notes fields. Indicate in
parentheses if the teacher is not a 1.0 FTE in that category. Example:
Grade 1: Matthew Perry (0.5), Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston;
Grade 2: David Schwimmer (0.25), Courtney Cox Arquette (0.33), Matt LeBlanc

A. Grades K‐12: Number of FTE licensed grade‐level teachers who teach the core
subjects. The FTEs should not duplicate those in the individual subject categories.
B. English/Reading/LA, History/Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, and Foreign
Language: Number of FTE licensed subject‐specific teachers who teach the core
subjects. The FTEs should not duplicate those in the grade categories.

VII. Specialist and Elective Teachers

This expenditure element consists of teachers who teach non‐core academic classes,
and usually provide planning and preparation time for core academic teachers. The
teachers should be entered as full‐time equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals.
In the notes sections, enter each teacher’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered
in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the teacher is not a 1.0 FTE in that
category.

160

A. Art/Music/PE: Number of FTE specialist teachers, such as art, music, and physical
education (PE) teachers, who usually provide regular classroom teachers with
planning and preparation time.
B. Drama/Technology/Health: Number of FTE teachers who provide instruction in a
subject area that represents a special academic focus.
C. Career & Technical Education: Number of FTE vocational education teachers
D. Driver Education: Number of FTE drivers education teachers.
E. Study Hall: Number of FTE teachers who monitor study hall.
F. Athletics: Number of FTE teachers who coach an athletic team during the school
day. This does not include time spent as an athletic director, which would be
captured under the Administration section.
G. Other: Number of FTE specialist teachers who are not specifically listed above.
H. Other Description: Indicate the subject area that the “Other” specialist teacher(s)
instruct.

VIII. Library Staff

Library staff should be entered as full‐time equivalents (FTEs), which may include
decimals. Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the
related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that
category.

A. Librarian/ Library Media Specialist: Number of FTE licensed librarians or media
specialists who instruct students
B. Library Aide: Number of FTE library aides who help instruct students

IX. Extra Help Staff

This category mainly consists of licensed teachers from a wide variety of strategies
designed to assist struggling students, or students with special needs, to learn a school’s
regular curriculum. The educational strategies that these teachers deploy are generally
supplemental to the instruction of the regular classroom. Extra help staff should be
entered as full‐time equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. Do not include
volunteers in the FTE counts. Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the
FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a
1.0 FTE in that category.

161

A. Certified Teacher Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are licensed teachers and
provide help to students one‐on‐one or in small groups of 2‐5.
B. Non‐Certified Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are not licensed teachers and
provide help to students one‐on‐one or in small groups of 2‐5.
C. ISS Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who monitor/teach In‐School
Suspension (ISS) students.
D. ISS Aides: Number of FTE Title I funded aides who monitor/teach In‐School
Suspension (ISS) students.
E. Title I Teachers: Number of FTE non‐special education teachers who provide small
groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I program.
F. Title I Aides: Number of FTE non‐special education aides who provide small groups
of students with extra help as a function of the Title I program.
G. ELL Class Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers of English as a second language
(ESL) who work with non‐English speaking students to teach them English.
H. Aides for ELL: Number of FTE aides of English as a second language (ESL) classes who
work with non‐English speaking students to teach them English.
I. Gifted Program Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct students in the
gifted program.
J. Gifted Program Aides: Number of FTE aides who instruct students in the gifted
program.
K. Gifted Program Funds: Dollar amount budgeted for the gifted program for the 2008‐
09 school year
L. Other Extra Help Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provide supplemental
instructional assistance to students to learn the school’s curriculum. (Use this
category sparingly.)
M. Other Extra Help Teachers Description: Indicate what the “Other” extra help staff
do.
N. Other Extra Help Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff who provide
supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the school’s curriculum.
(Use this category sparingly.)
O. Other Extra Help Classified Staff Description: Indicate what the “Other” extra help
classified staff do.
P. Special Ed. Teacher (Self‐contained for students with severe disabilities): Number of
FTE licensed teachers who teach in self‐contained special education classrooms and
work with “severely” disabled students for most or all of the school day. These
teachers may teach a modified version of a school’s curriculum or other learning
goals required by their students’ Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
Q. Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who assist regular
classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or mental
disabilities, or a learning problem. These students generally have “less severe”
disabling conditions.
R. Special Ed. Resource Room Teachers: Number of FTE licensed special education
teachers who provide small groups of students in special education with extra help
in specific areas.
162

S. Special Ed. Self‐contained Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist in self‐contained
special education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled students for most
or all of the school day.
T. Special Ed. Inclusion Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist regular classroom
teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or mental disabilities, or
some learning problem. These students generally have “less severe” disabling
conditions.
U. Special Ed. Resource Room Aides: Number of FTE special education aides who
provide small groups of students in special education with extra help in specific
areas.
V. Number of Extended Day Students: Number of students who participate in the
extended day program.
W. Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program: Number of minutes per week that the
extended day program is offered.
X. Teacher Contract Minutes per Week: Number of work minutes per week in the
teacher contract.
Y. Extended Day Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who provide students
with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular curriculum
after school.
Z. Extended Day Classified Staff: Number of FTE staff who provide students with extra
instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular curriculum after school.
AA. Description of Extended Day Classified Staff: Description of classified staff’s role in
the extended day program.
BB. Minutes Per Week of Summer School: Number of minutes per day multiplied by the
number of days per week that students attend summer school.
CC. Length of Session: Number of weeks that summer school is in session.
DD. School’s Students Enrolled in the Summer School Program: Number of students
from the individual school who are enrolled in the summer school program (a
subset of the following item).
EE.   All Students in Summer School: Total number of students enrolled in the summer
school program.
FF.   Summer School Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provided students with
extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular curriculum during
summer 2008.
GG. Summer School Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff who provided
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum during summer 2008.

X. Other Instructional Staff

Included here are instructional staff members that support a school’s instructional
program, but do not fit in the previous categories. Other instructional staff should be
entered as full‐time equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. Enter each staff
163

member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in
parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Consultants (other than PD contracted services): Dollar amount for all other
consultants other than professional development contracted services.
B. Building Substitutes: Number of FTE permanent substitutes.
C. Other Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct, but were not included in
previous categories.
D. Other Instructional Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist instruction, but were not
included in previous categories.
E. Funds for Daily Subs: Daily rate for daily certified teacher substitutes who replace
sick teachers. (This is not for substitutes who replace teachers who are participating
in professional development.)

XI. Professional Development Staff & Costs

This expenditure element includes spending on the professional development of a
school’s staff and the staffing resources necessary to support it. Professional
development staff should be entered as full‐time equivalents (FTEs), and cost figures
should be entered as a dollar amount, both of which may include decimals. Enter each
staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields.
Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Number of Professional Development Days in the Teacher Contract: Number of
days the teacher contract specifies for professional development.
B. Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time): Dollar amount budgeted for substitutes
and stipends that cover teacher time for professional development. For time
outside the regular contract day when students are not present before or after
school or on scheduled in‐service days, half days or early release days, the dollar
amount is calculated by multiplying the teachers’ hourly salary times the number of
student‐free hours used for professional development. For planning time within the
regular contract, the dollar amount is calculated as the cost of the portion of the
salary of the person used to cover the teachers’ class during planning time used for
professional development. For other time during the regular school day, including
release time provided by substitutes, cost is calculated with substitute wages. For
time outside the regular school day, including time after school, on weekends, or for
summer institutes, the dollar amount is calculated from the stipends or additional
pay based on the hourly rate that the teachers receive to compensate them for their
time.
164

C. Instructional Facilitators/Coaches: Number of FTE instructional facilitators and
coaches. This may include on‐site facilitators and district coaches (though only the
FTE for the specific school should be recorded). Outside consultants who provide
coaching should be captured in an estimated FTE amount depending on how much
time they spend at the school.
D. Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide training or
other professional development services. If trainers are from the district, convert to
a dollar amount.
E. Administration: Number of FTE district or school‐level administrators of professional
development programs. (Again, only the FTE for the specific school should be
recorded).
F. Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off‐site professional development
activities, and costs of transportation within the district for professional
development.
G. Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for professional
development including the cost of classroom materials, equipment needed for
professional development activities, and rental or other costs for facilities used for
professional development.
H. Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or reimbursement for
college‐based professional development, and fees for conferences related to
professional development.
I. Other Professional Development: Either FTEs or Dollar amount for other
professional development staff or costs. (Use this category sparingly.)
J. Other Description: Specify what the “Other” professional development is, and
indicate whether it is a FTE or dollar amount.

XII. Student Services Staff

This expenditure element consists of school‐based student support staff, as well as
school expenditures for extra‐curricular activities and athletics. Student services staff
should be entered as full‐time equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. Enter
each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields.
Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Guidance: Number of FTE licensed guidance counselors.
B. Attendance/dropout: Number of FTE staff members who manage attendance and
report dropouts.
C. Social Workers: Number of FTE licensed school social workers.
D. Nurse: Number of FTE registered nurses or nurse practitioners
165

E. Parent advocate/community liaison: Number of FTE staff members who serve as the
parent advocate and/or community liaison, often working with parents to get their
children to attend school.
F. Psychologist: Number of FTE licensed school psychologists or educational
diagnosticians.
G. Speech/OT/PT: Number of FTE licensed speech, occupational (OT), and physical
therapists (PT) who provide services to the school’s students
H. Health Asst.: Number of FTE health assistants
I. Non‐teaching aides: Number of FTE non‐teaching aides. (E.g. Lunchroom aides,
Aides who help students board buses; DO NOT include cooks – the defining
difference is whether the staff member is supervising students or not.)
J. Other Student Services: Number of FTE other student services staff. (Use this
category sparingly.)
K. Other Description: Indicate what the “other” student services staff member does.

XIII. Administration

This expenditure element consists of all staffing resources pertaining to the
administration of a school. Administrators should be entered as full‐time equivalents
(FTEs), which may include decimals. Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds
to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is
not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Principal: Number of FTE licensed principals.
B. Assistant Principal: Number of FTE assistant principals.
C. Other Administrators: Number of FTE other administrators. (Use this category
sparingly.)
D. Other Description: Indicate what the “Other” administrators’ duties are.
E. Secretary: Number of FTE Secretaries.
F. Clerical Staff: Number of FTE clerical staff members.
G. Technology Coordinator: Number of FTE technology coordinators and IT staff.
H. Security: Number of FTE security staff.
I. Custodians: Number of FTE staff who provide custodial services

XIV. Elementary Class Sizes (We are NOT collecting this data for middle and high schools.)

Sometimes it is easiest to get this information when you get the staff list, but other
times the secretary can just copy the sheet that tells them how many students are in
each classroom (we don’t want student names). You want a (preferably electronic) copy
166

of the master class schedule to enter this data. When entering the data online, make
sure to enter the class size for every class that is taught at the school. Click on the Class
Size option from the main menu and a new menu will be displayed on the left. This
menu will have options for grades Pre‐8 plus Special Education. When you click on a
grade, the page with that grade's sections will be displayed where you can enter the
individual class sizes.

167

APPENDIX F – OPEN-ENDED DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL

School Sites

Following are open‐ended questions intended to capture each school’s strategies for improving
student performance. Ask the questions in the order that they appear on this protocol. Record
the principal’s answers as s/he gives them and focus on getting the key elements of the
instructional improvement effort with less emphasis on the process aspect.

I. Tell me the story of how your school improved student performance.

A. What were the curriculum and instruction pieces of the strategy?

1. What has the content focus of your improvement process been?
(E.g. Reading, Math, Reading First, Math Helping Corps, etc.)

2. What curricula have you used during your instructional improvement effort?
(E.g. Open Court reading, Everyday Math, etc.)
 Is it aligned with state standards?
 How do you know it is aligned? (E.g. District recent review for alignment)

3. What has been the instructional piece of your improvement effort?
 Does your staff have an agreed upon definition of effective teaching?

4. What is the instructional vision for your improvement effort?
(E.g. Connecticut standards or the Danielson Framework)

5. Have assessments been an integral part of your instructional improvement
process?
168

 If so, what types of assessments have been key? (E.g. formative,
diagnostic, summative)
 How often are those assessments utilized?
 What actions were taken with the results?

6. What type of instructional implementation has taken place as a part of your
reform efforts? (E.g. Individualized instruction, differentiated instruction, 90
minutes of uninterrupted reading instruction)
 Were teachers trained in a specific instructional strategy?
 How did you know that the instructional strategies were being
implemented?

B. What were the resource pieces of the strategy? How long have the resources
been in place?

1. Early Childhood program: Is it half or full day? Number kids? Staffing ratios?
Eligibility?

2. Full Day Kindergarten
 If yes, how long have they had full day kindergarten?

3. Class Size Reduction
 Reduction Strategy (E.g. 15 all day long K‐3 or reading only with 15)

4. Professional Development:
 When are the professional development days scheduled for? (E.g.
Summer Institutes, Inservice Days)
 What is the focus of the professional development?
 Do you have instructional coaches in schools? Were there enough
coaches? (Did they need more but couldn’t afford it?)

5. “Interventions” or Extra Help Strategies for Struggling Students:
 Tutoring: Specify 1:1, in small groups (2‐4), or in medium groups (3‐5)
169

 Extended day: How frequently (Number minutes & Number of times per
week), Academic focus, Who instructs (certified teachers or aides), Who
participates
 Summer school: How Frequently (Number hours a day, Number weeks),
Who instructs (certified teachers or aides), Who participates
 ELL
 Scheduling: (E.g. double periods in secondary schools)

6. Parent outreach or community involvement

7. Technology

C. Was the improvement effort centrist (central office orchestrated) or bottom up?

D. What type of instructional leadership was present?

E. Was there accountability built into this improvement plan? (E.g. School Board
report which helped solidify focus)

F. What additional resources would be needed to continue and expand your
efforts?

170

APPENDIX G – DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL

School Profile
School Name School’s State ID Number

Address

City State Zip
CA
Phone Fax

Website

NOTES:

171

School Contact (1)
Title
Principal
Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

School Contact (2)
Title

Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

172

District Profile
District Name
District State ID

District Contact (1)
Title
Superintendent
Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:
District Contact (2)
Title

Honorific First Name Last Name

Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

173

School Resource Indicators

Current Student Enrollment
Pre-Kindergarten Student Enrollment
Grade Span
Number of At-Risk Students*
*Collect from district
Number of ELL/Bilingual Students
Number of High Mobility Students*
*Collect from district
Number of Students Eligible for Free- and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL)
Total Number of Special Education Students (IEPs)
Number of Special Education Students (self-contained)
Total Length of School Day
Length of Instructional Day
Length of Mathematics Class
Length of Reading or English/LA Class
Length of Science Class
Length of Social Studies Class
Length of Foreign Language Class
AYP
NOTES:

174

Core academic teachers
(Self-contained Regular Education)
FTEs

Kindergarten
(Full day program)
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
English/Reading/L.A.
History/Soc. Studies
Math
Science
Foreign Language
NOTES:
175

Specialist and Elective Teachers
/Planning and Prep
FTEs
Art
Music
PE/Health
Drama
Technology
Career & Technical Education
Drivers Education
Study Hall
Athletics
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers Description:
NOTES:

Library Staff
FTEs
Librarian
Library Media Specialist
Library Aide
NOTES:
176

Extra Help I FTEs or Dollars ($)
Certified Teacher Tutors
Non-Certified Tutors
ISS Teachers
ISS Aides
Title I Teachers
Title I Aides
ELL Class Teachers
Aides for ELL
Gifted Program Teachers
Gifted Program Aides
Gifted Program Funds $
Other Extra Help Teachers
Other Extra Help Teachers Funded with Federal Dollars:
Other Extra Help Classified Staff
Other Extra Help Classified Staff Funded with Federal Dollars:
NOTES:

177

Extra Help II FTEs
Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for severely disabled students)
Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers
Special Ed. Resource Room Teacher
Special Ed. Self-contained Aides
Special Ed. Inclusion Aides
Special Ed. Resource Room Aides
NOTES:

Extra Help III
Number of Extended Day Students
Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program minutes
Teacher Contract Minutes per Week minutes
Extended day Teachers
Extended Day Classified Staff
Description of Extended Day Classified Staff
Minutes per Week of Summer School minutes
Length of Session (# of Weeks) weeks
School’s Students Enrolled in Summer School
All Students in Summer School
Summer School Teachers
Summer School Classified Staff
NOTES:

178

Other Instructional Staff FTEs and Dollars ($)
Consultants
(other than pd contracted services)
$
Building substitutes and other substitutes
Other Teachers
Other Instructional Aides
Funds for Daily Subs $
NOTES:

Professional Development Dollars ($) and FTEs
Number of Prof. Dev. Days in Teacher Contract
Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time) $
Instructional Facilitators/Coaches
Trainers/Consultants $
Administration
Travel $
Materials, Equipment and Facilities $
Tuition & Conference Fees $
Other Professional Development $
Other Professional Development Staff Funded
with Federal Dollars:
NOTES:

179

Student Services FTEs
Guidance
Attendance/Dropout
Social Workers
Nurse
Parent advocate/community liaison
Psychologist
Speech/O.T./P.T.
Health Asst.
Non-teaching aides
Other Student Services
Description Of Other Student Services Staff:
NOTES:

180

Administration FTEs
Principal
Assistant principal
Other Administrator
Description of Other Administrator:
Secretary
Clerical staff
Technology Coordinator/ I.T.
Security
Custodians
NOTES:

Elementary School Class Sizes
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4
Special Education
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6

181

APPENDIX H – CASE STUDY: WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Background on School and District
Washington Elementary School is a Title I, pre-kindergarten through sixth grade
school in an urban school district located in Orange County. There are 24 schools within
the Title I district that educates approximately 19,200 students with 85% of students
identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged. The 805 students at Washington follow a
single-track, modified traditional schedule. Washington serves a community that takes
great pride in its cultural diversity. The student population, as a reflection of its
community, is culturally and linguistically diverse; therefore, special emphasis is placed
upon creating a school environment that encourages students to appreciate their rich
cultural and linguistic diversity.
Washington Elementary School serves students from a diverse ethnic background,
socioeconomic status, and language abilities. The primary ethnic groups are Hispanic
(84%) and White (5%). Seventy-eight percent of the students are classified as
socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED). The percentage of English learners (EL) at
Washington is 56% and 8% are classified as students with special needs. Figure W.1
shows the ethnic breakdown of all students at Washington Elementary.
182

Figure W.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Washington School
Hispanic ‐ 84%
White ‐ 5%
Asian ‐ 4%
African American 1%
Other 6%

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
Three years ago, Washington Elementary applied for and received a High Priority
School Grant (HPSG). The teacher leadership group, parents, and staff from University
of California, Los Angeles came together to identify barriers the school was facing and
create an action plan that would be followed for at least the three year duration of the
grant. Student achievement has been on the rise since the inception of the program. The
purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and instructional
strategies at Washington Elementary School.
Starting with the 2007-2008 school year, and after the first year as a HPSG,
Washington Elementary has demonstrated impressive growth in student performance as
documented in the school’s API. From 2007 to 2010, Washington Elementary has shown
an API growth of 116 points. Figure W.2 shows Washington Elementary School’s API
over the last five years.
183

Figure W.2: Washington School’s API
648
654
707
761
770
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) reports show a similar trend of progress.
Washington Elementary has demonstrated growth for all groups over the last five years.
Since 2006, AYP data reveals the percentage of all students scoring proficient or
advanced in English Language Arts increased by 21.3%. Hispanic students have
increased their percentage of proficiency by 18.7%. English learners have increased their
score by 21.3% and SED students have had similar growth by increasing their score by
21.7%. The highest increase was for White students who recorded a 22.4% increase over
the last five years.
An issue that continues to be problematic in most school districts across the
nation is the achievement gap between White students and all other students. In 2006,
the achievement gap in English language arts between Hispanic and White students was
8.5%; five years later, the achievement gap for Hispanic students at Washington
Elementary is now 12.2%; therefore the achievement gap has grown by 3.7%. English
learners were scoring 10.1% lower than White students and five years later the gap has
184

grown to 11.2%; therefore, the achievement gap for English learners has also grown
slightly. SED students were scoring 11.2% lower than White students at Washington five
years ago and are currently scoring 11.9% lower; therefore, increasing the achievement
gap by 0.7%. So, while all students and subgroups have grown over the past five years,
the White subgroup is the only group that has continued to increase their scores above the
school wide average. Figure W.3 displays the performance of significant subgroups in
English language arts since 2006.
Figure W.3: Washington School ELA AYP – Percent & Advanced
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide Hispanic White EL SED

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
A similar pattern of growth is seen in mathematics as in English language arts as
all students and significant subgroups have demonstrated growth in mathematics over the
last five years. Since 2006, AYP data reveals the percentage of all students scoring
proficient or advanced in mathematics increased by 28.4%. Hispanic students have
increased their percentage of proficiency by 26.9%; English learners have increased their
185

score by 28.5%; and SED increased their score by 29.8%. The highest increase was for
White students who recorded a 38.7% increase over the last five years.
In 2006, the achievement gap in mathematics between Hispanic and White
students was 14.1%; five years later, the achievement gap for Hispanic students at
Washington Elementary is now 25.9%; therefore the achievement gap has grown by
11.8%. English learners were scoring 13.6% lower than White students and five years
later the gap has grown to 23.8%; therefore, the achievement gap for English learners has
also grown by 10.2%. SED students were scoring 16.5% lower than White students at
Washington five years ago and are currently scoring 25.4% lower; therefore, increasing
the achievement gap by 8.9%. So, while all students and subgroups have grown in
mathematics over the past five years, the White subgroup is the only group that continues
to increase their scores above the school wide average and continues to outperform all
other subgroups by more than 20%. Figure W.4 displays the performance of significant
subgroups in mathematics since 2006.
186

Figure W.4: Math AYP for Washington School
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED

Source: California Department of Education, 2010

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Prior to the arrival of the current principal in January 2005 and during the first
five years the state’s current accountability system was in place, Washington made
minimal growth in student achievement according to API data. After the new principal
arrived, she spent time getting to know the staff, students, and parents and becoming
familiar with the strengths and needs of the school. In spring 2007, Washington was one
of three schools in the district to receive an invitation from the state to apply for a High
Priority School Grant. The principal worked with the school’s leadership team, parents,
and a grant writer to assist them with applying for the HPSG, and the school was awarded
the HPSG effective July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2010. Although the HPSG provided
additional funding that was used for training and new programs, the power of the grant
187

was it brought a new focus to Washington Elementary that, according to the veteran staff,
had never been there. The HPSG created an opportunity for staff and parents to come
together and evaluate the strengths and barriers of the school and develop an action plan
that would lay the foundation for making a positive difference in student achievement.
The following is a review of how the Washington staff has been implementing
Odden and Archibald’s (2009) 10 Steps for Doubling Student Performance.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge
According to both state and federal accountability systems, Washington
Elementary students were not meeting required benchmarks. In 2004, Washington was
performing in the bottom 30% of all schools in California and they dropped to the bottom
20% in 2005. In 2006, they dropped again and were performing in the bottom 10% of all
schools in the state. The school remained in the bottom ten 10% across the state for two
consecutive years which was the primary reason they were invited to apply for the HPSG.
While the school’s API score experienced modest growth in the early 2000s, the API
score dropped by 24 points in 2006 and only gained one point the following year.
Adequate Yearly Progress goals were not being made because not enough students were
scoring proficient in English language arts and, as a result, Washington entered its first
year of Program Improvement (PI) in 2006-2007. After the principal had been at the
school for nearly two years, she and the staff realized they needed to make significant
changes to the program they were offering and believed the HPSG would be critical to
the change process.

188

Set ambitious goals
There is a strong emphasis at Washington Elementary on reviewing students’
prior assessments, recognizing students for growth, and setting goals for the new year.
All teachers at Washington Elementary meet with their students individually at the
beginning of the school year for a data conference. The teacher reviews each student’s
writing, fluency, and CST data and together they create ambitious goals for the upcoming
year. These goals are specific for each student and numeric in nature. For some students,
the numeric goal is set so that the student moves to the next CST performance band. For
others, moving to the next performance band is not realistic; therefore, obtaining the new
goal may result in the student staying in the same performance band for another year.
The assessment results are also used to assist the teacher with determining their target
students for the year. A second data conference is conducted after the second trimester to
review each student’s progress toward meeting those goals and to evaluate whether or not
additional support is needed for the remainder of the year.
Students who scored proficient or advanced on the prior year’s CST proudly wear
a bracelet that recognizes them for their CST score. Many students talk about their desire
to earn one of those bracelets during their data conference with their teacher.
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision
The core curricular program offered at Washington has had minimal changes over
the past three years. They continue to use state-approved Houghton Mifflin English
language arts, Harcourt science, and Macmillan/McGraw social science curricula. In
2009-2010, the entire district adopted Pearson/Scott Foresman Envision mathematics.
189

The district office has 5.75 FTE curriculum specialists and one of their primary
responsibilities is to align the standards in the state-approved textbooks with the state
standards to ensure all grade level state standards are being taught. They also provide a
curriculum map for each core subject that ensures all power standards have been taught
prior to the administration of the CST each spring.
Supplemental material has also been incorporated into the various levels of
intervention programs and will be discussed in the extended learning time section of this
case study.
As a result of Washington Elementary being selected as a HPSG recipient, an
action plan was developed that resulted in the creation of a new instructional vision for
the school. The key components of the new instructional vision included the following:
1) extended time for the staff to meet as Professional Learning Communities; 2)
additional assessments; 3) increased on site professional development coaching; 4)
additional intervention; and 5) focus on best first teaching/effective instructional
strategies. The components of the action plan will be incorporated into the remaining key
elements and themes of the improvement process in this case study.
Formative assessments and data-based decision making
All teachers give district benchmark assessments four times each year. The
results of those assessments along with CST data are used to create individual learning
goals, identify target students, and monitor students’ progress throughout the year. All
assessment data is recorded in the district’s web-based SMART system and is reviewed
by the principal after each assessment is given.
190

Another assessment used at the beginning of each year is Dynamic Indicators of
Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), which are a set of procedures and measures for
assessing the acquisition of early literacy skills. The initial assessment identifies students
at-risk and in need of additional interventions. Those students become part of each
teacher’s targeted students and DIBELS assessments are then given on a regular basis.
These assessments are designed to be short fluency measures used to regularly monitor
the development of early literacy and early reading skills. Teachers record the results of
these short assessments in each student’s DIBELS booklet and in the district’s SMART
database. The principal collects these booklets from each teacher every Friday, reviews
each student’s results, and writes notes, comments or questions as appropriate.
Washington Elementary teachers know their principal views this particular assessment as
critical for monitoring targeted students’ performance.
Ongoing, intensive professional development
The action plan that came as a result of the HPSG includes an extensive
professional development component. In year one of the HPSG, all staff participated in
classroom walk-through training with UCLA. During these walk-throughs, the principal,
vice principal, and trainer would meet with a grade level of teachers who were on release
time to walk through all classrooms at two other grade levels. A focus question was
established and after the group left each classroom, they quickly discussed the focus
question as it applied to the classroom they just observed. During the first year, the walk-
through focus was based on a consistent use of academic language and effective teaching
practices. At the conclusion of the walk-through, the team would meet together to
191

collaborate regarding the experience and what they can do differently in their own
classrooms as a result of their experience.
Washington Elementary, along with all other schools in the district, had a Teacher
On Special Assignment (TOSA) – Professional Development work with teachers in their
classrooms modeling lessons and providing school wide professional development.
While in this particular district, these employees are called TOSAs-PD, many other
districts refer to them as teacher coaches. The staff at Washington Elementary made the
decision to allocate a portion of the HPSG funding to hire an additional 1.5 FTE TOSA-
PD, for a total of 2.5 FTE TOSAs-PD. The goal of the TOSAs-PD was to build capacity
among the classroom teachers. Coaches go into classrooms and model strategies known
as best teaching practices that support student achievement. The district was forced to
make budget reductions effective with the 2009-2010 school year and, as a result, only
funded a .5 FTE TOSA-PD. The HPSG was provided through June 30, 2010 and the
staff felt strongly that the 2.5 FTE TOSAs-PD should continue; therefore, they took that
recommendation to the School Site Council where it was unanimously approved to use
local categorical funds to support the .5 FTE that had been reduced by the district.
Another professional development opportunity provided to the Washington
Elementary staff was on Strategic Schooling by Dennis Parker. His presentation
emphasized four strategies: 1) targets; 2) feedback; 3) organizational best practices; and
4) unspoken beliefs. His presentation was instrumental in the staff incorporating data
conferences and setting ambitious goals for all students.
192

The HPSG also provided funding so all teachers at Washington Elementary could
receive training in UCLA’s Bridges to Understanding. The focus of the training was
scaffolding language and scaffolding learning through various best teaching practices.
Although these are strategies are taught for the purpose of using them with English
learners, it is good teaching from which all students can benefit.
Using time efficiently and effectively
Teachers at Washington Elementary were busy with the many demands placed
upon them each day and were not always devoting 30 minutes daily for ELD instruction.
The decision was made to devote the first 30 minutes of every school day to ELD
instruction. This schedule ensures that all students have access to ELD instruction and
curriculum from Language for Learning, the district-approved curriculum, according to
their own level of need on a daily basis.
The staff also incorporated the district’s mandate for Universal Access each day
beginning in 2007-2008. Universal Access is a time when all students are divided into
three groups: below basic, basic, or proficient and spend thirty minutes receiving
additional support at their own level in the core English language arts curriculum,
Houghton-Mifflin. The TOSAs-PD go into the teacher’s classroom who has the lowest
performing students at each grade level and works with the lowest five students at that
grade level. The TOSA-PD also uses this time to model for the classroom teacher
effective strategies for working with the students with the greatest needs.
193

Extending learning time for struggling students
In addition to 30 minutes of daily ELD instruction and 30 minutes of Universal
Access, there are other opportunities for struggling students to receive additional learning
time and interventions. A portion of the HPSG funding as well as local categorical funds
are used to support 3.5 FTE TOSAs-Instruction. Rather than using a traditional “pull
out” program for students in need of extra support, TOSAs-Instruction push into the
classroom and provide support to targeted students.
Although Response to Intervention (RTI) was not originally part of the action
plan, Washington has been a leader in the implementation of RTI across the district. One
of the TOSAs-PD was a former curriculum specialist at the district level who had
received extensive training in RTI. This TOSA-PD has worked with the entire staff on
implementing RTI throughout the school. The state-created RTI blueprint was used as
the foundation of their action plan. They began by spending an entire year focusing on
tier I of the RTI model. They used the Houghton Mifflin (HM) English language arts
adopted curriculum, supporting HM supplemental materials, focus walls, and Universal
Access to support this tier of intervention. The staff then spent the next two years
broadening their understanding of tier I while also exploring tiers II and III of the model.
Leveled readers, Read Naturally, Start In and Positive Behavior Intervention Strategies
(PBIS) were all incorporated as part of the tier II model. Students in tier III receive
additional intervention after school. Read 180 was implemented for the first time in
2009-2010 for students in grades 4-6 in need of tier III intervention. Although Start In is
194

used for some students in tier II, it is also used in an after school program for students in
need of tier III support.
Collaborative, professional culture
Washington’s action plan also included a new and deeper commitment to all staff
working in their grade level teams as Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). Prior
to three years ago, the staff gathered as PLCs but never had a real focus during their
collaboration time. One of the first changes to the structure of the PLC was that all PLCs
began meeting in the library. In the past, each grade level met in one of their team
member’s classrooms which allowed for a lot of time off task. Another change to the
structure was how often the teams meet in grade level teams. While they originally met
as grade level teams in PLCs on a monthly basis, they now meet three times each month.
Under the old structure, there was also no real accountability until the principal created a
reading data analysis worksheet that all teachers use for their students and bring to their
PLC. When they gather into PLCs, each teacher has a maximum of five minutes to share
data from one of their targeted student’s worksheet that includes what type of
intervention has been the focus for that student. The teacher also addresses whether or
not they’ve been able to meet the plan, if adjustments were necessary, what’s worked
well, and the challenges and obstacles they have faced or continue to face. The most
powerful part of the discussion is when each teacher finishes sharing by asking the
question, “Do you have any suggestions or advice for me when working with this
student?” It took years for the teachers to fully support this approach because they had to
learn to trust their colleagues and that trust did not come overnight. It is still an issue
195

with one specific grade level; therefore, the principal continues to monitor that group
closely.
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership
The principal is very humble and is the first to admit that the success Washington
has experienced is as a result of a new focus and action plan that was developed by the
entire leadership team as well as parents. She has not had to lead this charge by standing
alone in front of her staff trying to gain their support. Her entire leadership team has
worked with her on not only the development of the action plan, but the presentation and
implementation of the plan. The principal strongly believes the reason the staff has been
behind this action plan is because of the staff’s commitment to children and because the
plan was built from the ground up with heavy involvement from their peers.
Professional and best practices
A large part of the reform process at Washington has been focused on
professional and best practices that have been discussed previously in this case study.
Best instructional practices that have been incorporated at Washington include strategies
gained from participating in Bridges to Understanding training, RTI training that focused
on best first teaching in the classroom as part of tier I interventions, a new student-
centered focused collaboration during PLC meetings, push-in intervention support for
struggling students, the implementation of Universal Access on a daily basis, and the
increased use of professional development TOSAs who are there to support instruction
and model lessons and best practices for teachers.
196

Table W.1 is a summary of how Washington Elementary implements the 10 steps
that Odden and Archibald (2009) recommend for doubling student performance.
Table W.1: Washington and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Average Weak N/A
Understanding
performance
problem &
challenge

X
Entire staff understands past
performance problem and need to make
significant changes
Set ambitious
goals

X

The principal has created a culture of
setting high expectations. Teachers set
individual goals with students.
Change
curriculum
program/create
new instructional
vision

X
A new instructional vision was created as
a result of the action plan the staff
developed. The language arts, science,
and social science curriculum has
remained the same. A new math
curriculum was adopted for 2009-10 and
the Mind Institute’s math program was
implemented. Additional supplemental
curriculum has been implemented for tier
II and tier III interventions.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions

X
The school effectively uses a variety of
assessments to monitor student progress
and guide instruction.
Ongoing PD

X
On-site professional development TOSAs
provide ongoing PD and work with
teachers daily to model lessons that focus
on best teaching practices.
Using time
efficiently &
effectively

X
Instructional time has been redesigned
and is maximized to ensure every student
receives ELD and Universal Access
support daily.
Extended
learning time for
struggling
students

X
The school has implemented interventions
for all three RTI tiers, Teachers work
with targeted students. Students receive
UA and ELD instruction at their own
level 30 minutes each/daily.
Collaborative,
professional
culture

X
Teachers meet for PLCs in grade level
teams. Accountability has increased and
there is a new focus for each team that
centers on struggling students and
effective strategies. Some teams are
working together better than others.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership

X
The principal has built the action plan
collaboratively with the leadership team.
The goal is to continue to build capacity
among teachers as grant funds have now
expired.
Professional and
best practices

X
Teachers continue to work on using a
variety of instructional strategies/best
practices to meet students’ diverse needs.
197

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
Although Washington Elementary is incorporating to some degree most of Odden
and Archibald’s (2009) 10 research-based strategies found to double student
performance, the amount of resources allocated for students is significantly lower than
Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence-Based Model (EBM). Table W.2 shows a
comparison between the suggested resources at a prototypical elementary school, the
resource allocation at Washington Elementary, and the amount of resources that would be
allocated to Washington according to the prototypical model and based on student
enrollment at Washington.
Table W.2: Washington and Evidence-Based Resource Use Comparison
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Washington School
Current Resource
Status
Washington Based
on Prototypical
Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-6; 805
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K & Gr 3: 30
Gr 1&2: 25
Gr 4-6: 33

Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
184, includes 1 day
for PD, 1 prep day,
& 2 parent conf.
days

Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Half-day
kindergarten

Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal &
1.0 FTE assistant
principal
1.principal & .9
assistant principal
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and 1.0
FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary &
1.5 FTE Clerical
1.9 Secretaries and
1.9 Clerical
198

Table W.2, Continued
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 28 FTE core
teachers
44.7 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 0 FTE specialist
teachers
8.9 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE 1.5 FTE TOSA –
Professional
Development
4.1 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100
poverty students
3.5 FTE TOSA -
Instruction
6.3 FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
0 FTE 4.5 FTE
Non-Instructional Support for
EL Students
0.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 3.4 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 3.4 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
1.0 FTE RSP
teacher;
.33 FTE
Psychologist;
.8 FTE Speech
Therapist
5.7 FTE
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds

Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$3,798 261 days @
$110/day = $28,710
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
1.0 FTE Community
Liaison;
1.0 FTE Attendance
Liaison;
.375FTE Health
Clerk;
.33 Nurse
6.3 FTE
199

Table W.2, Continued
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 3.8 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE Library
Media Assistant
1.0 FTE Computer
Tech
1.9 FTE
Resources for gifted students $25 per student $0 $20,125
Technology $250 per pupil $91,904 $201,250
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $108,230 $112,700
Student Activities $200 per pupil $1,214 $161,000
Professional Development $100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$25,142 $80,500

Summary and Lessons Learned
Washington Elementary School has made tremendous improvement in improving
overall student performance over the past three years. The turning point for the school
was when they received the HPSG. The grant came at a time when the school had been
stagnant and performing among the lowest schools in the state for years. The HPSG
allowed them to acknowledge their areas of weakness and create an action plan to help
them focus on improving student performance like never before. The staff began
analyzing common benchmark assessments and state assessment results, met with all
students individually to discuss those results, and establish individual goals. Targeted
students were identified and are given additional support through appropriate
interventions. A new commitment to meeting as grade level teams in PLCs to discuss
assessment results and best practices has been embraced by most, but not all grade levels.
State-approved curriculum and pacing guides are being used in all classrooms. The
200

instructional day has been reorganized to maximize time on task and to ensure all
students are receiving appropriate leveled support in Universal Access and ELD.
Future Considerations
While student achievement has increased overall, there is an achievement gap
between White students and all other students and little progress has been made in
closing the achievement gap over the past five years. In some cases, the achievement gap
has actually grown. While the staff has done an impressive job of setting goals with
individual students and increasing achievement overall, a new school wide focus needs to
be placed on the subgroups in an effort to close the achievement gap.
Effective July 1, 2010, the HPSG funds have been depleted. This was a three-
year grant that recently expired. The loss of these funds has resulted in the school having
to eliminate 1 FTE TOSA-PD and there will no longer be funds to release teachers for
grade level walk-throughs. The school could benefit from additional financial support
from the district; however, the district just reduced its budget by $23 million effective
July 1, 2010; therefore, additional financial support is unlikely.
201

APPENDIX I – CASE STUDY: LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Background on School and District
Lincoln Elementary School is a Title I, kindergarten through sixth grade school in
an urban school district located in Los Angeles County. There are 13 elementary schools,
4 middle schools, two comprehensive high schools, and one continuation high school
within the Title I district that educates approximately 22,775 students with 64% of
students identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged. The 667 students at Lincoln
follow a traditional schedule. Lincoln is committed to teaching a challenging standards-
based curriculum, as well as skills to develop strong character. Tools necessary for
students to reach their highest potential and become responsible citizens in the 21
st

century are provided to all Lincoln students.
Lincoln school serves students from a diverse ethnic background, socioeconomic
status, and language abilities. The primary ethnic groups are Hispanic (86%), African
American (6%), and White (4%). Eighty-five percent of the students are classified as
socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED). The percentage of English learners (EL) at
Lincoln is 42% and 7% are classified as students with special needs. Figure L.1 shows
the ethnic breakdown of all students at Lincoln School.
202

Figure L.1 Ethnic Breakdown of Lincoln School
Hispanic ‐ 86%
White ‐ 4%
Asian ‐ 3%
African American 6%
Other 1%

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
A review of Lincoln’s API scores for the past five years reveal years of growth
and years of decline. In 2004-05, Lincoln’s API score grew 57 points; however, the
cumulative change over the past five years shows an overall decline of one point. In
2007-08 and 2008-09, the school’s API grew by 22 and 14 points respectively; however,
in 2009-10, the school’s API dropped by 30 points. Figure L.2 shows Lincoln School’s
API over the last five years.
203

Figure L.2 Lincoln School’s API
740
733
758
769
739
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) reports reveal growth for all groups over
the last five years, although some groups have experienced more growth than others.
Since 2006, AYP data reveal the percentage of all students scoring proficient or advanced
in English Language Arts increased by 8.6%. Hispanic students have increased their
percentage of proficiency by 9.5%, White students have increased their score by 1.6%,
and SED students increased their score by 8.7%. The highest increase was for English
learners who recorded a 13.1% increase over the last five years.
An issue that continues to be problematic in most school districts across the
nation is the achievement gap between White students and all other students; however, at
Lincoln, White students have shown minimal growth over five years (only 1.6%) and are
the lowest performing subgroup in English language arts. In 2006, the achievement gap
in English language arts between Hispanic and White students was 3.7%. Five years
later, Hispanics are performing 4.2% higher than White students. English learners were
204

scoring 4.6% lower than White students and five years later English learners are scoring
3.2% higher than White students. SED students were scoring less than 1% lower than
White students at Lincoln five years ago and are currently scoring 2.8% higher than
White students. So, while all students and subgroups have grown over the past five
years, the White subgroup has fallen nearly 4% lower than the school wide average.
Figure L.3 displays the performance of significant subgroups in English language arts
since 2006.
Figure L.3 Language Arts AYP for Lincoln School
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
A review of the mathematics scores by subgroup reveals a different pattern than
English language arts scores. Over the last five years, all subgroups except White
students have decreased the number of students scoring proficient. Since 2006, AYP data
reveals the percentage of all students scoring proficient or advanced in mathematics
decreased by 7%. Hispanic students have decreased their percentage of proficiency by
10%; English learners have decreased their score by 6.8%; and SED students decreased
205

their score by 6.7%. The only increase was for White students who recorded a 7%
increase over the last five years.
In 2006, Hispanic students were outperforming White students; therefore, the
achievement gap for Hispanic students was nonexistent. Five years later, White students
are performing 8.7% higher than Hispanic students; therefore the achievement gap
between Hispanic students and White students is 8.7%. English learners were scoring 5%
higher than White students and five years later White students are outperforming English
learners by 8.8%. SED students were scoring 5.3% higher than White students at Lincoln
five years ago and are currently scoring 8.4% lower. So, while White students were the
lowest performing subgroup in mathematics five years ago, their increase of 7% and all
other subgroups’ decreases has resulted in an achievement gap with White students
currently scoring higher than all other subgroups by at least 7.5%. Figure L.4 displays
the performance of significant subgroups in mathematics since 2006.
206

Figure L.4: Math AYP for Lincoln School

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Lincoln School’s improvement process has been inconsistent over the past five
years. Growth in student achievement over the past five years is similar to the phrase,
“one step forward, two steps back.” The past five years of data reveal no API growth,
growth in AYP English language arts scores, but decline in AYP mathematics scores. A
new principal was sent to Lincoln in the summer of 2008, after the school had
experienced an API increase of 25 points. At the end of the principal’s first year, Lincoln
experienced an 11 point growth in its API score; however, the 2010 API score dropped
30 points, bringing the school’s API score back down to where it was in 2006. A five
year review of AYP results in English language arts reveals that while there was an
achievement gap between White students and other subgroups in 2006, the achievement
207

gap has been closed, with all other subgroups performing higher than White students.
White students only increased the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced
by 1.6% over five years while all other subgroups increased their percentage of
proficiency between 8.7% and 13.1%. The opposite is true when examining a five year
review of AYP results for mathematics. Five years ago, there was no achievement gap
between the White subgroup and all other subgroups. Today, there is at least an 8.4%
achievement gap between the White subgroup and all other subgroups.
The following is a review of how the Lincoln staff has been implementing Odden
and Archibald’s (2009) 10 Steps for Doubling Student Performance.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge
According to both state and federal accountability systems, Lincoln Elementary
students were meeting required benchmarks through 2008-2009, but failed to meet any of
the benchmarks for the first time in 2009-2010. The AYP requirement is that at least
56.8% of all students and subgroups reach proficiency in English language arts and at
least 58% of all students and subgroups reach proficiency in mathematics. In reviewing
data from 2009 to 2010, it shows the percentage of students scoring proficient in ELA
declined school wide and within the Hispanic and White subgroups, and the percentage
of students scoring proficient in mathematics declined school wide and within every
subgroup.
The first interview conducted with Lincoln’s principal was prior to the release of
the 2010 data. The principal attributed the previous two years’ increases in student
achievement to the focus on Response to Intervention (RTI). A follow up conversation
208

was conducted after the 2010 data was revealed and the principal was perplexed. She and
her entire staff were surprised by the significant API score drop and the decrease in the
percentage of students scoring proficient in ELA and mathematics. As the instructional
leader of the school, she took this decline personally and is committed to working with
the district’s Director of Elementary Education to analyze her data so she can assist her
staff in creating an action plan that will address the deficiencies.
Set ambitious goals
While the Lincoln staff sets goals for increasing student achievement, the goals
are very broad and are not necessarily “ambitious.” During the interview, the principal
shared that staff looks at the previous year’s data at the beginning of the year and sets
annual goals for the new year. The Single Plan for Student Achievement includes goals
for increasing the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced on the CSTs for
grades two through five, and the goal is between 4% and 8%, depending on the grade
level. The goal for kindergarten and first grade students is to increase the percentage of
students scoring proficient on district assessments. Goals to reduce the achievement gap
are not included. Teachers do not have data conferences to create individual goals with
each student. The goals have never been shared with the students other than overall
announcements encouraging students to do their best and increase their school’s API
score.
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision
The core curricular program offered at Lincoln has had minimal changes over the
past three years. They continue to use state-approved Houghton Mifflin English
209

language arts, Harcourt science, and Macmillan/McGraw social science curricula.
Moving into English is the ELD curriculum that has been used for the past three years. In
2009-2010, the entire district adopted Pearson/Scott Foresman Envision mathematics.
Although the new adoption was implemented during 2009-2010, there was more of an
emphasis on language arts than on the new mathematics program. The district’s directive
was to continue to focus on RTI in the area of English language arts due to the needs of
their English learner population. Teachers did receive some support with the new
mathematics adoption. The district offered a voluntary half-day of professional
development to all teachers interested in receiving an overview and limited training on
the new mathematics curriculum. Teachers were offered a small stipend to attend and all
but one teacher from Lincoln attended this training. A presenter from the publisher came
to a staff meeting at Lincoln to offer additional support and the district’s mathematics
specialist also attended a meeting at Lincoln to model lessons using the new curriculum.
Supplemental material has also been incorporated into the various levels of
intervention programs and will be discussed in the extended learning time section of this
case study.
When the principal was asked what her instructional vision was for her
improvement effort at Lincoln, her response was, “I’m not sure how to answer this.” She
eventually referred to training all principals in the district received by Dennis Fox. The
emphasis of that training was looking at best instructional practices. She felt his training
was excellent and hired him to spend one day in the summer working with her staff on
examining data and incorporating best instructional practices based on the data.
210

Formative assessments and data-based decision making
A variety of assessments are used throughout the year to monitor student
progress. At the beginning of each year, the computerized assessments DORA
(Diagnostic Online Reading Assessment) and DOMA (Diagnostic Online Math
Assessment) are administered to all students. They also take this assessment at the end of
each grading period. Common assessments in language arts are also administered at the
end of each grading period. Beginning in spring 2010, teachers were given an additional
hour of release time every three weeks to work in grade level teams to develop additional
common assessments so they could be administered more frequently with the goal of
moving students in and out of their intervention groups more frequently. The staff did
not want to keep students in a specific intervention group for an entire grading period if it
was not necessary. The district has not had any type of computer system or program
where the results of the assessments are entered and monitored; however, they have just
purchased a license agreement with Data Director and teachers are being trained how to
enter assessment data into this computerized program.
Ongoing, intensive professional development
District wide professional development has been lacking for the last several years.
Lincoln’s principal believes this is the biggest area of need for her school and the entire
district. There have not been any mandatory staff development days for years other than
on the student free day at the end of the first semester where a principal can offer no more
than 3.5 hours of staff development (per contractual limit). The principal believes her
staff is hungry for more professional development. As mentioned previously, Lincoln
211

teachers were given the opportunity to attend a workshop by Dennis Fox on best
instructional practices this summer. Follow up training will be offered during 2010-2011.
School funds had to support all costs associated with this training but the principal
believes it was well worth the money.
Using time efficiently and effectively
Prior to 2009-2010, one hour each day was set aside for targeted intervention; this
time was referred to as Power Hour. However, with the implementation of the new
mathematics curriculum, they no longer had 60 minutes available in the daily schedule
for intervention; therefore, it was reduced to 30 minutes per day. The principal believes
that 30 minutes each day is ample time for intervention anyway because of a training she
attended where research was presented that if you try to incorporate more than 30
minutes of intervention, students stop paying attention. Lincoln’s RTI program will be
explored further in the extended learning time for struggling students section of this case
study.
Teachers are also expected to provide 30 minutes of ELD instruction daily. ELD
is taught at the same time of day by grade level; therefore, students are grouped according
to their CELDT results. The ELD teacher and instructional staff do not work with
students during this time because they feel the groups are small enough when they level
them according to their CELDT results. The ELD teacher and instructional assistants are
a “pull out” model rather than an inclusion model and specific students are pulled out to
work with the ELD teacher and instructional assistants during other times of the day.
212

Extending learning time for struggling students
In addition to 30 minutes of daily ELD instruction, there are other opportunities
for struggling students to receive additional learning time and interventions. Each grade
level offers 30 minutes of Hour Power daily and students are grouped by levels according
to assessment results. During this time which they consider tier II of the RTI model, the
Title I teacher, ELD teacher, and instructional assistants push into the classrooms to work
with students in order to offer smaller groups and more individualized support. The Title
I teacher spends most of her time supporting the most intensive students in the upper
grades.
Various programs are used to support students during tier II RTI including a
phonics program form primary grades; Building Levels of Comprehension (BLC) for
grades 2 – 5; Reading Fluency for grade 3; and Stars in Cars for all grade levels.
Students are assessed every three weeks and change levels according to their assessment
results.
Limited intervention is offered after school by the Title I and ELD teacher as well
as by instructional assistants. ELD tutoring is offered year round. Beginning in January
and continuing through STAR testing, tutoring is available to students with the greatest
need. The goal this year is to expand after school interventions to better meet the needs
of those students who truly fall into tier III of the RTI model.
Collaborative, professional culture
The district expectation is that teachers will work as Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs). Lincoln’s previous principal started working with the staff on
213

what it is to be a PLC and the first step they took was analyzing assessment results and
planning instruction accordingly. The current principal believes the staff has a lot of
work to do before they are working as a true PLC. She has given them release time to
create common assessments and she has an expectation that grade levels will meet
monthly to review and share their students’ assessment results so that teachers can learn
from each other. The upper grade teachers are the most open to sharing strategies they’ve
used to be successful in teaching certain standards. Primary teachers are improving with
the exception of third grade. The third grade team does not trust each other and resent the
fact that they are expected to share. The principal believes this is the reason Lincoln’s
third grade scores are always lower than all other grade levels.
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership
During the first interview with Lincoln’s principal, she was very proud of the
growth her school had experienced over the two years she has been at Lincoln and was
quick to give credit to her hard working staff. When we talked after the 2010 API and
AYP scores were released, she shared her disappointment but quickly stated she is
committed to working closely with the district’s Director of Elementary Education and
her own leadership team to address areas of weakness. She meets with her leadership
team at least monthly and attempts to empower them to work as a team of instructional
leaders to ensure Lincoln School is working to increase student achievement.
Professional and best practices
Best instructional practices that have been incorporated at Lincoln include a daily
block of time dedicated to tier II RTI, daily ELD time with support for English learners
214

based on individual needs, additional targeted support and intervention for English
learners and most at-risk students provided by the ELD teacher and Title I teacher, and
the staff working together as PLC. Another focus previously mentioned was the Dennis
Fox workshop she offered staff members last summer on implementing first best
instructional practices. The principal is the first to acknowledge that while these are good
instructional and professional best practices, they all need to be taken to the next level.
When asked about how much time she spends in classrooms monitoring
instruction, she said her goal is to get into every classroom at least once every two weeks
but that does not always happen. Often, all of the other demands placed on her as the
instructional leader get in the way of allowing her enough time to get into classrooms.
She is also hesitant to go into classrooms more often than every two weeks because
teachers will contact their union leadership complaining that she is in their rooms too
often. She has tried to build a level of trust with her staff and has explained that her
walk-throughs are not meant to be punitive but to affirm the great things taking place in
the classroom as well as to assist teachers with instruction as needed. She admits that she
needs to continue working on building that level of trust with her staff and that she should
try to get into classrooms on a more regular basis.
Table L.1 is a summary of how Lincoln School implements the 10 steps that
Odden and Archibald (2009) recommend for doubling student performance.
215

Table L.1: Lincoln and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Average Weak N/A
Understanding
performance
problem &
challenge

X
Staff did not have a true understanding of
why scores dropped this year after
previous two years of growth
Set ambitious
goals

X
School wide goals are established but do
not include individualized goals for
students and do not address the
achievement gap
Change
curriculum
program/create
new instructional
vision

X
The language arts, science, and social
science curriculum have remained the
same for the past several years. A new
math curriculum was adopted for 2009-10
and this is the third year using the
current ELD curriculum. Additional
supplemental curriculum has been
implemented for tier II and tier III
interventions.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions

X
The school uses a variety of assessments
to monitor student progress and guide
instruction. Students are transferred to
different intervention groups frequently
based on the data.
Ongoing PD

X
While the district does not offer staff
development, school funds are being used
to support professional development in
the area of best first teaching.
Using time
efficiently &
effectively

X
Instructional time has been designed to
allow 30 minutes of ELD and 30 minutes
of tier II intervention for struggling
students during the instructional day.
Extended
learning time for
struggling
students

X
The school has implemented interventions
for tier I and tier II of RTI. Some
students are receiving after school
support but not as formal as a true tier
III RTI program.
Collaborative,
professional
culture

X
Teachers are only meeting in PLCs one
time per month. Not all teams are
working well together.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership

X

The principal works closely with her
leadership team and is committed to
building capacity among her staff.
Professional and
best practices

X
Teachers are committed to exploring best
instructional practices. Several best
practices are in place but need to be
expanded.

216

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
Although Lincoln Elementary is incorporating to some degree most of Odden and
Archibald’s (2009) 10 research-based strategies found to double student performance, the
amount of resources allocated for students is significantly lower than Odden and Picus’
(2008) Evidence-Based Model (EBM). Table L.2 shows a comparison between the
suggested resources at a prototypical elementary school, the resource allocation at
Lincoln School, and the amount of resources that would be allocated to Lincoln
according to the prototypical model and based on student enrollment at Lincoln.
Table L.2: Lincoln and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Lincoln School
Current Resource
Status
Lincoln Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-5: 667
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K: 29
Gr 1-3: 21
Gr 4-5: 29

Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
183, includes .5 day
for PD and 2.5 days
for prep

Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Half-day
kindergarten

Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal &
1.0 FTE assistant
principal
1.principal & .5
assistant principal
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and 1.0
FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary &
2.0 FTE Clerical
1.5 Secretaries and
1.5 Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 27 FTE core
teachers
41.7 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 0 FTE specialist
teachers
8.34 FTE
217

Table L.2, Continued
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE 0 FTE TOSA –
Professional
Development
3.4 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100
poverty students
1.0 FTE Title I
Teacher
5.7 FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
1.0 FTE ELD
Teacher
2.8 FTE
Non-Instructional Support for
EL Students
0.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.0 FTE 3.4 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0.0 FTE 3.4 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
1.0 FTE RSP
teacher;
1.0 FTE SDC
teacher;
.30 FTE
Psychologist;
1.0 FTE Speech
Therapist
4.6 FTE
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds

Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$5,000 234 days @
$120/day = $28,080
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
0.0 (District nurse
works out of D.O. &
is on call only)
5.7 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 3.1 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 5.0 FTE TOTAL
5 @ .46 FTE
5 @ .54 FTE
0.0 FTE
218

Table L.2 Continued
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE 1.7 FTE TOTAL
.85 FTE Library
Media Assistant
.85 FTE Computer
Tech
1.544 FTE
Resources for gifted students $25 per student $0 $16,675
Technology $250 per pupil $47,235 $166,750
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $62,735 $93,380
Student Activities $200 per pupil $3,225 $133,400
Professional Development $100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$23,400 $66,700

Summary and Lessons Learned
Lincoln Elementary School has made minimal improvement in improving overall
student performance over the past five years. The staff is disappointed with the lack of
growth and committed to working together to better meet the needs of their students.
Additional common assessments were created last spring and have been implemented so
students are assessed more frequently and the appropriate level of support can be
provided. Tier III interventions are going to be formalized this year so that there is a true
focus on the lowest performing students. The principal will continue to work with the
staff to get all grade level teams working as PLCs. State-approved curricula are being
used in all classrooms. The instructional day has been reorganized to dedicate the
appropriate amount of time to mathematics instruction and to ensure all students are
receiving appropriate leveled support in ELD and intervention.
219

Future Considerations
The principal said the school could benefit from additional financial support from
the district; however, the district has been making reductions to their own budget in
response to the state’s budget crisis.
220

APPENDIX J – CASE STUDY: KENNEDY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Background on School and District
Kennedy Elementary School is a Title I, pre-kindergarten through sixth grade
school in an urban school district located in Orange County. There are 46 elementary
schools, 10 middle schools, seven comprehensive high schools, and two continuation
high schools within the Title I district that educates approximately 47,000 students with
59% of students identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged. The 504 students at
Kennedy follow a traditional schedule. The student population at Kennedy is a reflection
of its community, one that is culturally and linguistically diverse.
Kennedy Elementary School serves students from a diverse ethnic background,
socioeconomic status, and language abilities. The primary ethnic groups are Hispanic
(49%), Asian (35%), and White (12%). Seventy-six percent of the students are classified
as socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED). The percentage of English learners (EL) at
Kennedy is 59% and 14% are classified as students with special needs. Figure K.1 shows
the ethnic breakdown of all students at Kennedy School.
221

Figure K.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Kennedy School
Hispanic ‐ 49%
White ‐ 12%
Asian ‐ 35%
African American 3%
Other 1%

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
Kennedy School strives to provide a standards based curriculum with high
expectations for all students. The school staff believes every student can succeed at high
levels and their goal is to provide students with the skills they will need to be successful
in life. The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies that support the mission, vision, and goals of Kennedy Elementary
School.
Starting with the 2007-2008 school year, Kennedy Elementary has demonstrated
impressive growth in student performance as documented in the school’s API. From
2008 to 2010, Kennedy Elementary has shown an API growth of 57 points. Figure K.2
shows Kennedy School’s API over the last five years.
222

Figure K.2: Kennedy School’s API
741 741
730
757
787
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
A review of English language arts Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) scores from
2006 through 2010 reveals all subgroups with the exception of Asian students and
English learners have demonstrated growth over the last five years, although school wide
growth was minimal. Since 2006, AYP data reveals the percentage of all students
scoring proficient or advanced in English Language Arts increased by only 2.7%.
Hispanic students also increased their percentage of proficiency by 2.7% while SED
students experienced growth of 8.1%. Asian students experienced a 2.9% decrease and
English learners experienced a decrease of 10.3%. The highest increase was for White
students who recorded a 16.2% increase over the last five years.
An issue that continues to be problematic in most school districts across the
nation is the achievement gap between White students and all other students. In 2006,
the achievement gap in English language arts between Hispanic and White students was
18.8%; five years later, the achievement gap for Hispanic students is now 32.3%;
223

therefore the achievement gap has grown by 13.5%. English learners were scoring 0.2%
higher than White students but five years later the achievement gap between English
learners and White students is 26.3%. SED students were scoring 11.9% lower than
White students at Kennedy five years ago and are currently scoring 20% lower; therefore,
increasing the achievement gap by 8.1%. Asian students are the only subgroup
outperforming White students at Kennedy. In 2006, Asian students were outperforming
White students by 21.9% but are currently scoring only 2.8% higher. So, while all
students and subgroups with the exception of Asian students and English learners have
grown over the past five years, the White and Asian subgroups are the only groups that
continue to have scores above the school wide average, and the achievement gap between
White students and all other subgroups with the exception of the Asian subgroup
continues to grow. Figure K.3 displays the performance of significant subgroups in
English language arts since 2006.
224

Figure K.3 Language Arts AYP for Kennedy School
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide
Hispanic
White
Asian
EL
SED

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
A similar pattern of growth is seen in mathematics as in English language arts;
however, all subgroups including Asian students and English learners have experienced
growth over the past five years, and the growth has been more significant than the growth
in English language arts. Since 2006, AYP data reveals the percentage of all students
scoring proficient or advanced in mathematics increased by 12.9%. Hispanic students
have increased their percentage of proficiency by 14.8%; Asian students have increased
their percentage of proficiency by 5.5%; English learners have increased their score by
9.6%; and SED increased their score by 19.9%. The highest increase was for White
students who recorded a 25.5% increase over the last five years.
In 2006, the achievement gap in mathematics between Hispanic and White
students was 22.9%; five years later, the achievement gap for Hispanic students is now
225

33.6%; therefore the achievement gap has grown by 10.7%. English learners were
scoring 5.5% lower than White students and five years later the gap has grown to 21.4%;
therefore, the achievement gap for English learners has also grown by 15.9%. SED
students were scoring 15.1% lower than White students five years ago and are currently
scoring 20.7% lower; therefore, increasing the achievement gap by 5.6%. Asian students
are the only subgroup outperforming White students at Kennedy. In 2006, Asian students
were outperforming White students by 21% but are currently scoring only 1% higher.
So, while all students and subgroups have grown in mathematics over the past five years,
the White and Asian subgroups are the only groups that continue to increase their scores
above the school wide average and continue to outperform all other subgroups by more
than 20%. Figure K.4 displays the performance of significant subgroups in mathematics
since 2006.
Figure K.4: Mathematics AYP for Kennedy School
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide
Hispanic
White
Asian
EL
SED

Source: California Department of Education, 2010

226

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Kennedy has just finished their first year with their current principal. The
previous principal had been at Kennedy for 10 years and, according to the new principal
and current staff members, was very ineffective for the last several years of her tenure in
the district. A five year review of Kennedy’s API scores reveals years of growth and
years of decline. Between 2006 and 2008, scores remained the same or declined;
however, at the end of the previous principal’s final year before retirement, the school’s
API grew by 32 points. When the new principal had a transition meeting with the
previous principal, he asked her what she had done differently during her final year to
experience a 32 point gain. She attributed the growth to the intensive training in the
Houghton Mifflin English language arts curriculum the district provided in 2007-2008
and additional training for the Kennedy staff provided by the district TOSAs during
2008-2009. She had no other idea what could have contributed to Kennedy’s growth.
When the current principal held individual meetings with each staff member after he
came to Kennedy, he asked each staff member the same question and most of them also
attributed their growth to the Houghton Mifflin training.
Due to the fact that very limited information was available as to why Kennedy
experienced a 32 point growth at the end of 2008-2009, a significant amount of the
interview with this principal focused on his first year at Kennedy and the contributing
factors to the 39 point growth Kennedy experienced at the end of his first year. The
following is a review of how the Kennedy staff has been implementing Odden and
Archibald’s (2009) 10 Steps for Doubling Student Performance.
227

Understanding the performance problem and challenge
Kennedy’s current principal was transferred to Kennedy effective July 1, 2009.
Upon entering the new school, he held individual meetings with all staff to discuss their
opinion of the school’s strengths as well as challenges. The overarching message was the
staff felt discouraged and that they had been without a real leader for years. Another
consistent message was the staff was hungry for professional development. The only
opportunities they had for any professional development over the past several years was
what was offered by the district office. They had not received any site driven
professional development for years even though they had expressed this request to their
previous principal on numerous occasions. One final concern expressed by the staff was
the lack of support with student discipline. They would send students to the office for
discipline and the students would be sent back to their classrooms within minutes and
without any type of consequence.
Kennedy’s principal spent the first few months building relationships with the
staff, learning the culture of the school, and evaluating all programs, including
instruction. While cautious to implement significant change too quickly, he looked for
those areas where he could make a few changes that showed his staff he was listening to
their concerns and was there to support them while also focusing on student achievement.
Those changes included offering site level professional development focused on raising
the level of student engagement; implementing a new discipline program that included
placing students on contracts; modifying the instructional day schedule; and developing
228

an intervention program. These changes as well as district foci during 2009-2010 will be
discussed in more detail throughout this case study.
Set ambitious goals
Kennedy School is part of a district that has district wide established goals for
student achievement in grades two through eleven. All second grade students are
expected to score proficient or advanced on the ELA and mathematics CSTs. Students in
third through sixth grades are expected to increase their proficiency level by at least one
performance level (i.e., below basic progresses to lower basic [300-324]; lower basic
progresses to upper basic [325-349]; upper basic to proficient, etc.) on both the ELA and
mathematics CST, and this growth is to continue annually until the student has reached
and maintained proficiency. English learners are also expected to make one band’s
growth each year on the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) until
they become proficient in the English language.
All teachers hold individual goal setting conferences with every student in
October to establish three goals. One goal is in English language arts and a second goal
is in mathematics. These goals can be related to performance on the CST or district
benchmark assessments. A third goal is the student’s choice and can include a goal to
become more organized, to earn more Accelerated Reader points, etc. Each goal
statement includes an action step the student will do to meet their goal. All of this goes
into each student’s data notebook that also includes last year’s CST scores and all
benchmark assessment results for the current year. The teacher reviews the goals with
the parents during parent teacher conferences and meets with individual students
229

throughout the year if they are struggling to meet their goals. Prior year CST results are
not available for kindergarten, first, and second grade students; therefore kindergarten
and first grade teachers use graphs to track progress using DIBELS data and math unit
test data. In second grade, teachers use DIBELS and benchmark data in English language
arts and mathematics.
Another part of setting ambitious goals at Kennedy is related to discipline. When
students are sent to the office due to discipline, the principal meets with the student and
decides if the student would benefit from being placed on a behavior contract at any
given time. If the decision is made to create a discipline contract, the principal and
student meet with the teacher and parent to create the contract that includes a goal for
improving the behavior. Throughout 2009-2010, there were between 30 and 100 students
on a contract. While under contract, students are required to meet with the principal
every week to discuss the progress being made toward their individual goals. At times,
the principal also uses these individual meetings to review the student’s academic goals.
The goal is that once students meet their goal and the behavior has been changed, they
come off the contract; however, the principal found that many students and their parents
wanted the students to stay on the contract because they felt having the contract and
having to meet with the principal weekly helped keep students accountable for their
behavior and, as a result, the students made better choices.
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision
Although Houghton Mifflin English language arts has been the curriculum in
place for several years, the district offered all teachers intensive training in that
230

curriculum in 2007-2008. In 2008-2009, additional training was offered to the Kennedy
staff. The current principal believes the additional training given to the Kennedy staff
was due to the fact that the school’s API scores had dropped by 11 points that year and
had remained flat the prior year.
Harcourt is the district approved mathematics curriculum and has also been used
in the district for several years. In 2009-2010, the district focused on making significant
changes to the mathematics curriculum which they call Project G. Under the leadership
of district administration, the district’s TOSAs worked together to make changes to the
Harcourt program that included eliminating lessons that were not standards based,
creating new pacing guides, reordering how the material was presented, and replacing the
old assessments with new standards based assessments.
MacMillan McGraw-Hill curriculum is used for science and Scott Foresman is
used for social studies in kindergarten through fifth grades while Harcourt is used for
social studies in sixth grade.
Formative assessments and data-based decision making
Kennedy School is in a district that has created common benchmark assessments
that all teachers are required to administer on a regular basis. English language arts
benchmark assessments are administered four times each year and mathematics
benchmark assessments are given at the end of each trimester. The district’s curricular
focus in 2009-2010 was in the area of mathematics. New common formative
mathematics assessments were created and incorporated to replace the assessments
included in the mathematics textbook.
231

Another assessment used at the beginning of each year is Dynamic Indicators of
Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), which are a set of procedures and measures for
assessing the acquisition of early literacy skills for all students in kindergarten through
third grades. If a student was identified as “at risk,” the teacher administered the
Comprehensive Literacy Assessment (CLA) as an additional assessment that identified
where students’ literacy skills were lacking. All students in kindergarten through sixth
grades were also assessed on their instructional reading level. This information provided
teachers with data to assist them in differentiating the language arts program. All
assessment data, including CST scores, CELDT scores, and benchmark assessments are
recorded in the district’s online data management system, Data Director. This system
allows teachers as well as the principal and district administrators access to all
assessment results.
While the Kennedy staff became comfortable with reviewing the data and using
the results to reteach and place students in appropriate interventions, the principal plans
on taking the staff deeper in their analysis of data. His goal for 2010-2011 is to have staff
work in grade level teams, much like Professional Learning Communities, to analyze
their own students’ results and share their analysis with their colleagues. If one teacher’s
students did not master a particular standard and another teacher’s students did, he wants
them to collaborate on how the teacher taught that particular standard. He believes he has
experts on his own campus and they need to share their own best practices with each
other. This will be a slow process because he realizes this takes time and there must be a
level of trust among grade level colleagues. Some grade levels will readily accept his
232

challenge while others will be much more cautious; however, this does not discourage
him. He is looking forward to the challenge of moving every teacher in that direction.
One final change to how the staff will look at data in 2010-2011 involves the
principal working with each teacher on an individual basis. When he first arrived at
Kenney, he did not review each teacher’s assessment results with individual teachers. He
reviewed the data by grade level with each grade level team. He also presented an
overview of school wide trends with the entire staff. It is his belief that he has earned his
staff’s trust and respect after one year; therefore, he plans on reviewing each individual
teacher’s students’ benchmark and CST results from 2009-2010 during his fall meetings
with each teacher.
Ongoing, intensive professional development
As mentioned previously, the staff was pleading for professional development
when the current principal arrived at Kennedy. During 2008-2009, the only professional
development offered to the Kennedy staff was the Houghton Mifflin training provided by
the district TOSAs. Project G, the approach to the Harcourt mathematics curriculum, was
the focus during 2009-2010; therefore, the district sponsored and paid all costs associated
with several professional development opportunities in the area of mathematics for all
teachers before the school year began and throughout the year. Kennedy teachers also
participated in site based professional development training in implementing strategies to
increase the level of student engagement.
Every staff in the district also participates in an annual Action Walk with this
year’s focus on mathematics. Kennedy’s Leadership Team met to establish key elements
233

they felt should be evident in every math lesson. They were then released for one full
day to visit every classroom, discuss what they saw, and create a plan for next steps.
The district also provides one week of optional professional development for all
teachers during the summer on various topics and this program is called Super Week.
Select trainings are required for all teachers; however, if the teacher is unable to attend
Super Week, the expectation is that the teacher will attend the training offered during an
instructional day later in the year. Every teacher receives a stipend equivalent to 15 hours
that can be used during Super Week or for other district sponsored trainings offered
throughout the year. During the summer of 2010, the district also offered Super Duper
Week where certain teachers were selected to attend the workshops one week prior to
Super Week with the expectation that they will go back to their sites and serve as a
trainer on the content covered during Super Duper week.
One additional district sponsored professional development opportunity is a three-
day Leadership Academy. One teacher from each grade level is selected to attend the
Academy with their principal and district TOSA. All participants are then expected to
return to the site and work together to train the staff on the content presented at the
Leadership Academy.
Using time efficiently and effectively
One of the principal’s frustrations he experienced after being at Kennedy for a
short time was the lack of a common schedule for the time of day each subject was
taught. The schedule that had been in place did not give him the confidence that the
appropriate amount of time was being devoted to each subject every day, and it also did
234

not allow the part-time categorical teacher to maximize her time supporting students in
small group settings. Under his guidance, each grade level created new common
schedules that allowed for a consistent 150 minute block of time for English language
arts in primary grades and 120 minutes in fourth through sixth grades, 60 minutes for
mathematics, and 30 minutes for daily ELD instruction.
In addition to the above schedule, every teacher also incorporates 30 minutes of
Universal Access into their daily schedules. The Kennedy staff was trained in Universal
Access in 2006-2007 and has been incorporating it into their daily schedule faithfully for
the last three years. Universal Access allows teachers to work with small groups of
students who have been grouped according to their level of need to receive additional
support in the core English language arts program. Training begins by assisting teachers
with using the correct data to form appropriately leveled student groups. Teachers are
then trained on how to effectively “preteach, reteach, fill holes, and extend the core
curriculum.” The final aspect of training includes support in teaching students phases to
independence so that students can successfully work independently while the teacher is
working with small groups of students. The goal is that the teacher will work with every
student in a small group once each week.
Extending learning time for struggling students
A district expectation is that all schools will provide appropriate interventions
based on the RTI model; however during 2008-09, there were no after school
interventions for struggling students. Individual teachers offered some additional support
in the classroom during the instructional day when they could find the time; however, it
235

was not systematic or targeted. Another expectation that was being implemented at
Kennedy is that kindergarten teachers also spend one hour each day working with first
and second grade students in an intervention setting after the kindergarten students go
home, providing extra support to those students as needed.
In October 2009, Kennedy’s new principal talked to his staff about the need for an
intervention program. The staff agreed and began looking at assessment results and
offering more systematic and targeted interventions during the instructional day as well
as after school. The district has not adopted separate intervention programs or
curriculum; rather, teachers are expected to use the core curriculum. In kindergarten and
first grade, teachers concentrate on phonemic awareness and DIBELS is used to place
students in appropriate intervention groups and to monitor student progress. In addition
to DIBELS, first grade teachers also use a comprehension assessment from the Houghton
Mifflin English language arts curriculum. Second grade teachers use DIBELS to identify
those students at risk and any student found to be at risk is also given the Comprehensive
Literacy Assessment. Teachers of third through sixth grade students use the prior year’s
CST scores and district benchmark data to identify those students at risk. As in second
grade, students found to be at risk are then given the Comprehensive Literacy
Assessment. Tier II interventions occur during Universal Access time and after school
and components of the current Houghton Mifflin English language arts curriculum are
used for all tier II interventions; Houghton Mifflin assessments are used for progress
monitoring. Tier III interventions also occur after school. First through third grade
students in tier III receive phonics intervention and are monitored through DIBELS while
236

Language! is used for tier III students in third through sixth grades. Second grade
students in tier II and tier III also receive fluency practice from the Houghton Mifflin
program. All assessments are administered every two to three weeks and students are
moved from one intervention group to another based on their latest assessment results.
By the end of the school year, all teachers were offering intervention during the day and
more than 70% of his teachers were involved in offering after school interventions two to
three days each week.
Collaborative, professional culture
The district established early release time on Wednesdays in 2006 to allow
teachers to collaborate with each other within their grade levels. This time is used for
teachers to plan together and discuss instruction. Prior to the current principal’s arrival at
Kennedy, he does not think the staff was meeting in grade level teams on a regular basis.
Under his leadership, staff began meeting together in weekly grade level teams to plan
and look at data. As mentioned previously, baby steps were made in analyzing data from
common benchmark assessments but the principal has definite plans on how he is going
to help each grade level team begin analyzing the data at a deeper level and share best
instructional practices.
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership
The principal has been careful to work with his leadership team to assist him with
implementing the changes he made at Kennedy during his first year. He would not have
made the changes he did during his first year as principal without the support of his
leadership team. It has always been his belief that a new principal should spend the first
237

year building relationships, getting to know the culture of the school, and evaluating the
current program. After meeting with each staff member and within two months of
evaluating the strengths and challenges at Kennedy, he felt certain changes needed to be
implemented immediately and his leadership team agreed.
The leadership team also takes responsibility for making sure they participate in
the annual Leadership Academy sponsored by the district. During the Leadership
Academy, teachers are divided into grade level groups, are shown specific lessons and
instructional strategies, and are given an opportunity to work through implementation
issues they foresee with a district TOSA. At the end of each day, they return to the
school, meet with the principal, and develop a plan on how they are going to share the
new learning with each grade level. Each member takes their job seriously and is
dedicated to working with their grade level colleagues to ensure best instructional
practices are being implemented in each classroom.
Professional and best practices
A large part of the reform process at Kennedy has been focused on professional
and best practices that have been discussed previously in this case study. Best
instructional practices that have been incorporated at Kennedy include numerous
professional development opportunities, creating a student discipline program, modifying
the instructional day schedule, and implementing an intervention program.
Table K.1 is a summary of how Kennedy School implements the 10 steps that
Odden and Archibald (2009) recommend for doubling student performance.
238

Table K.1: Kennedy and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Average Weak N/A
Understanding
performance
problem &
challenge

X

Entire staff understands past
performance problem and need to make
significant changes
Set ambitious
goals

X

This district has established universal
district goals for every student in grades
2-11. Teachers set individual goals with
each student, discuss goals with each
parent, and monitor progress of meeting
those goals throughout the entire year.
Discipline goals are established as needed
Change
curriculum
program/create
new instructional
vision

X
Changes were made in 2009-2010 that
included incorporating professional
development, creating a student discipline
program, modifying the instructional day
schedule, and implementing a targeted
and systematic intervention program. A
district wide focus was on making
changes to the mathematics program that
included eliminating lessons that were not
standards based, creating new pacing
guides, and replacing old assessments.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions

X
The school effectively uses a variety of
assessments to monitor student progress
and guide instruction.
Ongoing PD

X
There are numerous opportunities and an
expectation to participate in district
sponsored professional development. On
site professional development also became
a priority in 2009-2010.
Using time
efficiently &
effectively

X
Instructional time continues to be a focus
so that all students will receive daily
Universal Access and ELD instruction
Extended
learning time for
struggling
students

X
The school has begun implementing
interventions for all three RTI tiers,
Teachers work with targeted students.
Select students receive additional support
from part-time categorical TOSA.
Collaborative,
professional
culture

X
Teachers meet for grade level
collaboration for 50 minutes every
Wednesday. This time is designed for
teachers to share ideas, discuss best
instructional practices, and review
student data.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership

X

The principal has incorporated changes
with the full support of his leadership
team. He continues to work closely with
the leadership team to build capacity
among all staff members.
Professional and
best practices

X
Teachers continue to work on using a
variety of instructional strategies/best
practices to meet students’ diverse needs.
239

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
Although Kennedy Elementary is incorporating to some degree most of Odden
and Archibald’s (2009) 10 research-based strategies found to double student
performance, the amount of resources allocated for students is significantly lower than
Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence-Based Model (EBM). Table K.2 shows a comparison
between the suggested resources at a prototypical elementary school, the resource
allocation at Kennedy, and the amount of resources that would be allocated to Kennedy
according to the prototypical model and based on Kennedy’s student enrollment.
Table K.2: Kennedy and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Kennedy School
Current Resource
Status
Kennedy Based on
Prototypical
Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-6; 504
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K: 33
Gr 1-3: 20
Gr 4-6: 36

Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
185, includes 5 prep
days

Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Half-day
kindergarten

Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal 1.0 FTE principal
& .2 FTE assistant
principal
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and 1.0
FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary &
.92 FTE Clerical
1.2 Secretaries and
1.2 Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 21.0 FTE core
teachers
28.0 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers .8 FTE specialist
teachers
5.6 FTE
240

Table K.2, Continued
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE .3 FTE TOSA –
Professional
Development
2.6 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100
poverty students
.46 FTE TOSA -
Instruction
3.8 FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
0.0 FTE 3.0 FTE
Non-Instructional Support
for EL Students
0.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.0 FTE 2.1 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 2.0 FTE 2.1 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
1.0 FTE RSP
teacher;
2.0 FTE SDC
teacher;
.4 FTE Psychologist;
.6 FTE Speech
Therapist
3.5 FTE
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds

Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$3,885 216 days @
$110/day =
$23,760
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
.92 hrs FTE
Community Liaison;
.375 FTE Health
Clerk;
3.8 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 2.3 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 3.76 FTE 0.0 FTE
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE .46 FTE Library
Media Assistant
.46 FTE Computer
Tech
1.2 FTE
241

Table K.2, Continued
Resources for gifted students $25 per student $0 (no GATE
students attend this
school)
$12,600
Technology $250 per pupil $46,403 $126,000
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $11,478 $70,560
Student Activities $200 per pupil $4,550 $100,800
Professional Development $100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$28,706 $50,400

Summary and Lessons Learned
Kennedy Elementary School has made tremendous improvement in increasing
overall student performance over the past year. The turning point for the school was
when the new principal arrived and worked with his leadership team to incorporate
changes that were necessary to maximize student achievement. The staff began
analyzing common benchmark assessments and state assessment results, met with all
students individually to discuss those results, and established individual goals. Targeted
students were identified and are given additional support through appropriate
interventions. State-approved curriculum and pacing guides are being used in all
classrooms. The instructional day has been reorganized to maximize time on task and to
ensure all students are receiving appropriate leveled support in ELD and Universal
Access.
Future Considerations
In an attempt to continue Kennedy’s focus on student achievement, the principal
would like to see additional support in the area of English language arts. The staff’s
242

desire would be to have the district’s support in creating a program in English language
arts similar to Project G for mathematics. Additional time with the instructional coaches
and funding for release time for teachers by grade level to take data analysis to the next
level would also be beneficial.
243

APPENDIX K – CASE STUDY: REAGAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Background on School and District
Reagan Elementary School is a Title I, pre-kindergarten through sixth grade
school in an urban school district located in Orange County. There are 46 elementary
schools, 10 middle schools, seven comprehensive high schools, and two continuation
high schools within the Title I district that educates approximately 47,000 students with
59% of students identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged. The 403 students at
Reagan follow a traditional schedule. The student population at Reagan is a reflection of
its community, one that is culturally and linguistically diverse.
Reagan Elementary School serves students from a diverse ethnic background,
socioeconomic status, and language abilities. The primary ethnic groups are Hispanic
(77%), Asian (16%), and White (5%). Eighty-two percent of the students are classified
as socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED). The percentage of English learners (EL) at
Reagan is 63% and 11% are classified as students with special needs. Figure K.1 shows
the ethnic breakdown of all students at Reagan School.
244

Figure R.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Reagan School
Hispanic ‐ 77%
White ‐ 5%
Asian ‐ 16%
African American 1%
Other 1%

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
The Reagan staff is committed to aggressively pursuing the highest standards for
their students in all academic areas through the faithful implementation of core programs.
They believe strongly that every student has the right to the best education in a safe
environment that builds resiliency and pride in one's accomplishments. The purpose of
this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and instructional strategies that
support the mission, vision, and goals of Reagan Elementary School.
A review of Reagan School’s API scores over the past five years reveals an
overall growth of 33 points. While there was an impressive gain of 30 points from 2006
to 2007, there was a decline of nine points from 2007 to 2008 and a dramatic decline of
47 points from 2008 to 2009. From 2009 to 2010, Reagan experienced its highest growth
since the inception of the API program with a 57 point increase. Figure R.2 shows
Reagan School’s API over the last five years.
245

Figure R.2: Reagan School’s API
746
776
767
722
779
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
Reagan School has demonstrated growth for all subgroups with the exception of
White and Asian students over the last five years. Since 2006, AYP data reveals the
percentage of all students scoring proficient or advanced in English Language Arts
increased by 7.1%. Hispanic students have increased their percentage of proficiency by
13.1%. English learners experienced an increase of 3.5% and SED students experienced
an increase of 9.2%. The White subgroup experienced a decrease of 29.6% over five
years. The data reveals White students’ scores were flat from 2006 to 2007 but growth
occurred from 2007 to 2008. They experienced a 44.1% decline from 2008 to 2009.
Between 2009 and 2010, the percentage of White students scoring proficient once again
started a positive trend with 5.4% growth. The Asian subgroup’s scores were flat
between 2006 and 2009 and dropped by 5.9% from 2009 to 2010.
An issue that continues to be problematic in most school districts across the
nation is the achievement gap between White students and all other students; however,
246

with an overall five year decline in the percentage of White students scoring proficient,
White students at Reagan are currently scoring lower than all other subgroups in English
language arts. In 2006, the achievement gap in English language arts between Hispanic
and White students was 37.5%; five years later, Hispanic students are outperforming
White students by 5.2%. English learners were scoring 30.3% lower than White students
but five years later English learners are scoring 2.8% higher than White students. SED
students were scoring 33.7% lower than White students five years ago but are currently
scoring 5.1% higher than White students. In 2006, Asian students were outperforming
White students by 1.4%; however, Asian students are currently outperforming White
students by 25.1%. So, while all students and subgroups with the exception of the White
and Asian subgroups have grown between 3.5% and 13.1% over the past five years, the
White subgroup has fallen nearly 30% and the Asian subgroup has fallen nearly 6%.
Figure R.3 displays the performance of significant subgroups in English language arts
since 2006.
247

Figure R.3: Language Arts AYP for Reagan School
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide
Hispanic
White
Asian
EL
SED

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
In reviewing the mathematics scores over the past five years, all subgroups with
the exception of the Asian subgroup experienced an increase in the percentage of students
scoring proficient. Since 2006, AYP data reveals the percentage of all students scoring
proficient or advanced in mathematics increased by 15%. Hispanic students have
increased their percentage of proficiency by 21.8%; English learners have increased their
score by 12.6%, and SED students increased their score by 20%. The smallest increase
was for White students who recorded a 3.8% increase over the last five years. Similar to
the White subgroup’s English language arts data, the math data revealed an increase of
27.3% between 2006 and 2007 followed by the scores remaining flat from 2007 to 2008.
From 2008 to 2009, the percentage of White students scoring proficient dropped by
38.9% in the same year their score in English language arts dropped by 44.1%. Between
248

2009 and 2010, the percentage of White students scoring proficient in mathematics once
again started a positive trend with 15.4% growth. Although Asian students saw an
increase in the percentage of students scoring proficient from 2006 to 2007, their scores
have declined or been flat since 2007. Overall proficiency for Asian students has
decreased by 5% over the past five years.
In 2006, the achievement gap in mathematics between Hispanic and White
students was 17.3%; five years later, Hispanic students are outperforming White students
by 0.7%. English learners were scoring 8.7% lower than White students and five years
later English learners are scoring 0.1% higher than White students. SED students were
scoring 12.7% lower than White students five years ago and are currently scoring 3.5%
higher. Asian students are the only subgroup who has outperformed White students
every year for the past five years. In 2006, Asian students were outperforming White
students by 25.5% but are currently scoring only 16.7% higher. So, while all students
and subgroups have grown in mathematics over the past five years with the exception of
the Asian subgroup, the achievement gap between White students and all other subgroups
has been eliminated due to the fact that White students’ growth was minimal compared to
the growth of all other subgroups. Figure R.4 displays the performance of significant
subgroups in mathematics since 2006.
249

Figure R.4: Mathematics AYP for Reagan School
0
20
40
60
80
100
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide
Hispanic
White
Asian
EL
SED

Source: California Department of Education, 2010

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Although Reagan’s API score was in the 600s ten years ago, it was one of the
highest API scores in the district and its state and similar school rankings were eights and
nines for many years. Reagan was led by a dynamic principal who took pride in always
being on the cutting edge. She pushed her staff to take advantage of all professional
development opportunities offered by the district and was always the first to incorporate
the newest research based best practices into Reagan’s classrooms.
In 2004, a new principal was transferred to Reagan and the growth the school was
used to experiencing began to slow down and the state and similar schools ranking began
falling. The principal had a very different style than her predecessor and was complacent
250

with the status quo. During this principal’s tenure, the school experienced some years of
growth and some years of decline.
In 2008, the current principal was transferred to Reagan. At the end of her first
year, the school’s API score dropped by 47 points; however, at the end of her second
year, the school’s API score increased by 55 points. A significant amount of the
interview with this principal focused on the last two years and contributing factors to the
large drop as well as the significant increase in API scores from one year to the next.
The following is a review of how the Reagan staff has been implementing Odden
and Archibald’s (2009) 10 Steps for Doubling Student Performance.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge
Reagan’s current principal was transferred to Reagan effective July 1, 2008.
Upon entering the new school, she held individual meetings with all staff to discuss their
opinion of the school’s strengths as well as challenges. The overarching message was the
staff felt fragmented and did not feel they worked together as a community. The staff
was frustrated that they were no longer one of the highest performing schools in the
district. Several staff members blamed the previous principal for a lack of emphasis on
best instructional practices, teachers never being held accountable for their performance
in their classrooms, and a lack of focused professional development.
Reagan’s principal spent her entire first year building relationships with the staff,
learning the culture of the school, and evaluating all programs, including instruction.
When reflecting back on her first year at Reagan, she said, “There was such a feeling of
despair during my first year. It was a sad place to be.” While she did not make many
251

significant changes during her first year, she did make one change regarding curriculum.
As she walked through classrooms, she found many teachers not using the district
approved core curriculum. Teacher created worksheets and other supplemental materials
were being used instead of the standards based core curriculum. She met with her staff
and told them they were all expected to use district approved curriculum at all times.
This was an adjustment for the staff and the only way she was going to be able to ensure
staff was adhering to her expectation was to be in classrooms on a regular basis;
therefore, she committed to being in all classrooms three times each week during her first
year. While this took a tremendous amount of time, it was helpful in meeting her goal of
building relationships with staff, learning the culture of the school, and monitoring
instruction, including the use of the core curriculum.
At the end of 2008-2009, the Reagan principal had laid the foundation for
building trust with her staff members and was ready to work with them to bring a new
focus on student achievement to the school. That summer, API scores were released and
Reagan’s API score dropped 47 points. As a result, Reagan was performing in the
bottom 20% of all schools in California and they were also performing in the bottom 20%
of the 100 most similar schools in California. This significant decline validated the
principal’s message to her staff that there was a sense of urgency to come together and
start working as a team to focus on improving student achievement. That is exactly what
they did during the principal’s second year at Reagan.
252

Set ambitious goals
Reagan School is part of a district that has district wide established goals for
student achievement in grades two through eleven. All second grade students are
expected to score proficient or advanced on the ELA and mathematics CSTs. Students in
third through sixth grades are expected to increase their proficiency level by at least one
performance level (i.e., below basic progresses to lower basic [300-324]; lower basic
progresses to upper basic [325-349]; upper basic to proficient, etc.) on both the ELA and
mathematics CST, and this growth is to continue annually until the student has reached
and maintained proficiency. English learners are also expected to make one band’s
growth each year on the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) until
they become proficient in the English language.
All teachers hold individual goal setting conferences with every student in
October to establish three goals. One goal is in English language arts and a second goal
is in mathematics. These goals can be related to performance on the CST or district
benchmark assessments. A third goal is the student’s choice and can include a goal to
become more organized, to earn more Accelerated Reader points, etc. Each goal
statement includes an action step the student will do to meet their goal. All of this goes
into each student’s data notebook that also includes last year’s CST scores and all
benchmark assessment results for the current year. The teacher reviews the goals with
the parents during parent teacher conferences and meets with individual students
throughout the year if they are struggling to meet their goals. Prior year CST results are
not available for kindergarten, first, and second grade students; therefore kindergarten
253

and first grade teachers use graphs to track progress using DIBELS data and math unit
test data. In second grade, teachers use DIBELS and benchmark data in English language
arts and mathematics.
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision
Starting in 2008-2009, there have been some changes to the curricular program
offered at Reagan. Houghton-Mifflin was the district approved, standards based English
language arts curriculum that was supposed to be used in all classrooms across the
district; however, this was not happening in all classrooms at Reagan. Many teachers
were using their own teacher created worksheets and supplemental materials instead of
using the core program. This is one change the principal addressed immediately.
Teachers were no longer allowed to use any materials other than the district approved
curriculum unless they met with the principal to discuss why supplemental material was
necessary.
Harcourt is the district approved mathematics curriculum and has also been used
in the district for several years. In 2009-2010, the district focused on making significant
changes to the mathematics curriculum which they call Project G. Under the leadership
of district administration, the district’s TOSAs worked together to make changes to the
Harcourt program that included eliminating lessons that were not standards based,
creating new pacing guides, reordering how the material was presented, and replacing the
old assessments with new standards based assessments.
254

Mac Millan McGraw-Hill curriculum is used for science and Scott Foresman is
used for social studies in kindergarten through fifth grades while Harcourt is used for
social studies in sixth grade.
A new instructional vision was created in 2009-2010, the beginning of the
principal’s second year at Reagan. The new vision included providing professional
development on direct instruction, emphasis on the research based instructional model
known as Gradual Release of Responsibility, and backwards planning and mapping based
on content standards. She also began conducting individual data conferences with each
teacher rather than holding grade level data conferences like she had done during her first
year. It’s the principal’s opinion that their 55 point API gain at the end of 2009-2010 was
a direct result of the new instructional vision.
Formative assessments and data-based decision making
Reagan School is in a district that has created common benchmark assessments
that all teachers are required to administer on a regular basis. English language arts
benchmark assessments are administered four times each year and mathematics
benchmark assessments are given at the end of each trimester. During the principal’s
first year at Reagan, the staff looked at the benchmark assessment results and talked
about it in grade levels and during staff meetings. They identified strengths and
weaknesses and the discussion ended with that step.
In 2009-2010, the staff broadened their use of data. The district’s curricular focus
in 2009-2010 was in the area of mathematics. New common formative mathematics
assessments were created and incorporated to replace the assessments included in the
255

mathematics textbook. Teachers used that information to drive their instruction and
reteach as necessary. Problems of the Day were implemented as another way of
reteaching standards not yet mastered. A few teachers became very comfortable with
creating and implementing the new common formative assessments, so they developed a
few common formative assessments in English language arts as well. Most of the staff
wasn’t at that point; therefore, common formative assessments for English language arts
will become part of the goal for 2010-2011.
Another assessment used at the beginning of each year is Dynamic Indicators of
Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), which are a set of procedures and measures for
assessing the acquisition of early literacy skills for all students in kindergarten through
third grades. If a student was identified as “at risk,” the teacher administered the
Comprehensive Literacy Assessment (CLA) as an additional assessment that identified
where students’ literacy skills were lacking. All students in kindergarten through sixth
grades were also assessed on their instructional reading level. This information provided
teachers with data to assist them in differentiating the language arts program.
All assessment data, including CST scores, CELDT scores, and benchmark
assessments are recorded in the district’s online data management system, Data Director.
This system allows teachers as well as the principal and district administrators access to
all assessment results. The principal uses the data during her individual data conferences
with each teacher so they can review each student’s progress and discuss appropriate
interventions. The principal also uses data reports to create discussions with her staff in
not only analyzing school wide trends, but creating action steps to address those trends.
256

Ongoing, intensive professional development
During 2008-2009, the Reagan staff received professional development training in
Advanced Direct Instruction. The district TOSAs provided ongoing training throughout
the year during release time. TOSAs worked with individual grade levels to plan lessons
based on a specific strategy, modeled the lesson in a classroom, and then co-taught the
lesson with each teacher. It took an entire year of training, modeling, and practicing
before the teachers became comfortable with this strategy. By 2009-2010, teachers
became more comfortable with this strategy and they applied this approach to their
mathematics instruction.
Project G, the approach to the Harcourt mathematics curriculum, was the focus
during 2009-2010; therefore, the district sponsored and paid all costs associated with
several professional development opportunities in the area of mathematics for all teachers
before the school year began and throughout the year. Universal Access training was
offered to all fourth and fifth grade teachers at Reagan during 2009-2010 and will be
offered to all other teachers during the upcoming year. Reagan teachers also participated
in professional development training on a systematic ELD program. The ELD training
will continue in the upcoming school year.
Every staff in the district also participates in an annual Action Walk with this
year’s focus on mathematics. Reagan’s Leadership Team met to establish key elements
they felt should be evident in every math lesson. They were then released for one full
day to visit every classroom, discuss what they saw, and create a plan for next steps.
257

The district also provides one week of optional professional development for all
teachers during the summer on various topics and this program is called Super Week.
Select trainings are required for all teachers; however, if the teacher is unable to attend
Super Week, the expectation is that the teacher will attend the training offered during an
instructional day later in the year. Every teacher receives a stipend equivalent to 15 hours
that can be used during Super Week or for other district sponsored trainings offered
throughout the year. During the summer of 2010, the district also offered Super Duper
Week where certain teachers were selected to attend the workshops one week prior to
Super Week with the expectation that they will go back to their sites and serve as a
trainer on the content covered during Super Duper week.
One additional district sponsored professional development opportunity is a three-
day Leadership Academy. One teacher from each grade level is selected to attend the
Academy with their principal and district TOSA. All participants are then expected to
return to the site and work together to train the staff on the content presented at the
Leadership Academy.
Using time efficiently and effectively
An area where improvement is needed is efficient and effective use of time in the
area of ELD. Teachers at Reagan Elementary have not been consistently providing 30
minutes of daily ELD instruction. As stated previously, professional development was
provided to assist teachers with incorporating a systematic ELD program that consists of
30 minutes of daily ELD instruction; however, teachers need additional support in this
area and this will continue to be a focus for the Reagan staff in the upcoming school year.
258

An example of efficient and effective use of time is in the use of Universal Access
in all fourth and fifth grade classes. The fourth and fifth grade teams were willing to go
through Universal Access training last year and incorporate 30 minutes of Universal
Access on a daily basis. Universal Access allows teachers to work with small groups of
students who have been grouped according to their level of need to receive additional
support in the core English language arts program. Training begins by assisting teachers
with using the correct data to form appropriately leveled student groups. Teachers are
then trained on how to effectively “preteach, reteach, fill holes, and extend the core
curriculum.” The final aspect of training includes support in teaching students phases to
independence so that students can successfully work independently while the teacher is
working with small groups of students. The goal is that the teacher will work with every
student in a small group once each week. During the upcoming year, all Reagan teachers
will be trained in Universal Access and will begin implementing 30 minutes of Universal
Access into their daily schedules.
Extending learning time for struggling students
During 2008-2009, there were no after school interventions for struggling
students because the staff did not have a formal system for identifying students for
intervention, they did not know what to teach during intervention, and they had no system
to monitor the effectiveness of any type of intervention. Individual teachers offered some
additional support in the classroom during the instructional day when they could find
time; however, it was not systematic or targeted. A district expectation is that all
kindergarten teachers will work with first and second grade students for one hour each
259

day after the kindergarten students go home in an intervention setting, providing extra
support to those student as needed. It wasn’t until the current principal was at Reagan for
a few months that she realized the kindergarten teachers were not providing this hour of
support to these students each day. When she asked the teachers why they were not
providing the hour of daily support to first and second grade students, they responded by
saying they were not aware of this district expectation. Based on this conversation and
further research, the principal does not believe the kindergarten teachers at Reagan ever
offered this hour of daily support to first and second grade students.
As part of the new instructional vision for 2009-2010, analyzing student data,
creating targeted interventions, and monitoring student progress was expected for all
students. In kindergarten and first grade, teachers concentrate on phonemic awareness
and DIBELS is used to place students in appropriate intervention groups and to monitor
student progress. In addition to DIBELS, first grade teachers also use a comprehension
assessment from the Houghton Mifflin English language arts curriculum. Second grade
teachers use DIBELS to identify those students at risk and any student found to be at risk
is also given the Comprehensive Literacy Assessment. Teachers of third through sixth
grade students use the prior year’s CST scores and district benchmark data to identify
those students at risk. As in second grade, students found to be at risk are then given the
Comprehensive Literacy Assessment. Tier II interventions occur during Universal
Access time (in fourth and fifth grade only) and after school, and components of the
current Houghton Mifflin English language arts curriculum are used for all tier II
interventions; Houghton Mifflin assessments are used for progress monitoring. Tier III
260

interventions also occur after school. First through third grade students in tier III receive
phonics intervention and are monitored through DIBELS while Language! is used for tier
III students in third through sixth grades. Second grade students in tier II and tier III also
receive fluency practice from the Houghton Mifflin program. All assessments are
administered every two to three weeks and students are moved from one intervention
group to another based on their latest assessment results.
Collaborative, professional culture
When the principal first arrived at Reagan in July 2008, the staff was defeated.
Once a top performing school in the district, the school was slipping toward the bottom
and did not feel challenged by their previous principal to do anything but be complacent
with the status quo. This is the primary reason the current principal did not make any
major changes other than requiring teachers to use the district approved standards based
curriculum during her first year at Reagan. Within a few months, she found many things
that needed to be changed; however, she felt that she had to move slow to move fast. She
spent the entire year working with her staff to establish a professional working
relationship with them and build a foundation of trust. In self reflection during this
interview, the principal admitted that not making some of the necessary changes during
that first year may have been an attributing cause to their API score dropping 47 points at
the end of her first year. Having said that, she felt that the school took a big step
backwards at the end of her first year; however, during her second year she was able to
successfully implement her new instructional vision with the assistance of her leadership
261

team and the school took “two steps forward.” She believes the school will continue to
grow due to the time she took to bring about strategic change to Reagan.
In 2006, the district established early release time on Wednesdays to allow
teachers to collaborate with each other within their grade levels. This time is used for
teachers to plan together and discuss instruction. Prior to the current principal’s arrival at
Reagan, she does not think the staff was meeting in grade level teams on a regular basis;
however, that is no longer the case. Although she began enforcing that district
expectation during her first year at Reagan, she does not think the staff used their time
together as intended. She has brought more structure to those meetings and every grade
level team is required to submit minutes of their meeting to her by the end of each week.
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership
The principal has been careful to work with her leadership team to assist her with
implementing the new instructional vision for Reagan and she believes Reagan would not
have experienced its recent growth without the full support and assistance of her
leadership team. Her leadership team takes responsibility for making sure they
participate in the annual Leadership Academy sponsored by the district. During the
Leadership Academy, teachers are divided into grade level groups, are shown specific
lessons and instructional strategies, and are given an opportunity to work through
implementation issues they foresee with a district TOSA. At the end of each day, they
return to the school, meet with the principal, and develop a plan on how they are going to
share the new learning with each grade level. Each member takes their job seriously and
262

is dedicated to working with their grade level colleagues to ensure best instructional
practices are being implemented in each classroom.
Professional and best practices
A large part of the reform process at Reagan has been focused on professional and
best practices that have been discussed previously in this case study. Best instructional
practices that have been incorporated at Reagan include a new fidelity to the core
curriculum, new instructional strategies gained from participating in numerous
professional development opportunities, incorporating a targeted intervention program,
creating a more systematic ELD program, and incorporating Universal Access into two
grade levels.
Table R.1 is a summary of how Reagan School implements the 10 steps that
Odden and Archibald (2009) recommend for doubling student performance.
263

Table R.1: Reagan and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Average Weak N/A
Understanding
performance
problem &
challenge

X
Entire staff understands past
performance problem and need to make
significant changes
Set ambitious
goals

X

This district has established universal
district goals for every student in grades
2-11. Teachers set individual goals with
each student, discuss goals with each
parent, and monitor progress of meeting
those goals throughout the entire year.
Change
curriculum
program/create
new instructional
vision

X
A new instructional vision was created
and implemented in 2009-2010 that
included providing professional
development on direct instruction,
emphasis on the research-based
instructional model known as Gradual
Release of Responsibility, and backwards
planning and mapping based on content
standards. A district wide focus was on
making changes to the mathematics
program.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions

X
The school effectively uses a variety of
assessments to monitor student progress
and guide instruction.
Ongoing PD

X

There are numerous opportunities and an
expectation to participate in district
sponsored professional development. On
site PD also became a priority in 09-10.
Using time
efficiently &
effectively

X
Instructional time continues to be a focus
so that all students will receive daily
Universal Access and ELD instruction
Extended
learning time for
struggling
students

X
The school has implemented interventions
for all three RTI tiers, Teachers work
with targeted students. Select students
receive additional support from part-time
categorical TOSAs.
Collaborative,
professional
culture

X
Teachers meet for grade level
collaboration for 50 minutes every
Wednesday. This time is designed for
teachers to share ideas, discuss best
instructional practices, and review
student data.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership

X
The principal has built the action plan
collaboratively with the leadership team.
She continues to work closely with the
leadership team to build capacity among
all staff members.
Professional and
best practices

X
Teachers continue to work on using a
variety of instructional strategies/best
practices to meet students’ diverse needs.
264

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
Although Reagan Elementary is incorporating to some degree most of Odden and
Archibald’s (2009) 10 research-based strategies found to double student performance, the
amount of resources allocated for students is significantly lower than Odden and Picus’
(2008) Evidence-Based Model (EBM). Table R.2 shows a comparison between the
suggested resources at a prototypical elementary school, the resource allocation at
Reagan School, and the amount of resources that would be allocated to Reagan according
to the prototypical model and based on student enrollment at Reagan.
Table R.2: Reagan and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Reagan School
Current Resource
Status
Reagan Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-6; 403
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K: 33
Gr 1-3: 20
Gr 4-6: 36

Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
185, includes 5 prep
days

Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Half-day
kindergarten

Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal 1.0 FTE principal
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and 1.0
FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary &
.8 FTE Clerical
1.0 Secretary and .9
Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 16 FTE core
teachers
22.4 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers .2 FTE specialist
teacher
4.5 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE .3 FTE TOSA –
Professional
Development
2.1 FTE
265

Table R.2, Continued
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100
poverty students
1.1 FTE TOSA -
Instruction
3.3 FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
0.0 FTE 2.5 FTE
Non-Instructional Support for
EL Students
0.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.0 FTE 1.7 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 2.0 FTE 1.7 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
1.0 FTE RSP
teacher;
1.0 FTE SDC
teacher;
.20 FTE
Psychologist;
.3 FTE Speech
Therapist
2.8 FTE
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
N/A N/A
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$6,300 162 days @
$110/day = $17,820
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
.375 FTE
Community Liaison;
.375 FTE Health
Clerk
3.3 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 1.9 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 4.125 FTE TOTAL
4 @ .375 FTE
6 @ .4375 FTE
0.0 FTE
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE .2 FTE Library
Media Assistant
.9 FTE
Resources for gifted students $25 per student $0 (no GATE
students at this
school)
$10,075
266

Table R.2, Continued
Technology $250 per pupil $46,800 $100,750
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $39,801 $56,420
Student Activities $200 per pupil $3,946 $80,600
Professional Development $100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$37,398 $40,300

Summary and Lessons Learned
After two years of steady decline, Reagan Elementary School has made
tremendous improvement in improving overall student performance over the past year.
The turning point for the school was when the principal worked with her leadership team
to establish a new instructional vision for the school. The staff began incorporating and
analyzing common benchmark assessments and state assessment results, met with all
students individually to discuss those results, and established individual goals. Targeted
students were identified and are given additional support through appropriate
interventions. State-approved curriculum and pacing guides are being used in all
classrooms. The instructional day has been reorganized to maximize time on task and to
ensure all students are receiving appropriate leveled support in ELD. Students in fourth
and fifth grades are also receiving Universal Access on a daily basis and this will be
expanded to all grade levels in the upcoming year.
Future Considerations
In an attempt to continue incorporating Reagan’s new instructional vision, the
following additional resources would be beneficial:
267

 Additional time for providing professional development to teachers without
releasing them during the instructional day;
 More access to instructional coaches for teachers to provide additional and
ongoing support;
 Additional instructional time for students, especially those identified as at risk;
 Lower class sizes in upper grades; and
 Additional technology that would allow students to participate in virtual field trips
and distance learning.
268

APPENDIX L – CASE STUDY: BUSH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Background on School and District
Bush Elementary School is a Title I, pre-kindergarten through sixth grade school
in a diverse K-12 unified school district located in Orange County. There are 22
elementary schools, four intermediate schools, four comprehensive high schools, and
three continuation high schools within this district that educates approximately 21,450
students with 47% of students identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged. The 590
students at Bush follow a traditional schedule. Bush serves a community that takes great
pride in its cultural diversity. The student population, as a reflection of its community, is
culturally and linguistically diverse.
Bush Elementary School serves students from a diverse ethnic background,
socioeconomic status, and language abilities. The primary ethnic groups are Hispanic
(74%) and White (21%). Ninety-one percent of the students are classified as
socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED). The percentage of English learners (EL) at
Bush is 63% and 12% are classified as students with special needs. Figure B.1 shows the
ethnic breakdown of all students at Bush School.
269

Figure B.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Bush School
Hispanic ‐ 74%
White ‐ 21%
Asian ‐ 2%
African American 1%
Other 2%

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
The Bush staff believes that the objective of education is to prepare the young to
educate themselves throughout their lives. The staff works diligently and collaboratively
to develop life-long learners, and believes that all children can learn in a safe and
nurturing environment that encourages excellence, positive self esteem, and values
individual and cultural diversity. The purpose of this case study is to identify effective
resource allocation and instructional strategies that support the mission, vision, and goals
of Bush Elementary School.
A review of Bush School’s API scores over the past five years shows years of
growth and years of decline, with an overall five year decline of 46 points. From 2006 to
2007 and from 2007 to 2008 Bush experienced a decrease of 23 and 28 points
respectively. From 2008 to 2009, the school experienced a 25 point increase; however,
the following year, the score dropped by 20 points. Figure B.2 shows Bush School’s API
scores over the last five years.
270

Figure B.2: Bush School’s API
789
766
738
763
743
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
The English language arts Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) reports show a
decline in the percentage of students scoring proficient over the past five years. Since
2006, AYP data reveals the percentage of all students scoring proficient or advanced in
English Language Arts decreased by 1.9%. Hispanic students have decreased their
percentage of proficiency by 3.9%. English learners have decreased their score by 1.7%
and SED students had a similar decrease in their score of 1.5%. The only increase over
the five years was for White students who recorded a 4% increase.
An issue that continues to be problematic in most school districts across the
nation is the achievement gap between White students and all other students. In 2006,
the achievement gap in English language arts between Hispanic and White students was
11.5%; five years later, the achievement gap for Hispanic students is now 19.4%;
therefore, the achievement gap has grown by 7.9%. English learners were scoring 15.7%
lower than White students and five years later the gap has grown to 21.4%; therefore, the
271

achievement gap for English learners has also grown by 5.7%. SED students were
scoring 13.5% lower than White students five years ago and are currently scoring 19%
lower; therefore, increasing the achievement gap by 5.5%. So, while most students and
subgroups have decreased the percentage of students scoring proficient over the past five
years, the White subgroup is the only group that has experienced an increase of 4%.
Figure B.3 displays the performance of significant subgroups in English language arts
since 2006.
Figure B.3: Language Arts AYP for Bush School
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
A similar pattern of decline is seen in mathematics as in English language arts
except that all subgroups, including the White subgroup, experienced a decline of
anywhere between 11% and 23.1% in the percentage of students scoring proficient over
the past five years. Since 2006, AYP data reveals the percentage of all students scoring
proficient or advanced in mathematics decreased by 18.5%. Hispanic students have
decreased their percentage of proficiency by 23.1%; English learners have decreased their
272

score by 13.7%; and SED students decreased their score by 17.2%. The smallest decline
was for White students who recorded an 11% decrease over the last five years.
In 2006, the achievement gap in mathematics between Hispanic and White
students was only 1.5%; five years later, the achievement gap for Hispanic students is
now 13.6%; therefore the achievement gap has grown by 12.1%. English learners were
scoring 9.6% lower than White students and five years later the gap has grown to 13.1%;
therefore, the achievement gap for English learners has also grown by 3.5%. SED
students were scoring 6.2% lower than White students five years ago and are currently
scoring 12.4% lower; therefore, increasing the achievement gap by 6.2%. So, while all
students and subgroups have declined in mathematics over the past five years, the
achievement gap between the White subgroup and all other subgroups has continued to
increase. Figure B.4 displays the performance of significant subgroups in mathematics
since 2006.
273

Figure B.4: Math AYP for Bush School
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED

Source: California Department of Education, 2010
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Bush School has undergone significant changes over the past four years. Until
June 1, 2006, Bush had been an elementary school that only served students in
kindergarten through grade three. In 2007, Bush added fourth grade; in 2008, fifth grade
was added, and effective with the 2009-2010 school year, Bush became a K-6 school.
Another change effective with the 2009-2010 school year was the new district magnet
school that was opened and resulted in 24 of the highest performing students leaving
Bush to attend the magnet school. One final change was that a new principal was
assigned to Bush effective July 1, 2009.
A five year review of Bush’s API scores reveals one year of growth and four
years of decline with an overall API decrease of 46 points. Between 2006 and 2008,
274

scores dropped each year for a total of a 51 point drop. In 2009, Bush experienced a 25
point increase; however, in 2010, scores once again dropped by 20 points.
Bush has just finished their first year with their current principal. The previous
principal came to Bush in July 2007 and suddenly resigned and left without notice in
May 2009. An interim principal was brought in for the remaining eight weeks of the
school year. According to the new principal the previous principal left abruptly with no
notice. His sudden departure left a lot of unanswered questions for the staff and did not
allow the current principal to have an opportunity to conduct a transition meeting with the
previous principal. Although the new principal did not hold individual meetings with
each staff member upon her arrival at Bush, she did talk to the staff as a group and asked
them why they felt Bush experienced growth in its API score that year. The staff said the
only thing different that year from previous years was they implemented the Mind
Institute math program in second and third grades and both of those grades experienced
an increase in the percentage of students scoring proficient in mathematics. The staff did
not have any other idea as to why their API score increased the year prior to the new
principal’s arrival.
The following is a review of how the Bush staff has been implementing Odden
and Archibald’s (2009) 10 Steps for Doubling Student Performance.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge
According to both state and federal accountability systems, Bush Elementary
students are not meeting required benchmarks. In 2006, Bush met all AYP and API
targets but was performing in the bottom 30% of all schools in California. In 2007, they
275

met all AYP requirements but did not meet its API requirement. From 2008 to the
present, Bush has been performing in the bottom 40% or 50% of all schools throughout
the state. When examining how Bush compares to the 100 most similar schools in
California, Bush was in the top 30% in 2006 and increased to the top 10% in 2007 and
2008. Bush dropped to the 50th percentile in 2009 and is currently in the bottom 40%.
Set ambitious goals
Teachers at Bush set class goals to increase the percentage of students scoring
proficient or advanced on the CSTs. Although a few teachers actually meet with
individual students to set individual goals, that is not a school wide practice. When
students are placed in a small intervention group, the intervention teacher reviews each
student’s prior year assessments, including CSTs and benchmarks as well as current year
assessments and establishes an individual goal for each intervention student.
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision
The core curricular program offered at Bush has had minimal changes over the
past five years. They continue to use state-approved Houghton Mifflin English language
arts and Pearson Scott Foresman social studies and science curriculum. Macmillan
McGraw-Hill is the math curriculum the district has used for several years; however, the
district is going to implement the new Pearson Scott Foresman mathematics curriculum
in grades K-2 in 2010-2011 and in grades 3-6 in 2011-2012. The district has created
pacing guides in all subject areas to ensure all power standards have been taught prior to
the administration of the CST each spring.
276

Supplemental material and the MIND Institute for students in first through fourth
grades have been incorporated into the various levels of intervention programs and will
be discussed in the extended learning time section of this case study.
Formative assessments and data-based decision making
All teachers in first through sixth grades administer the Houghton Mifflin theme
skills tests as benchmark summative assessments every six to eight weeks. Mathematics
summative assessments are given at the end of each trimester. Teachers use the
mathematics chapter pretests as formative assessments to guide their instruction. MIND
Institute mathematics is also used throughout the year for students in first through fourth
grades and the goal is for each student to have mastered 75% of the MIND Institute
mathematics objectives by May 1. Kindergarten teachers administer their own
diagnostic test. The results of all of these assessments along with CST data are used to
identify students in need of intervention. All assessment data, including CST scores,
CELDT scores, and benchmark assessments are recorded in the district’s online data
management system, Data Director. This system allows teachers as well as the principal
and district administrators access to all assessment results.
Another assessment used by most teachers at the beginning of each year is
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), which are a set of
procedures and measures for assessing the acquisition of early literacy skills. These
assessments are designed to be short fluency measures used to regularly monitor the
development of early literacy and early reading skills. Teachers at Bush only administer
DIBELS with their students who they believe may be in need of additional academic
277

support based on other initial assessments. If a student is found to be at risk and is
referred for intervention, the intervention teacher continues to administer DIBELS
periodically to assess their progress.
Ongoing, intensive professional development
Each site in this district receives approximately $14,000 to be given as stipends to
various teachers who volunteer for adjunct duties. One of the adjunct duties is a Site
Staff Development Coordinator (SSDC). The teacher who serves in this capacity works
closely with the principal to provide site based professional development. The district
has built in two days each year for professional development but the district expects the
site administrators to provide their own professional development based on each site’s
unique needs. The SSDC uses Survey Monkey to survey all staff as to their professional
development needs and workshops are planned accordingly. The staff is also required to
attend three one-hour meetings each month. The principal has designated one meeting
for grade level planning and articulation, one meeting as a staff meeting that focuses on
business and administrative issues, and one week is designated for ongoing professional
development.
Using time efficiently and effectively
The instructional day at Bush has been designed so that English language arts,
mathematics, and ELD are taught at the same time each day. The instructional day
begins with 90 minutes of English language arts for kindergarten through third grades
and 120 minutes for students in fourth through sixth grades. Mathematics is taught for 30
minutes in kindergarten, 40 minutes in first and second grades, and 60 minutes in third
278

through sixth grades. In addition to the core mathematics program, all students in first
through fourth grades spend 80 minutes per week in the computer lab working with the
Mind Institute program. English language development is taught daily for 30 minutes in
kindergarten and 45 minutes in first through sixth grades.
Extending learning time for struggling students
Bush has implemented several different interventions for students in need of
additional academic support in English language arts. In 2009-2010, two part-time
intervention teachers and one part-time instructional assistant worked with targeted
students in small groups of no more than five students, four days each week, in a pull out
model during the instructional day. Due to the very small groups of students, the
principal stated that have to be “choosy” on who they select so the try to select students
who have not responded to classroom interventions. Teachers use their own curriculum
to preview and review reading strategies and comprehension skills. Bush also received
an additional $20,000 for intervention support; therefore, a certificated substitute
intervention teacher was hired 30 hours per week from December through April and this
teacher worked with students in need of additional intervention. Project Success is a
grant given to Bush to provide an after school intervention program for 130 of the
school’s most at risk students. The curriculum is research based and provided by the
district and classified employees are hired to work with 130 students with class sizes
between 20 and 25 students.
The staff considers the Mind Institute computerized mathematics program an
intervention program as well. This is offered to all students in first through fourth grades
279

for 40 minutes two days each week. Teachers who have been using this program found
that although it takes an additional 80 minutes of time each week, their direct instruction
has become more efficient because of the skills covered in this program. Students are
applying and connecting the conceptual skills they receive in this program to the
mathematics curriculum.
Collaborative, professional culture
In the principal’s opinion, one of the staff’s greatest strengths is how they work
together as a team. She has never seen a staff work together as a team more than the
Bush staff. Teachers meet formally in grade level teams one week each month; however,
many grade levels work together on a more regular basis to share ideas and create
PowerPoint presentations for different themes and skills taught in English language arts
and mathematics. They also create common formative assessments and share those
results during their monthly grade level meetings. Most teachers have SMART Boards
(interactive white boards), LCD projectors, and laptops in their rooms and use this
technology to engage students in learning. All grade levels with the exception of sixth
grade have designed and shared numerous lessons presented through the use of this
technology. The staff is also collaborative in how they prepare and deliver ELD
instruction. The staff is committed to giving their very best during ELD instruction and
CLAD strategies are evident when observing any teacher during ELD.
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership
The principal spoke very highly of her leadership team. She meets with her
leadership team once each month and relies on them to assist her in different ways. Due
280

to the fact that her leadership team consists of one teacher from each grade level, she uses
them to assist her in communicating with the entire staff. The leadership team works
with their respective grade levels and conveys important issues to their grade level teams
and also provides important feedback to the principal. The leadership team also assists
her with creating the goals in the Single Plan for Student Achievement.
Professional and best practices
Best instructional practices that have been incorporated at Bush include
maintaining a strong collaborative culture focused on creating common lessons and
formative assessments and discussing best instructional practices; implementing an
intervention program; and incorporating technology to maximize student engagement.
Table B.1 is a summary of how Bush School implements the 10 steps that Odden
and Archibald (2009) recommend for doubling student performance.
281

Table B.1: Bush and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Average Weak N/A
Understanding
performance
problem &
challenge

X
Staff does not fully understand reason for
growth at the end of 2008-09 and
attributes 2009-2010 decline to 24 top
performing students leaving Bush to
attend a magnet school.
Set ambitious
goals

X
Teachers set class goals. Intervention
teachers set individual goals for all
students receiving small group
intervention. No school wide goals are
established or discussed with students and
if students aren’t receiving formal
intervention, they are not involved in any
goal setting.
Change
curriculum
program/create
new instructional
vision

X
The language arts, math, science, and
social science curriculum has remained
the same. The MIND Institute
mathematics program was implemented
in second and third grades in 2009-10 and
will be expanded to first and fourth
grades in 2010-2011. Teacher generated
materials are used for intervention.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions

X
The school uses a variety of assessments
to monitor student progress and guide
instruction.
Ongoing PD

X
On-site professional development occurs
twice each year and during monthly staff
meetings; however, it is not always
aligned to any long term plan or goal.
Using time
efficiently &
effectively

X
Instructional time has been redesigned so
students are receiving recommended
number of minutes in core and ELD
instruction.
Extended
learning time for
struggling
students

X
The school has additional staff to work
with students in small group
interventions. Students are assessed on a
regular basis and transferred in and out
of intervention based on assessment
results.
Collaborative,
professional
culture

X
Teachers meet in grade level teams only
one time per month to create common
formative assessments, collaborate on
student assessment results, and discuss
best instructional practices.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership

X
The principal uses the leadership team to
assist her with communication and
writing goals for the Single Plan for
Student Achievement.
Professional and
best practices

X
Teachers continue to work on using a
variety of instructional strategies/best
practices in an attempt to meet students’
diverse needs. No guidance from the
current principal is provided.
282

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
Although Bush Elementary is incorporating to some degree most of Odden and
Archibald’s (2009) 10 research-based strategies found to double student performance, the
amount of resources allocated for students is significantly lower than Odden and Picus’
(2008) Evidence-Based Model (EBM). Table B.2 shows a comparison between the
suggested resources at a prototypical elementary school, the resource allocation at Bush
School, and the amount of resources that would be allocated to Bush according to the
prototypical model and based on student enrollment at Bush.
Table B.2: Bush and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element
EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Bush School
Current Resource
Status
Bush Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-6; 590
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K – Gr 3: 20
Gr 4-6: 33

Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
186, includes 2 days
for PD, 2 prep days,
& 2 parent conf.
days

Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Extended day
kindergarten (305
minutes daily)

Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal 1.0 FTE principal &
.4 FTE assistant
principal
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and 1.0
FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary &
1.0 FTE Clerical
1.4 Secretaries and
1.4 Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 24 FTE core
teachers
32.8 FTE
283

Table B.2, Continued
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers .4 FTE PE teacher;
.5 FTE music
teacher;
.4 FTE science
teacher
6.6 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE 0.0 FTE 3.0 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100
poverty students
.925 FTE TOSA -
Instruction
5.4 FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
0.0 FTE 3.7 FTE
Non-Instructional Support for
EL Students
0.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.0 FTE 2.5 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0.0 FTE 2.5 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
1.0 FTE RSP
teacher;
2.0 FTE SDC
teachers;
.4 FTE Psychologist;
.6 FTE Speech
Therapist
4.1 FTE
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds

Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$3,595 243days @ $95/day
= $23,085

Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
.6 FTE Community
Liaison;
.5 FTE Health Clerk;
.4 Nurse
5.4 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 2.7 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 7.2 FTE 0.0 FTE
284

Table B.2, Continued
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE Library
Media Assistant
1.4 FTE
Resources for gifted students $25 per student $0 $14,750
Technology $250 per pupil $24,920 $147,500
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $33,100 $82,600
Student Activities $200 per pupil $3,232 $118,000
Professional Development $100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$33,235 $59,000

Summary and Lessons Learned
Bush Elementary School has undergone significant changes over the past four
years. It has been transformed from a K-3 school to a K-6 school, has had three
principals and an interim principal, and has lost 24 of their highest performing students to
the district magnet school. Throughout these changes, the staff has remained optimistic
and works together to offer their students an instructional program that incorporates the
use of technology to increase the level of student engagement. The staff works
collaboratively to analyze common formative and benchmark assessments. Targeted
students were identified and are given additional support through appropriate
interventions. State-approved curriculum and pacing guides are being used in all
classrooms.
285

Future Considerations
When asked what additional resources would be beneficial in the future to assist
with Bush’s goal of increasing student achievement, the only idea the principal had was
for additional funding to support a second intervention teacher and replace the upper
grade computer lab.
286

APPENDIX M – INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITY PARK INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD
FWA 00007099

Determination of NOT Human Subjects Research

Date: Wed Apr 28 13:44:40 2010
To: Lawrence Picus
From: Kristin Craun
Project Title: Allocation and Use of Education Resources in California Schools
(IIR00000701)

The University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB) designee reviewed the
information you submitted pertaining to your study and concluded that the project does
not qualify as Human Subjects Research.*

This project focuses on how schools allocate and use educational resources to improve
student learning. This project is not collecting information about subjects, but rather
about the key elements of the instructional improvement effort. The research activities as
described do not meet the Federal definition of a human subject and are not subject to the
requirements of 45 CFR 46 or continuing review.

This review and opinion is based on the information provided and is not valid if the
proposed project is not exactly as described, or if information has been withheld. If your
project design changes in ways that may affect this determination, please contact the IRB
for guidance.

Sincerely, Kristin Craun, MPH, CIP- UPIRB Director
istar@usc.edu

*From 45 CFR 46.102, The Federal Regulations on Human Subjects Research
Human Subject: A living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or
student) conducting research obtains data through intervention or interaction with the
individual, or identifiable private information.

Research : A systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and
evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze school level data related to the allocation of resources, and to determine how those resources are used to increase student achievement. The study was based on an analysis of five elementary schools with similar demographics and challenges located throughout two counties in Southern California. All the schools studied were Title I, non-charter public schools with student populations that were at least 50% Hispanic, 42% English learners, and over 75% socioeconomically disadvantaged.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of four California charter schools

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: case studies of six California schools within two school districts

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools

PDF

Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: Case studies of school level resource use in California middle schools

PDF

School level resource allocation to improve student performance: A case study of Orange County and Los Angeles County Title I elementary schools

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of non-title I schools

PDF

Resource allocation in successful schools: case studies of California elementary schools

PDF

School-level resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

Aligning educational resources and strategies to improve student learning: effective practices using an evidence-based model

PDF

Resource allocation and educational adequacy: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California with budget reductions

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools

PDF

School-level resource allocation practices in elementary schools to increase student achievement

PDF

Evidence-based resource allocation model to improve student achievement: Case study analysis of three high schools

PDF

The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within an elementary school in a centrally managed school district: a case study

PDF

Better is as better does: resource allocation in high performing schools

PDF

Allocation of resources and educational adequacy: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California Title I Program Improvement middle schools

PDF

Resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

The allocation of resources at the school level to improve learning for struggling readers: What is adequate?

PDF

Navigating troubled waters: case studies of three California high schools' resource allocation strategies in 2010-2011

Asset Metadata

Creator Elsasser, James M., Jr. (author)

Core Title Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: case studies of five California schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/28/2011

Defense Date 02/02/2011

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

Tag educational adequacy,instructional improvement,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource allocation

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (counties), Orange (counties)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee member), Nelson, John L. (committee member)

Creator Email elsasser5@aol.com,jelsasser@acsd.k12.ca.us

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3674

Unique identifier UC1121932

Identifier etd-Elsasser-4337 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-417813 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3674 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Elsasser-4337.pdf

Dmrecord 417813

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Elsasser, James M., Jr.

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu