University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

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 SIX CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS WITHIN TWO
SCHOOL DISTRICTS

by
Emma Elizabeth Druitt

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 Emma Elizabeth Druitt
ii

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Robbin and Larry Baumbach for
encouraging me not only to begin the process, but also to keep going. Thank you to my
sister and friends for allowing me the time to disappear and pursue my dreams. I couldn’t
have done this without you.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation was made possible through the on-going support of my
dissertation chair, Dr. Lawrence Picus, who provided constant support, patience, and
humor in encouraging me through this process. I wish to also express my gratitude to Dr.
John Nelson and Dr. Guilbert Hentschke for agreeing to serve on my dissertation
committee. The time they dedicated to the process was greatly appreciated.
I would also like to thank the members of my dissertation group for being such a
wonderful group of people to work with. We traveled through this program together and I
couldn’t have done it without your support and laughter. So, thank you to Jim Elsasser,
Chris Guiterrez-Lohrman, Cynthia Guerrero, Hiacynth Martinez, Andrew Pulver, Mark
Johnson, Ramona Patrick, Nate Nelson, Martha Stuemke, and Steve McLaughlin.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ii!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii!

LIST OF TABLES vii!

LIST OF FIGURES viii!

ABSTRACT x!

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1!
Statement of the Problem 5!
Purpose of the Study 5!
Research Questions 6!
Importance of the Study 6!
Summary of Methodology 7!
Limitations 7!
Delimitations 8!
Assumptions 8!
Definitions 8!

CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW 12!
California School Funding 12!
Current Challenges Amidst a Financial Crisis 16!
Resource Use 20!
Equity v. Adequacy 28!
Effective Practices for Improving Student Performance 40!
Conclusion 47!

CHAPTER 3 - METHODS 49!
Research Questions 50!
Purposeful Sample and Population 51!
Identifying Schools 51!
Instrumentation and Data Collection 53!
Data Analysis 55!
Summary 56!

v

CHAPTER 4 - FINDINGS 57!
Summary of Sample Schools’ Characteristics and Performance 58!
Achievement Data 60!
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Strategies 72!
Resource Allocation 93!
Impact of Current Funding Crisis 97!
Conclusion 99!

CHAPTER 5 - CONCLUSION 102!
Summary of Findings 104!
Limitations of the Study 108!
Recommendations for Future Research 108!
Conclusion 109!

REFERENCES 114!

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A –INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL 120!
APPENDIX B – DOCUMENT REQUEST LIST 121!
APPENDIX C – SCHOOL VISIT INTERVIEWS 123!
APPENDIX D – LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND ARTIFICATS 124!
APPENDIX E – DATA COLLECTION CODEBOOK 125!
APPENDIX F – OPEN-ENDED DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL 136!
APPENDIX G – DATA COLLECITON PROTOCOL 139!
APPENDIX H - RIVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 145!
Assessments and Data 146!
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 148!
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 160!
Summary and Lessons Learned 163!
Future Considerations 163!
APPENDIX I - OCEAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 165!
Assessments and Data 166!
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 169!
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 181!
Summary and Lessons Learned 184!
Future Considerations 184!
APPENDIX J - CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 186!
Assessments and Data 187!
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 190!
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 203!
Summary and Lessons Learned 206!
Future Considerations 206!

vi

APPENDIX K - VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 208!
Background on the School and District 208!
Assessments and Data 209!
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 211!
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 222!
Summary and Lessons Learned 225!
Future Considerations 225!
APPENDIX L - HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 227!
Assessments and Data 228!
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 230!
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 243!
Summary and Lessons Learned 246!
Future Considerations 246!
APPENDIX M - ISLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 248!
Assessments and Data 249!
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 251!
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 265!
Summary and Lessons Learned 268!
Future Considerations 268!

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: California Student Demographics 17!
Table 2.2: School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators 22!
Table 2.3: Recommendations for Adequate Resources for a Prototypical Elementary 39!
Table 3.1: School Selection Criteria 52!
Table 3.2: Schools meeting/not meeting AYP Benchmarks 53!
Table 4.1: Characteristics of Sample Schools 58!
Table 4.2: Similar School & Statewide Ranking of the Sample Schools 63!
Table 4.3: 10 Steps for Doubling Student Performance at Six Sample Schools 92!
Table 4.4: Class Size of Sample Schools Compared to EBM 94!
Table 4.5: Comparison of Resource Allocation to EBM 96!
Table H.1: River and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 159!
Table I.1: Ocean and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 180!
Table I.2: Comparison of Ocean Elementary Resource Allocation to EBM 182!
Table J.1: Creek and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 202!
Table J.2: Comparison of Creek Elementary Resource Allocation to EBM 204!
Table K.1: Valley and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 221!
Table K.2: Comparison of Valley Elementary Resource Allocation to EBM 223!
Table L.1: Hills and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 242!
Table L.2: Comparison of Hills Elementary Resource Allocation to EBM 244!
Table M.1: Island and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 264!
Table M.2: Comparison of Island Elementary Resource Allocation to EBM 266!

viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Evidence Based Model for Resource Allocation 37!
Figure 4.1: Ethnic Breakdown of the Sample Schools 59!
Figure 4.2: Percentage of SED & EL Students at the Sample Schools 60!
Figure 4.3: API Increase in Sample Schools from 2006 -2010 61!
Figure 4.:4 Annual API Scores for Each Sample School for 2006-2010 62!
Figure 4.5: ELA – Schoolwide Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced 64!
Figure 4.6: ELA – Percent of Hispanic Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced 65!
Figure 4.7: ELA – Percent of SED Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced 66!
Figure 4.8: ELA – Percent of EL Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced 67!
Figure 4.9: Math – Schoolwide Percent Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced 68!
Figure 4.10: Math – Percent of Hispanic Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced 69!
Figure 4.11: Math – Percent of SED Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced 71!
Figure 4.12: Math – Percentage of EL Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced 72!
Figure H.1: Ethnic Breakdown of River 145!
Figure H.2: River Elementary School’s API 146!
Figure H.3: ELA – Percent of Proficient and Advanced Students at River Elementary 147!
Figure H.4: Math – Percent of Proficient and Advanced Students at River Elementary 148!
Figure I.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Ocean Elementary 165!
Figure I.2: Ocean Elementary School’s API 166!
Figure I.3: ELA – Percent of Proficient and Advanced Students at Ocean Elementary 167!
Figure I.4: Math – Percent of Proficient and Advanced Students at Ocean Elementary 169!
Figure J.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Creek Elementary 186!
Figure J.3: ELA – Percent of Proficient and Advanced Students at Creek Elementary 188!
ix

Figure J.4: Math – Percent of Proficient and Advanced Students at Creek Elementary 190!
Figure K.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Valley Elementary 208!
Figure K.2: Valley Elementary School’s API 209!
Figure K.3: ELA – Percent Proficient and Advanced Students at Valley Elementary 210!
Figure K.4: Math – Percent Proficient and Advanced Students at Valley Elementary 211!
Figure L.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Hills Elementary 227!
Figure L.2: Hills Elementary School’s API 228!
Figure L.3: ELA – Percent Proficient and Advanced Students at Hills Elementary 229!
Figure L.4: Math – Percent Proficient and Advanced Students at Hills Elementary 230!
Figure M.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Island Elementary 248!
Figure M.2: Island Elementary School’s API 249!
Figure M.3: ELA – Percent Proficient and Advanced Students at Island Elementary 250!
Figure M.4: Math – Percent Proficient and Advanced Students at Island Elementary 251!

x

ABSTRACT
This study examined the resource allocations at district levels as well as the school site
level utilizing Odden & Picus’ (2008) Evidence-Based Model as a framework. Although
schools were chosen using participation in the free and reduced lunch program as well as
the percentage of Hispanic students, the allocation of resources within each district
appeared to vary substantially. Some schools and districts were effectively raising student
achievement. Odden and Archibald (2009) present ten strategies to doubling student
performance. This study attempted to see how many of these ten strategies are present in
the schools being studied as well as if and how resources were being allocated to support
those strategies.
The following four research questions were used to guide this study: 1) What are the
current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school level? 2) How are
the resources at the school and district levels used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan? 3) 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? 4) 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?
The findings from this study suggest that the six sample schools were all at varying levels
of implementation of the 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance (Odden &
Archibald, 2009) in addition to falling far below the suggestions of the prototypical
elementary school in the Evidence-Based Model. All schools showed API growth over
xi

the five years included in this study, however those that understood the performance
problem facing their school and felt the urgency that accompanied it, showed greater
growth than those that did not. The findings also indicated that although California
schools are severely underfunded, they are attempting to raise student achievement with
their current resources in creative ways.

1

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
California educators are facing a financial crisis unlike any they have seen for
quite some time. Schools and districts are being asked to do the same job, if not more,
with substantially fewer resources than in the past. Class sizes are being increased,
instructional days are being cut, and employees are being let go. While districts struggle
to make ends meet, accountability in education for US schools continues to be at the
forefront of legislation, funding, and the media. With the implementation of the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2002, schools are experiencing the pressure of high test scores and
academic progress of all students. The legislation states that by the year 2014, all students
will be proficient in reading and math at their grade level. This law requires every child
to be at this level regardless of ethnicity, language acquisition level, or learning disability.
Schools are measured through Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) indicators. Each year,
the percentage needed to meet AYP goals increases as it draws nearer to 2014. For the
school year 2008/2009, the AYP percentage to meet in language arts is 46%. Essentially,
half of our students need to be proficient in reading by the time they participate in the
California Standards Test (CST). Many of our students are struggling with language
acquisition as well as reading at grade level. California’s public school system is
currently responsible for educating approximately 6 million students. Of those students,
over half participate in the free and reduced-price lunch program and many of those come
from poverty (EdSource, 2009f).

2

Historically, funding for education has been widely disputed. For many years,
public education relied solely on property taxes for their funding. While this was
common practice, it led to inequitable funding among districts (EdSource, 2008b).
Resources were not equitable for students living in poor communities versus students
living in a more affluent community. Serrano v. Priest (1971), a court case in California,
was among the first to challenge how schools and districts were being funded. As a
result, states are attempting to find different funding options for education.
The determination of the cost to adequately educate children continues to be at the
forefront of debate among lawmakers and policy makers. As student achievement
declines or becomes stagnant, legislators have attempted to increase spending on schools
(Haunshek & Lindseth, 2009). The standards-based reform movement as well as
numerous adequacy studies conducted in many states has led to a realization that there is
a need to determine the cost of educating a student (Rebell, 2007). The National
Commission on Excellence in Education’s report, A Nation at Risk (1983), pointed the
finger at schools and placed the blame on them for our poor educational performance.
The public was outraged and the report became a catalyst for reform in education.
Increased spending, state academic standards, school choice, highly qualified teachers,
and reducing disparities in funding for school districts are a few of the reforms that were
implemented. However, there is still no consensus on what it costs to adequately educate
students.

3

Hanushek & Lindseth (2009) identify four approaches that have been used to
estimate adequate funding levels: 1) the professional judgment approach, 2) the evidence-
based approach, 3) the successful schools approach, and 4) the cost function approach. A
brief description of each follows but will be described in further detail in chapter two.
The professional judgment approach consists of choosing a panel of educators to
develop a program that they feel would help close the achievement gap for struggling
students and produce the ideal school. The panel is told to put aside cost and focus on
outcome (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). These practitioners are knowledgeable in
effective instructional strategies as well as implementation of resources (Odden, 2003).
This approach is seen to have some inherent problems. These panels are not limited to
any constraints placed on spending and were not asked to consider differing populations
of students (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). The professional judgment approach is also
based solely on judgment and not necessarily linked to research.
The evidence-based approach relies heavily on research as it applies to programs
and services (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). Model schools are developed based on the
projected programs and services that will provide an adequate and comprehensive
instructional program to increase student achievement. This is then applied to statewide
costs (Odden & Picus, 2008) to assist in determining adequate funding. It could be
assumed that a major hindrance to this approach is the lack of necessary funds at the state
level to support such a model, yet many criticize the Evidence Based Model for an
insufficient research base.
4

The successful schools approach identifies schools or districts currently meeting
educational goals and they are examined as to how much money is being spent per pupil
(Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). It is assumed that if a successful school is spending a
certain amount per pupil and their students are meeting the identified goals that under-
performing schools should be able to spend the same amount and achieve similar results.
Often, many high-performing schools that are selected do not have similar demographics
or challenges that their under-performing counterparts face (Odden, 2003).
The cost function approach relies on current spending and achievement patterns
(Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009; Rebell, 2007). It consists of a statistical analysis to
determine spending across the state as it impacts student achievement. This approach has
been used as an alternative to the other three approaches. Its primary limitation is that it is
a district-level analysis rather than a school-level analysis. Due to its complex statistical
approach, the cost function approach is difficult for the general public to understand
(Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009).
California’s students continue to fall behind the rest of the nation according to the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in addition, the fact is that the state
has one of the most rigorous sets of performance standards and is well below the national
average on per pupil spending (EdSource, 2009c). While students have made substantial
progress under the NCLB legislation, they are still not meeting the necessary goals. In
light of the current financial crisis the state is facing, and more specifically, districts and
schools are facing, utilizing resources efficiently and effectively is more crucial than
ever.
5

Statement of the Problem
Resources for education are scarce in California while accountability for student
achievement continues to rise. Schools and districts are feeling the pressure from the
government and public to close the achievement gap. Determining the level of adequate
funding is a topic that is widely discussed yet there appears to be little agreement on what
constitutes adequate funding for education. There is no one mutually agreed upon
approach to determine adequate funding for education and research regarding school site
reform practices and adequacy models are limited. Further school site analysis would
greatly inform legislators and policy makers as to the effectiveness of the evidence-based
approach. Currently, Wyoming and Arkansas (Odden, et al, 2007) are among the only
states that have adopted this model to assist in funding schools.
Purpose of the Study
This study examined the resource allocations at district levels as well as the
school site level utilizing Odden & Picus’ (2008) Evidence-Based Model as a framework.
Although schools were chosen using participation in the free and reduced lunch program
as well as the percentage of Hispanic students, the allocation of resources within each
district appeared to vary substantially. Some schools and districts were effectively raising
student achievement. Odden and Archibald (2009) present ten strategies to doubling
student performance. This study attempted to see how many of these ten strategies are
present in the schools being studied as well as if and how resources were being allocated
to support those strategies.

6

Research Questions
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?
2. How are resources at the school and district levels used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?
3. 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?
4. 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
Hanushek & Lindseth (2009) state that it is now imperative to identify how
money is being spent rather than focusing on how much money is being spent. With the
2014 goal of proficiency under NCLB not too far in the future, adequate resource
allocation and successful strategies must be identified at the school site level. Now, more
than ever, with the ever-decreasing budget, schools and districts must refine their
practices and ensure that the limited funding is being utilized to its fullest. California’s
school finance system is unnecessarily complex with excessive regulations and the
unintended victims are the students in our education system (Loeb, Byrk & Hanushek,
2007).
7

The Evidence-Based Model as presented by Odden & Picus (2008) along with
Odden & Archibald’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance was used
as a framework for comparison to create case studies of the six schools. The results of
this study have important policy implications at the school and district levels to improve
student learning. By focusing on schools within two separate districts, one very
centralized with its resources, and the other less centralized, a comparison was made in
regard to the effects of those resource allocations on student achievement.
Summary of Methodology
This study utilized a multiple methods design to assist in answering the research
questions. Data was collected from the California Department of Education (2010)
website to determine similar schools within two local school districts. Each school had a
minimum of 60% free and reduced lunch participation and at least 60% Hispanic
population. Quantitative and qualitative data was collected from the six selected
elementary schools within two Southern California school districts. The quantitative data
allowed the researcher to see the allocation of resources at each school site and the
qualitative data helped explain how decisions are being made to utilize those resources to
support student achievement and instruction.
Limitations
The schools being studied were selected according to their percentage of students
participating in the free and reduced lunch program as well as the percentage of Hispanic
students attending the school as reported by the California Department of Education. The
findings may only be generalizable to schools with similar demographics. An additional
8

limitation was that the sample of principals being interviewed might not have similar
perceptions to other principals not interviewed. The final limitation was the funding
options for the 2009 and 2010 school years. Many schools received stimulus funding
(ARRA) and this may skew the way schools and districts make some financial decisions.
The lack of consistency in the methods that districts identified to allocate the spending
may hinder the accuracy of the current financial situation of schools and districts.
Delimitations
This study had some delimitations. The selected schools were restricted to only
elementary schools located in Orange County. Of those selected schools, the principals
who were interviewed were the ones that have been assigned to the schools and while
they were willing participants, they were interviewed because their school was chosen
from the determined criteria.
Assumptions
Assumptions were made with this study. It was assumed that the principals
interviewed were honest and forthright in their comments. Also, it was assumed that the
study was conducted with the appropriate methods and followed the necessary
procedures. All data that was received and analyzed was assumed to be accurate and
complete.
Definitions
1. Academic Performance Index (API): A number used for the purpose of
accountability to report progress on California’s standardized tests. This number
also ranks similar schools as measured by varying factors.
9

2. Accountability: The idea that individuals and organizations are to be held
responsible for closing the achievement gap and improving student achievement.
3. Achievement Gap: A difference in scores on achievement tests among certain
groups of students. For example, there is a strong association between poverty and
students’ lack of achievement.
4. Adequacy: Adequate educational funding is defined as the level of funding that
would allow each LEA to provide a rand of instructional strategies and
educational programs to assist each student in achieving state determined goals.
The amount of funding schools receive should be based on an estimate of the cost
of achieving state goals (EdSource, 2010a).
5. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): As part of NCLB, AYP is a set of academic
performance benchmarks that are reported for significant subgroups at individual
school. Each year, a percent of students tested must perform at or above
proficiency levels for their grade. If those goals are not met, schools could enter
Program Improvement.
6. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA): President Obama and
Congress passed the ARRA in response to a struggling economy. The education
portion allotted more than $100 billion for prekindergarten - 12
th
grade schools
for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years. The funds were also intended to
be an incentive for states to improve their schools (EdSource, 2010a).
7. Average Daily Attendance (ADA): Total number of days of student attendance
divided by the total number of days in the school year to help determine funding.
10

8. California Standards Test (CST): Annually administered standardized tests based
on the California state grade level standards. These tests are multiple choice and
given to students in grades 2-11.
9. Categorical Funding: Funds from the state or federal government given to
districts or schools for specific reasons such as: special education, class size
reduction, and students participating in the free and reduced-price lunch program.
This money is in addition to money received for general education programs.
Categorical funds represent about a third of district income (EdSource, 2010a).
10. Educational Impact Aid: State categorical funds provided to districts with high
concentrations of students from low-income, transient families.
11. Expenditure: Amount of money spent by a school district or state divided by the
number of students educated. In California, the number of students is determined
by the Average Daily Attendance (ADA).
12. Free and Reduced Lunch: Under the Title 1 federal regulations, qualifying
students may receive lunch at a reduced price or for free. Families must reapply
each year as financial status may change.
13. Full-time Equivalent (FTE): The ratio derived by dividing the number of work
hours required in a part-time position by the number of work hours required in a
corresponding full-time position.
14. General Fund: Funding used to offset expenditures and revenues from other
sources specified for specific uses that is not restricted (EdSource, 2010a).
11

15. Mandated Costs: Expenditures that are required due to federal or state law, court
decisions, administrative regulations, or initiative measures. School districts may
apply for reimbursement of these costs.
16. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): A national standardized
assessment administered to randomly selected students in an attempt to measure
and compare student achievement across the nation or against other states
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2010b).
17. Program Improvement (PI): Under NCLB, schools receiving Title 1 funds enter
Program Improvement when they don’t meet AYP benchmark goals for the same
subgroups two years in a row. If a school continues to stay in PI, increasingly
serious interventions and sanctions are implemented.
18. Similar Schools: A comparison group of 100 schools of the same type based on
similar demographics. API for the group is ranked into ten categories (deciles) of
equal size, one being the lowest group to ten being the highest group (California
Department of Education, 2009).
19. Single Plan for Student Achievement: All schools that participate in any state or
federal programs, a plan for improved student achievement must be developed by
the school site council.
20. Socio-economic Status (SES): A measure of an individual or family’s economic
and social ranking (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010b).
21. Title 1: Federal program that provides funding to school districts based on the
number of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch.
12

CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW
The major reform efforts of NCLB have put systems in place to increase student
achievement through standards-based reforms and accountability for educators
(Hanushek & Raymond, 2005). These reforms have taken high priority at the federal,
state, and local levels and they come at a high cost. The three major funding sources
(federal, state, and local) for education are currently struggling to provide the financing
necessary to bring about true reform. California is currently in a dire financial crisis that
is negatively affecting school districts across the state. This chapter provides an overview
of the literature regarding school finance and resource allocation as they pertain to the
implementation of research-based best practices that ultimately lead to educational
reform. The literature is divided into four categories: 1) California school funding, 2)
resource use, 3) educational adequacy, and 4) strategies used by successful schools.
California School Funding
The funding for schools in California has gone through a drastic change over the
past 35 years. Three independent efforts have helped shape the majority of the state’s
current funding system; the Serrano v. Priest court ruling, Proposition 13, and
Proposition 98. Until 1980, local agencies were responsible for funding elementary and
secondary education primarily through property taxes (Timar, 2004). California’s system
of funding for education is supported through a combination of local, state, and federal
sources (Timar, 2006). Local sources include property taxes, interest income,
contributions, and local bonds while state sources include personal income tax, sales tax,
and state lottery revenue.
13

Serrano v. Priest. In 1968, when the Serrano suit was filed, approximately 60
percent of school funding came from local property taxes while 35 percent came from
state sources and the remaining funding came from federal sources (Timar, 2004). The
lawsuit claimed that California’s method of funding public education failed to meet the
requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Serrano v.
Priest, 1976). Residents in areas with lower property values were forced to pay higher
property taxes than their counterparts in areas with higher property values to ensure that
their children were receiving the same, or in some cases, lesser educational opportunities.
This inequality stemmed from substantial differences in property values across the region
(Timar, 2006). Disadvantaged districts were considered to be those with low property
values and a high number of students. When calculating their operating budgets, local
districts had the option to ask voters to approve an increase in property tax rates if the
proposed district expenditures exceeded expected revenues, but again, low property value
districts had to ask for greater tax increases for more limited amounts of additional
revenue, a trend the Court recognized as unfair and unconstitutional (Timar, 2004).
The courts agreed with the plaintiffs primarily on equal protection grounds and
required the state to equalize the funding among school districts. The Serrano v. Priest
(1976) ruling excluded categorical programs from the equalization requirements
determining that those funds were set aside for programs that served a specific need
unless the funding could be justified through a rational and compelling argument (Timar,
2004). The fear was that categorical funding would be used for teacher salaries through
the general fund and not go towards the students and classrooms. The Serrano case was
14

one of the first lawsuits to challenge using property taxes as the principal source of
revenue for public schools (EdSource, 2009f) as well as providing the first step in the
shift of funding control from local districts to the state.
Proposition 13. The primary features of Proposition 13 were to limit the local
property tax rate which, in turn limited the amount of local funding available to school
districts as well as continuing to speed up the shift of school finance decision making
from districts to the state level (Timar, 2004). How much money a district received was
determined by the legislature. The passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 limited increases in
property assessments to two percent annually, reducing growth in property tax revenues
and resulting in greater reliance on state funding by districts (Duncombe & Yinger,
2007). This reliance has led to a disconnect between schools, districts, and their local
communities. No longer are funding decisions able to be made solely by the school
boards and districts since approximately 59 percent of school funding comes from the
state general fund (EdSource, 2009g).
Proposition 13 has inherent consequences for schools that include reliance on a
state-controlled and funded school finance system as well as state taxes that are
influenced by unreliable income taxes (EdSource, 2009f). The governor and legislature
were placed in charge of determining how local property taxes would be distributed.
Proposition 98. Proposition 98 set aside a protected share of the state budget for
K-12 and community colleges. The purpose was to ensure schools a guaranteed funding
source that would grow with student enrollment and the economy from year to year
15

(Timar, 2006). It was decided that a minimum of 40 percent of the state general budget be
set-aside for K-12 and community colleges each year.
Within Proposition 98 as modified by Proposition 111, there are three “tests” the
state uses to determine K-14 education funding. There are several factors that influence
which test will be used to set the minimum amount to be given to K-12 and community
colleges the most important being changes in student attendance, personal income, and
General Fund revenues (EdSource, 2009e). Test 1 attempts to provide K-12 and
community colleges with the minimum percentage of General Fund revenues, which is
approximately 41 percent (Timar, 2006). This test has only been used once for the 1988-
1989 fiscal year (EdSource, 2009e). Test 2 is an adjustment based on statewide personal
income that provides K-12 and community colleges with the same amount of combined
state aid and property tax revenues received the from the prior year with adjustments for
changes in enrollment and growth in personal income. This test has been used 12 times to
determine funding (EdSource, 2009e). Test 3 is similar to Test 2 with the difference of
adding a 0.5% of the prior year’s Proposition 98 spending amount. Test 3 has been used
seven times including the 2008-2009 fiscal year (EdSource, 2009e).
While Proposition 98 determines how much funding the state must provide to K-
12 and community colleges, the governor and legislature continue to decide how those
funds will be allocated to the school districts within their state (Timar, 2006). Currently,
districts continue to receive less than their promised amount from Proposition 98 as a
result of the fiscal crisis California faces. Funding deadlines are implemented by the state
and routinely missed, the minimal Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) is unlikely, and
16

budget cuts are made mid-year causing districts to scramble to compensate (EdSource,
2009e).
Current Challenges Amidst a Financial Crisis
Wonderful reforms and innovations are taking place in classrooms and districts
across California. However that does not negate the fact that the state’s financing
situation for schools is flawed (Loeb, et al, 2007). California funds its schools well below
the national average and consistently rank in the bottom fifth percentile in the nation in
per pupil spending although the amount varies from year to year (EdSource, 2009c).
California is also one of the most diversely populated states in the nation, educating more
than 6 million students in kindergarten through 12
th
grade (EdSource, 2009c). Many
schools are located in large urban areas that deal with issues beyond their control on a
daily basis such as language barriers and poverty. Table 2.1 shows the California student
demographics over the past five academic years. Many districts and schools responsible
for educating diverse student populations do receive funding in the form of categorical
aid, but the amounts vary widely (EdSource, 2010d). There are more than 80 categorical
funding programs that come with regulations that ensure that the money is being spent on
targeted students or programs. Of those 80 programs, approximately 24 of them comprise
nearly 88 percent of the total categorical funding (Timar, 2004). Recently, however, as a
response to the financial crisis facing so many school districts, the state has increased the
amount of money that districts may transfer among programs. This newly added
flexibility has given many districts the opportunity to utilize funding in areas that they see
have the highest priority and need while relieving them of possible sanctions in other
17

areas (EdSource, 2009e). Class size reduction is one of the areas that school districts are
taking advantage of with this newly added flexibility. Since its implementation, the
districts that received the funding knowing that sanctions would be applied if this ratio
were changed have strictly adhered to the student/teacher ratio of 20:1 in grades K-3. In
the face of the current financial situation, many districts have raised class sizes to
accommodate for fewer teachers and the state has agreed to suspend the sanctions for
doing so until further notice.
Table 2.1: California Student Demographics
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Hispanic
2,961,104
(46.8%)
3,003,716
(47.6%)
3,026,956
(48.1%)
3,056,616
(48.7%)
3,064,614
(49.0%)
White
1,981,547
(31.3%)
1,915,491
(30.3%)
1,849,078
(29.4%)
1,790,513
(28.5%)
1,741,664
(27.9%)
Asian/Pacific
Islander
550,083
(8.7%)
557,558
(8.8%)
549,232
(8.7%)
555,946
(8.9%)
526,403
(8.4%)
African
American
505,221
(8.0%)
495,017
(7.8%)
477,776
(7.6%)
466,141
(7.4%)
454,781
(7.3%)
Filipino
163,151
(2.6%)
165,572
(2.6%)
165,480
(2.6%)
167,385
(2.7%)
168,112
(2.7%)
Native
American
51,821
(0.8%)
50,758
(0.8%)
48,383
(0.8%)
47,543
(0.8%)
46,446
(0.7%)
Multiple/No
Response
109,214
(1.7%)
124,324
(2.0%)
170,038
(2.7%)
191,325
(3.0%)
210,501
(3.4%)
Total
Enrollment
6,322,141 6,312,436 6,286,943 6,275,469 6,252,031
*Source: California Department of Education 2010.
In April 2005 Governor Schwarzenegger established the Governor’s Committee
on Education Excellence. This committee’s charge was to analyze current educational
issues, explore new ideas and best practices, and make recommendations for change
18

(Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence, 2007). As a result, the committee
identified four areas of focus: 1) teachers and administrators, 2) finance, 3) governance
and accountability, and 4) data. A research project, “Getting Down to Facts” (IREPP,
2007) resulted in numerous studies that covered these areas.
The more than twenty studies found that California schools are not funded in a
systematic manner that supports the state’s accountability system for NCLB (Kirst, et al.,
2007, Duncombe & Yinger, 2007). The intention of the federally funded NCLB was to
increase the focus on educationally disadvantaged students and was originally to provide
funds to prepare, train, recruit, and retain highly qualified teachers, support innovative
programs as well as interventions (EdSource, 2009h). Standards-based accountability
became very explicit with NCLB requiring rigorous performance standards, aligning
assessments with the performance standards, and instituting sanctions for the failure to
meet the growth targets showing Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) on the state
standardized test. Schools that fail to meet their growth targets for two consecutive years
are placed into Program Improvement (PI) and a specific set of requirements for
improvement are put into place. Many districts have schools in various years of PI and
the promised funding to support these schools fails to come through. President Barack
Obama recently said that we must stop labeling failures and reward successes. He also
stated that as a nation, we should recognize progress and growth and retain the best
teachers possible in our classrooms (United States Department of Education, 2010).
President Obama’s charge for education seems to be easier said than done considering the
financial crisis facing California.
19

California cannot “fix” its financial problems without addressing the current
funding system for education (EdSource, 2009f). California has developed a system that
attempts to align curriculum with student performance however, has yet to adequately
fund this reform movement (Kirst, et al, 2007). The legislators and the governor must
question the state versus the local control over public schools and their revenues to see
where the pitfalls lie. Currently, school districts have had to lay off teachers at an
alarming rate and raise class sizes as a result of their ever-diminishing yearly budgets.
California has an early warning system designed to assist in detecting when
districts are in danger of failing to meet their financial obligations (EdBrief, 2010a).
Districts must file one of three certifications semi-annually with their county office of
education: positive, qualified, or negative. Positive certification is assigned when the
district will meet its financial obligations for the current year as well as for the two
subsequent fiscal years. Qualified certification is assigned to a district when they may not
be able to meet their financial obligations for the current or two subsequent fiscal years.
Finally, negative certification is assigned when a district will be unable to meet its
financial obligations for the remainder of the current fiscal year or for the subsequent
fiscal year (EdBrief, 2010a). In 2006-07, there were only three districts receiving
negative certification and 19 districts on the qualified list. Today, there are 12 districts
receiving negative certification and 114 districts with qualified status (EdBrief, 2010a).
Recent reports have been released that show promise of economic recovery for
the state of California. In the month of January, 32,500 jobs were added showing a
significant turnaround from prior months (School Services of California, March, 2010).
20

The April receipts dropped below the Governor’s original estimates by approximately
$3.6 billion (EdBrief, 2010b). Personal income taxes came in $3.1 billion below
projections. This drop will force the Governor and Legislature to move forward and
create a balanced budget.
Resource Use
The allocation of resources in education continues to be an important topic as
legislators and policymakers struggle to identify appropriate and adequate school
funding. This topic is especially crucial as California faces another year of financial
crisis. Leaders in California school districts have to be creative yet conservative in the
allocation of resources to support student achievement. The National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) (2010) reports that per pupil spending in the United States
climbed to near $9,400 in 2005-2006 and the National Education Association (2009)
estimates that in the 2009-2010 school year, it is expected to rise just above $10,500.
Odden and Picus (2008) report that while funding for education has increased steadily
over the past one hundred years, the majority of the money has not been spent to assist in
improving instructional programs that will increase student achievement. Expenditures in
education are categorized into a set of functions (Odden & Picus, 2008). The most
common functions, according to Odden and Picus are: instruction, instructional support,
administration, student support, operation and maintenance, transportation, and food
services.
Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003) present another way to report
expenditures at the school-site level. The authors state that one of the weaknesses of
21

public education is a lack of an adequate fiscal reporting system that helps policymakers
and educational leaders to make sound decisions regarding the use of the education
dollar. Their proposed framework is stated as an improvement over others in three
specific ways: 1) it reports school-level expenditures specifically, 2) it can account for
“schools within schools” by differentiating spending within a building, and 3) it is current
in the ways that expenditures are reflected through instructional strategies and resource
uses. The items proposed in the expenditure structure are gleaned from research on high
performing schools, professional development, organizational structures, and school
improvement that relates to curriculum and instruction. The nine elements within the
expenditure structure are categorized as either instructional or non-instructional. The nine
elements are identified as: 1) core academic teachers, 2) specialists and elective teachers,
3) extra help, 4) professional development, 5) other non-classroom instructional staff, 6)
instructional materials and equipment, 7) student support, 8) administration, and 9)
operations and maintenance (Odden et al, 2003). A chart of the Odden et al. expenditure
structure is included in Table 2.2.

22

Table 2.2: 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
Non-Instructional 8. Administration
9. Operations and Maintenance
- Custodial
- Utilities
- Security
- Food Service
Modified from Odden, et al., 2003.
23

Odden et al. (2003) provide a detailed description of the core components:
1. Core academic teachers: These teachers are licensed classroom teachers whose
primary responsibility is teaching a school’s core academic subjects such as:
reading/English/language arts, mathematics, science, and history/social studies.
At the secondary level these teachers also include ESL/bilingual teachers as well
as special education teachers. These are full time equivalent teachers (FTE)
2. Specialist and elective teachers: These licensed teachers teach non-core academic
classes and may provide planning and preparation time for core academic
teachers. Examples of these teachers include:
! Specialist teachers such as art, music, and physical education teachers.
! Teachers who provide instruction in a subject area that represent the academic
focus of a school. Foreign language teachers at a foreign language magnet
school would fall into this category.
! Vocational education teachers such as an auto mechanic teacher.
! Drivers’ education teachers.
! Licensed librarians or media specialists.
3. Extra help: Licensed teachers designed to assist struggling students or students
with special needs in learning curriculum. The strategies these teachers provide
supplement the instruction of the regular classroom. The types of teachers
included in this category are:
! Licensed teachers used as tutors to provide one-on-one help to students. This
type of tutoring is most commonly used in elementary schools.
24

! Extra help laboratories that usually provide assistance in reading and
mathematics for students struggling to meet performance standards through
additional classes. This type of help is utilized most in the secondary setting.
! Resource rooms provide small groups of students with extra help. This usually
takes the form of remedial reading and/or mathematics that are outside of the
regular curriculum or standards.
! Inclusion teachers assist regular classroom teachers with mainstreamed special
education students. These students generally have less severe learning
disabilities.
! Teachers of English as a second language (ESL) who work with non-English
speaking students to help them acquire the English language.
! Self-contained special education teachers who work along with instructional
aides in a separate classroom to teach severely disabled students for most or
all of the school day.
! Extended day or summer school programs to provide struggling students with
additional instructional time to achieve the standards.
! District alternative programs serve students who have difficulty learning in the
traditional classroom setting. These programs are most often administratively
and instructionally separate from the host school although they may be located
in the same building or may be reported as part of the school’s operating
budget.
25

4. Professional development: This element includes spending on the professional
development of a school’s staff which can include the costs of teacher time;
trainers and coaches; professional development administration; materials; travel
and transportation; and tuition and conference fees.
5. Other non-classroom instructional staff: These include licensed and non-licensed
instructional staffs such as technology coordinators, substitutes, curriculum
coordinators, and instructional aides other than those that work in a self-contained
special education classroom.
6. Instructional materials and equipment: This expenditure category includes books,
instructional supplies, materials, equipment, and computer hardware and software
used for all instructional programs inclusive of regular education as well as all
extra help programs.
7. Student support: This expenditure element is the final instructional element of the
overall structure. This category included support staff such as counselors, nurses,
social workers, psychologists, attendance monitors, liaisons, as well as any
expenditures for athletics and extra-curricular activities.
8. Administration: This category is the first non-instructional expenditure element.
Administration consists of all expenditures pertaining to the administration of a
school, including the principal, assistant principal(s), clerical staff, administrative
office supplies, equipment and technology, and school reserve funds.
9. Operations and maintenance: This second non-instructional expenditure includes
the cost of staff, supplies, equipment for custodial services, food services, and
26

security, as well as utilities and charges to the school related to the maintenance
of buildings and grounds.
Odden et al. (2003) conducted a study that utilized this expenditure model in two
elementary schools and two secondary schools with varying instructional programs,
budgets, and student populations. This study provided the researchers with a thorough
understanding of how resources were allocated at the school site level for both
instructional and non-instructional purposes. In reviewing traditional schools as well as
ones that have undergone substantial reform, there are glaring differences in staffing as
well as other resource allocations. The researchers also found that the information
gathered from this study was significant in evaluating whether or not funds are being
appropriately allocated at the school site to support reform efforts.
Brinson and Mellor (2005) used the school level expenditure structure created by
Odden et al. (2003) to study ten elementary schools in Texas. The researchers found that
the case studies support the use of the school level expenditure structure as a tool to
determine patterns in resource allocations and instructional strategies. Brinson and Mellor
(2005) listed some of the patterns found at the ten elementary schools as having a
positive impact on student achievement: 1) team teaching, 2) more time spent on
instruction, 3) expenditures spent on tutoring, 4) more experienced teachers, and 5)
higher levels of teacher compensation and performance incentives.
Hartman, Bolton, and Monk (2001) identify two approaches in reporting
expenditures at the school site level. The first system is the accounting approach, which
focuses on an extension of the typical district reporting of revenues and expenditures at
27

the school site. This approach deals primarily with numerical function codes rather than
on student or staff data (Hartman, et al, 2001). The second system is the resource cost
model (RCM), which is based on the measurement of physical resources employed in an
activity and transforming them into appropriate costs (Hartman, et al., 2001). There are
four components necessary for implementation of the resource cost approach:
1. Specify the types of individual ingredients that will be required along with the
structure of the service delivery system (teachers, books, etc…).
2. Quantify the resources.
3. Assign prices to each ingredient.
4. Apply price data to aggregate resources across the program to determine the
overall cost.
The RCM approach would require data to be obtained that would concentrate on staff
time. The total cost of a delivery system would need to take into account, for example,
cost of teachers, materials, facilities, and any other component that makes up the program
(Hartman, et al., 2001). McEwan and McEwan (2003) discuss the importance of
answering the question “is it worthwhile?” when looking at the implementation and
effectiveness of any program, policy or intervention. They define the cost of an
intervention, for example, as the value of all resources utilized in implementation. The
authors refer to this determination as the ingredients method (McEwan & McEwan,
2003) which relies on every “ingredient” necessary to provide an intervention or program
and assigning it a monetary value. Once that has been done, the questions of cost-
feasibility and cost-effectiveness should be addressed. Cost-feasibility corresponds to the
28

question of affordability. Can a school or district afford the proposed intervention or
program? Cost-effectiveness corresponds to the question of whether or not there is a less
costly means of accomplishing the same thing with similar results (McEwan & McEwan,
2003). These questions are ones that many districts are facing as they reflect on their
current practices and programs.
There is a benefit to combining the accounting approach with the RCM approach.
They would provide both personnel and financial resource information at the school site
level (Hartman, et al., 2001). They would also provide more beneficial and effective
application of data than if either approach was used independently. The combination of
the two approaches as well as student outcomes, would allow schools and districts to
identify high performing programs and any underlying causes for the results obtained
(Hartman, et al., 2001) which would hopefully lead to gains in student achievement. At
this time, most states continue to utilize the accounting approach exclusively when
reporting school site expenditures.
Equity v. Adequacy
NCLB requires states to develop educational standards for all students and holds
each state accountable for making progress towards set goals while being obliged to
provide the necessary funding (Taylor, et al., 2005). Adequate funding is defined as the
amount of funding necessary for schools to ensure that all students are able to achieve the
proficiency targets set by the state and NCLB (Odden, 2003; Baker,et al., 2008; Rebell,
2007). Hanushek (2006) argues that the widespread focus on adequacy studies stems
from ineffective court decisions. He also states that it is impossible to know exactly what
29

combinations of resources will lead to a student’s success and any attempt to quantify
those resources will give you incomplete information.
Educational adequacy studies have been focused on public education funding
systems for the past ten years (Baker, et al., 2008). A majority of these studies can be
grouped into two main categories, bottom-up analyses and top-down analyses. The cost
of building a model school that would provide an adequate education is the primary focus
of the bottom-up analyses while top-down analyses investigate existing schools and
attempt to determine what the cost of an adequate education would be taking into
consideration spending, performance, and other characteristics (Baker, et al., 2008).
Baker, et al. (2008) report that within the bottom-up analyses category, there are
two principle types of studies that are performed; Professional Judgment and Evidence-
Based. Professional Judgment studies involve getting input from educators and
policymakers to determine what resources would be necessary for providing an adequate
education for a series of sample schools. These studies rely on the experience of
practitioners. In Evidence-Based studies, school reform is the focus and outside
consultants are contacted to calculate the needs of a system based on effective strategies
found in research.
Top-down analyses also have two studies that are most commonly associated with
them; Successful Schools studies and Cost Function studies (Baker, et al., 2008).
Successful Schools studies look primarily at student data to identify schools that are
meeting or exceeding certain standards that indicate success. Researchers then determine
adequate funding by estimating the cost of the education provided at the successful
30

schools. Cost Function studies use a variety of characteristics to predict the cost of
achieving certain outcomes. The relationship of educational inputs and outputs is
observed and can be used to predict the cost of achieving the outcomes as well as being
able to account for differences between district/school size and student characteristics
(Baker, et al, 2008).
Successful schools approach. The Successful Schools approach is one of the
most widely utilized methods to calculate the cost of an adequate education (Hanushek &
Lindseth, 2009). This approach begins by identifying schools or districts that are meeting
or exceeding educational standards and goals. This is determined by primarily focusing
on student achievement regardless of student background, pulling out funding for special
programs and attempting to determine a base cost for the average school that would yield
similar results of high performance. Many states have implemented the Successful
Schools approach including Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, and Ohio (Loeb,
2007). However, for this system to be successfully implemented in other districts and
states, researchers and analysts must account for differences across schools and districts.
Differences in student populations must be identified and adjustments need to be made by
researchers (Loeb, 2007).
Getting Down to Facts (2007) was an investigation into how California funds
public education. The purpose of this study was to describe California’s school finance
and governance system, identify the aspects that hinder the use of resources effectively,
and to estimate the cost of an adequate education for students to reach designated
performance goals (Loeb, et al., 2007). The researchers analyzed schools that were
31

succeeding in outperforming expected student performance results and determined that,
in many cases, although the schools had similar resources, they had very different student
outcomes within these identified schools. One downfall of the Successful Schools
approach is that there is no reason to expect that providing schools with additional dollars
will result in substantial increases in student achievement (Loeb, et al, 2007). Odden
(2003) reports that in large, urban districts, it is difficult to relate the financial needs in
their district to those in small, rural school districts.
Another weakness of this approach is that when selecting the highest-performing
schools as defined by test scores, these schools are very often predominantly composed
of white, middle-class students (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). Many of the nonschool
related factors such as poverty, family background, and previous school experiences that
affect student performance are missing from the calculation of a base cost for an
education in these schools. Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) report that base costs have to
be adjusted to include the requirements of students with special needs and at-risk
children. The authors state that it is not impossible to calculate for these differences,
however no one really knows what the proper calculations and adjustments should be.
Adjustments aside, Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) also state that when looking at
performance goals, many researchers are referring to the goals established under NCLB.
However, no district has yet to meet the NCLB standards and this can seriously
compromise the ability to apply this approach when attempting to determine educational
adequacy and provides no real guidance for policymakers at this time.
32

The cost function approach. Loeb (2007) and Rebell (2007) describe the Cost
Function approach as utilizing data regarding student achievement and district spending
to determine costs for reaching standards. The data needed for this approach are
immense, including per-pupil expenditures, student performance, and characteristics of
school districts in order to determine the relationship between resources and educational
outputs. The Cost Function approach, in its most popular form, uses statistical methods
for predicting optimum spending solutions (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009).
As part of the Getting Down to Facts project in California, Imazeki (2007)
utilized the Cost Function approach to study district level spending in California. The
study took place based on the general fund for the 2004-2005 school year as well as
incorporating data collected regarding student demographics, student enrollment, and
student performance. Imazeki (2007) concluded through the analysis of the data that
California will need approximately an additional $1.7 billion dollars to achieve NCLB
goals as demonstrated through the state API goals. Imazeki also concluded that the
schools in California with the most at-risk students are currently under-funded by the
current finance system that is in place.
Many criticize the Cost Function approach as being too technically complex and
there are few indicators that prove that this approach can be the primary form of
calculations for any district (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). This criticism stems from the
realization that the cost of education varies from state to state, district to district, and
school to school. Students are not the same in every situation, so the question arises of
how researchers can calculate the cost of an adequate education. Odden (2003) found that
33

this approach can provide district-level analysis more readily and effectively than school-
level analysis.
Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) found that some consultants are applying a slightly
different analysis to the Cost Function approach. These researchers claim to have found
that in place of determining how much student achievement would improve if a school
was given extra money, they propose to look at how much spending would increase if
student achievement went up by five points (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). Although both
aspects sound similar, the mathematical reasons behind each vary and cause the outcomes
to be almost unusable due to the substantial differences. The vast amounts of money
required to get a change in student achievement according to this approach is seen as
ridiculous and out of the question. The authors’ ultimate criticism of this approach is that
it takes advantage of the relationship between spending and student achievement when in
reality it does nothing more than report out the pattern of spending in a state.
The professional judgment approach. According to Hanushek and Lindseth
(2009), the Professional Judgment approach is the most widely applied in educational
finance. This approach relies on a chosen panel of educators to develop an educational
program that would produce certain desired student performance outcomes. There is
generally no requirement of these educators to be mindful of cost when making their
decisions and recommendations, which, can lead to a “shopping spree” of ideas and
resources (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009).
One study conducted that used the Professional Judgment approach utilized
teachers, principals, and district superintendents and asked them to answer some key
34

questions regarding the determination of adequate resources for education (Sonstelie,
2007). The participants were presented with a hypothetical school, then asked to select
the quantities of resources they felt would maximize student achievement, and had to
predict proficiency and achievement for the school. The result of the study was that the
elementary educators would spend current resources on increasing the number of teachers
to reduce class sizes, provide extra administrator support, tripling the number of support
staff, and increasing the instructional day (Sonstelie, 2007). One of the predictions made
was that poverty has a negative effect on student achievement and that if a school has
only students of poverty, their predicted API would only be 698. To balance their
findings, it was recommended that a per-pupil funding average that is based on regional
salary costs and percentage of students living in poverty would account for the difference
in cost variations (Sonstelie, 2007).
Sonstelie (2007) presents some conclusions regarding the use of the Professional
Judgment approach to determine the relationship between resources and student
achievement. First, there are a multitude of factors outside of resources that affect student
achievement and many of these factors are outside of the control of the school and
district. Second, the recommendations of the committee were based on hypothetical
schools being given more resources than are most likely feasible. Finally, Sonstelie
(2007) warns that the committee members might have underestimated what students are
able to achieve when making their predictions.
Another study with similar results that was conducted using the Professional
Judgment approach focused on answering the question of what the cost would be to
35

provide all California students with the same access to the state standards and
opportunities to achieve proficiency as set by the state (Chambers, et al., 2007). Similar
to other studies utilizing this approach, a panel of highly qualified educators were
selected and asked to design instructional programs that would result in improved student
achievement across the state. One conclusion that the panel came to was that more
resources are necessary to assist schools in meeting state standards including a reduction
in class size, providing high-quality professional development for teachers, as well as
adding specialists to work with small groups of students (Chambers, et al., 2007). The
panel did acknowledge that the number of personnel will not necessarily increase student
achievement, but the ways in which they are utilized will need to be evaluated.
Chambers, et al. (2007) state that in order to provide an adequate education, the state of
California must increase current expenditures by 50%.
The evidence-based approach. The Evidence-based approach is the final
adequacy model that will be reviewed in this chapter and is the model that will be utilized
throughout the study. The Evidence-based approach identifies a set of school-level
components that are essential to delivering a high quality education program (Odden,
2003; Odden, et al., 2006). This approach has been reported to more directly identify
successful programs and strategies that affect student achievement than other adequacy
models (Odden, 2003). Odden and Picus (2008) also state that the Evidence-based
approach can help guide districts and schools in determining the effective use of
resources by placing a price on each component necessary for a high-quality instructional
program and aggregating those into a total cost. Rebell (2007) and Odden and Picus
36

(2008) describe this approach as using empirical research from randomized experimental
studies as well as studies with other statistically sound controls and best practices
research.
The Evidence-based approach has been proposed for use in multiple states and
implemented in Wyoming and Arkansas (Odden, et al., 2007) as an adequacy model to
assist in determining school-level funding. This approach identifies the core educational
staffing and other resources needed at the model school that would deliver a high-quality
educational program to assist students in meeting state standards and proficiency levels.
The use of the Evidence-based approach by researchers to create model schools and
programs utilizing Odden and Archibald’s (2009) findings of the ten strategies to double
student performance: 1) understand the performance problem and challenge, 2) set
ambitious goals, 3) change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision,
4) utilize formative assessments and data-based decision making, 5) provide ongoing
intensive professional development, 6) use time efficiently and effectively, 7) extend
learning time for struggling students, 8) create a collaborative, professional culture, 9)
foster widespread and distributed instructional leadership, and 10) utilize professional
and best practices.
Adequacy studies that utilize this approach in different states create “prototypical”
elementary, middle, and high schools that identify staffing and resource needs necessary
to provide a high-quality education results in improving student achievement (Odden &
Picus, 2008). Figure 2.1 is an example of the resources needed by the Evidence-based
approach to elicit high levels of student achievement.
37

Figure 2.1: Evidence Based Model for Resource Allocation

Modified from Picus, L.O., Odden, A., Aportela, A., Mangan, M.T., and Goetz, M. (2008).
Figure 2.1 shows that funding a model school would require smaller sizes in core
academic classes, more teacher specialists, a stronger and more supportive focus on
struggling students including the use of tutors and extended learning opportunities, as
well as providing access to technology and instructional materials. Instructional
improvement is supported by providing ten extra duty days for teachers to attend
professional development and includes the provision of instructional coaches to support
the strategies and programs provided through professional development. The
Inst ruct ional
Materials
Pupil Support :
Parent/Com munity
Out reach/
Involvement
Gift ed
Tutors and pupil support :
1 per 100 at risk
Elem
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
St at e and CESAs
Dist rict Admin
Sit e-based Leadership
Teacher
Compensation
ELL
1 per
100
Tec hnology
38

recommendation for the size of core classes is 15:1 in grades K-3 and 25:1 in grades 4-12
is one of the most expensive decisions for districts to make (Odden & Picus, 2008)
although Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) question the effectiveness of smaller class sizes
on student achievement.
Recently, Wyoming adopted the Evidence-based approach as the basis for
educational funding for its schools. Utilizing the formula presented (see Table 2.3) in the
approach, the schools in Wyoming received adequate funding that enabled them to
implement the recommended strategies and resources. Picus, et al. (2008) reported that
the Wyoming legislature requested a report as to how schools were using the funds
provided to them. The authors conducted another study in Wyoming approximately one
year following the adoption of the Evidence-based approach and found that schools were,
in fact, using the resources in very different ways than originally recommended. School
officials were spending their resources in the same ways they had done in the past. They
specifically found that there were fewer core teachers and certified tutors, while the
number of instructional aides had increased (Picus, et al., 2008). While these results were
not what the state of Wyoming or the authors had hoped for, one must caution that this
followed only one year of implementation.

39

Table 2.3: Recommendations for Adequate Resources for a Prototypical Elementary
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 Secretary and 1.0 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 for every 100 EL students
Extended Day 1.8 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning 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 1.0 FTE 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
Modified from Odden & Picus (2008).
40

The Evidence-based approach is not without criticism. Hanushek and Lindseth
(2009) feel that this approach does not show the effect of the components proposed by
the consultants yet is easy to calculate a recommended cost. The authors also state that
the consultants are repackaging current programs and suggesting them based on bias. A
final criticism is that the research used by consultants is based solely on what they want
to see. Hanushek and Linseth (2009) claim that the Evidence-based approach does not
consider all research and many of the studies used do not necessarily apply to particular
states and do not provide enough evidence to suggest that certain programs and strategies
will apply to all students.
Baker (2005) states that there will never be a specific category or approach to
determine adequacy in educational funding that will apply to every school and district in
every state. States still retain control over determining proficiency and curriculur
standards under NCLB. Odden and Picus (2008) state that it is not only important to
consider what resources are being used, but to closely evaluate how schools are utilizing
those resources.
Effective Practices for Improving Student Performance
Improving student performance at the school level is easier said than done. It
involves the implementation of multiple research-based strategies utilizing a systematic
approach (Duke, 2006). In the previous section of this chapter, Odden and Archibald’s
(2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance was mentioned as a key part of
the Evidence-based approach to school finance. Odden and Archibald provide
researchers, districts, and schools with a framework to assist in the monumental task of
41

improving student performance. The following is a brief description of each step
involved in the framework as provided by Odden and Archibald (2009):
1. Understanding the performance problem and challenge: The staff needs to engage
in a variety of activities (curriculum mapping, analyzing student data, etc…) to
fully understand the problem and to determine how far away a school is from their
desired outcomes.
2. Set ambitious goals: Administrators and teachers set high and ambitious goals
regardless of student demographics or current performance levels. All
stakeholders should have a core belief that students can learn and be held
accountable to high levels of achievement.
3. Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision: this step
provides schools the opportunity to exert control over the curriculum and
instructional program to produce high levels of student performance. This step
can include the assignment of teachers, academic expectations, as well as the
organization of curriculum and instruction. Schools only address those areas over
which they can control.
4. Formative assessments and data-based decision making: This involves the
implementation of more formative assessments to provide concrete information
on what students know and don’t know. Teachers can use the information gleaned
from the assessments to guide their instruction to assist students in reaching the
goals and objectives for the curricular unit.
42

5. Ongoing, intensive professional development: This step involves the
implementation of widespread, systemic, and ongoing professional development.
A majority of districts and schools have found this to be a great need in the reform
process. There are three resources required for good professional development: 1)
pupil-free teacher days to receive training, 2) funds for trainers, and 3)
instructional facilitators or instructional coaches. Within this step is the inclusion
of during the day collaboration among teachers regarding the instructional
program.
6. Using time efficiently and effectively: Unfortunately, the instructional time during
the day is a fixed resource, however, schools can utilize this time more efficiently
and effectively by setting aside a large amount of time for reading instruction,
limiting disruptions during reading and math instruction by “protecting” them
from interruptions, and grouping students according to instructional level by
assessing them regularly to ensure proper placement.
7. Extending learning time for struggling students: School staff provides multiple
opportunities for students to accomplish goals. By providing students with extra
help during the school day, outside of the regular day, and outside of the regular
school year, students are given the chance to meet their goals.
8. Collaborative, professional culture: This step has also been referred to as
“professional learning communities” and is a result of the prior steps and not
something created in isolation. The professional learning community is one in
which teachers share high expectations for students, examine assessment data, and
43

discuss ideas about instruction. Instructional practices are not individualized, but
shared by the team.
9. Widespread and distributed instructional leadership: This is the belief that the
instructional leadership at a school is provided by more than the principal, but is
shared by teachers and central office staff at the district as well. At the school site,
principals are often unable to provide all the instructional leadership, create and
implement professional development, work with teachers on analyzing data, and
provide classroom coaching. Thus, this step includes many more people both at
the school site and at the district level to step up and provide leadership.
10. Professional and best practices: The final step is to ensure that schools are
professional organizations that actively seek out research on how to improve
schools as well as looking at best practices of other schools and districts. Schools
that are successful in improving student performance do not do so in isolation, but
seek assistance in their endeavors.
The ten strategies described in this section served as the framework for the study.
Odden and Archibald (2009) found that the schools that have implemented these
strategies have been successful in producing impressive improvements in student
achievement and in reducing achievement gaps among various groups of students. Other
studies have been conducted utilizing similar steps and have produced strong results as
well (Chenoweth, 2007; Grubb, 2007; Duke, 2006).
Instructional leadership. In order for school reform to move forward in any
organization, Fullan (2005) recommends that fundamental change requires an effective
44

leader at the forefront. He states that it is the responsibility of the leader to build learning
communities and move a school forward. DuFour, et al. (2006) express that principals
foster professional learning communities and are also responsible for cultivating their
school’s culture. Teachers require tools to monitor student learning as well as time to
collaborate with their colleagues regarding student data and instruction so it becomes the
principal’s responsibility to ensure that teachers have what they need to meet students’
needs.
Today’s school principal is vastly different than principals in the past. No longer
are they strictly managers, but they must find the balance between managing and leading.
Principals are required to hold the school’s vision, provide instructional leadership, and
maintain the day-to-day management that is necessary in running a school. Peter
Northouse (2007) wrote about transformational leadership as it pertains to a leader’s
style. A transformational leader is one who creates connections with others. This type of
leader is also a motivator and has high morals and ethics and is one that is essential to
leading a school in their reform efforts. Within the transformational leader category are
some factors: idealized influence (attributes and behaviors), inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. The first factor, idealized
influence, consists of the leader acting as a role model to those that follow. The second
factor is inspirational motivation. This leader has high expectations and motivates people
to meet those expectations. The third factor, intellectual stimulation, states that the leader
allows and encourages the followers to be creative and innovative. Finally, the fourth
factor is individualized consideration. This factor represents the leader who listens
45

carefully and is in tune with the needs of the followers (Northouse, 2007). These needs
can be the basis for the implementation of Odden and Archibald’s (2009) ten strategies.
When determining resource allocation at the school site level, Carter (2001)
describes the need for principals to implement effective spending practices. The majority
of spending should be focused on instruction which includes strategies to further assist
struggling students through accessibility of the curriculum as well as additional help
(Carter, 2001). Carter also states that an additional focus of spending should be on
supporting teachers through effective and on-going professional development.
Professional development. The past thirty years have changed the design,
application, importance, and emphasis on professional development with the recent
education reform movements (Elmore, 2002). He also states that researchers have begun
to examine the effect of professional development on teachers’ instructional practices as
they pertain to student achievement. In 1983, A Nation at Risk was commissioned to
investigate why students were not achieving grade level competencies as evidenced by
standardized test scores. Accountability and standards-based reforms became a priority in
education due to the implementation of NCLB. The quality and effectiveness of teachers
and their impact on student achievement became a focus of new school reforms (Furman
& Elmore, 2004).
NCLB requires explicit performance standards, assessments that are aligned with
state standards, and sanctions for not meeting growth targets. Expectations for teachers
changed significantly with the standards-based reform and NCLB. Effective
implementation of standards-based instruction depends on the effectiveness of the
46

teachers (Smith & Desimone, 2003). Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1999) state
that what teachers know is directly correlated to how well students learn. Birman, et al.
(2000) claim that the most effective way of raising the academic achievement of students
is through improved teaching. They refer to three core features of professional
development that raise the effectiveness of what teachers are being exposed to; content
focus, active learning, and coherence. There needs to be a direct connection between
what students are expected to learn and professional development for teachers in order
for students to experience success (Corcoran, 1995; Desimone, et al., 2002).
Past professional development practices have been ineffective in their relevance
to improving student achievement (Corcoran, 1995: Desimone, et al., 2002). Previously,
workshops and conferences have been the primary method of professional development
and lacked the follow-up and feedback necessary for true transformation (King &
Newman, 2000). NCLB recognizes the value of professional development in this age of
accountability and the importance of improving student achievement through school
reform efforts. In order to experience large-scale improvements, professional
development must include the mobilization of knowledge, skill, incentives, and capacities
(Elmore, 2002). Elmore also states that mastery must occur in the following domains;
student knowledge and skill, educator knowledge and skill, incentives, and resources and
capacity. He concludes by identifying that organizations must develop capacity in those
who can support professional development.
Garet, et al. (2001) identify six key features that can be used to evaluate the
effectiveness of professional development. The first three features are structural that
47

comprise the design of the professional development activities; form, duration, and
degree of participation. The next three features that relate to the substance of the
experience; content focus, active learning, and promotion of coherence. The authors
found that the reform type of professional development activities were the most effective
due to their duration, focus on content, ability to promote coherence, and provide active
learning opportunities. Participating collectively as a school site, grade level, or
department allowed teachers to collaborate and discuss concepts and obstacles of the
instructional practices they were learning. This also allowed them to have a support
system when back at the school site. The focus on content allowed teachers to increase
their knowledge and skill of the subject matter and increased the level of coherence of the
professional development.
Quality professional development programs require a substantial amount of
resources yet the return on the investment can be profound (Densimone, et al., 2002).
Many school districts are currently allocating much of their resources to on-going
professional development through the requirements of NCLB. The differences in the
selection and implementation of professional development vary from district to district.
Regardless, every student has the right to the highest quality teacher who implements the
most effect instructional strategies and professional growth must be at the forefront of
any reform movement (Darling-Hammond, 1996, Marzano, et al., 2001).
Conclusion
The literature regarding school finance and resource allocation is vast and varied.
For the purposes of this study, this literature review focused on school finance in the
48

California context, identifying the historical patterns of resource use, determining the
meaning of adequately funding schools and the methods used to report school level
expenditures, and reviewed the effective strategies for improving schools and student
achievement.
The purpose of this study was to identify how six schools within two districts are
allocating their resources to improve student achievement as well as to determine if their
plans are aligned with research-based best practices. The Evidence-based adequacy
model as well as Odden and Archibald’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance was used as the framework to help in making these determinations. The
Evidence-based adequacy model utilized the ten strategies in addition to providing an
expenditure structure to report school site resource allocations and their alignment with
school plans for improvement and reform. The following chapter will outline the
methodology used in this study.

49

CHAPTER 3 - METHODS
This study has important policy implications at the school and district levels to
improve student learning. By focusing on schools within two separate districts, one very
centralized with its resources, and the other less centralized, a comparison was made
between the two in regards to the effects of resource allocations on student achievement.
It also provided new knowledge to policy makers and practitioners regarding how to
more effectively allocate resources to districts and schools to assist them in meeting the
needs of their struggling students.
This study also investigated how schools that are making growth in student
achievement are utilizing their resources to support their instructional program. Using the
Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as well as Odden and Archibald’s (2009)
Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance as a framework, this study determined
whether research-based best practices were being supported through school site
resources. Some schools effectively met the needs of their at-risk student population
while others continue to struggle with a similar student population. The current literature
available on utilizing research-based strategies is extensive and much of it is based on
best practices. However, the literature on adequate funding and equitable resource
allocation was limited.
The Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) took into account a diverse
student population and provides a comprehensive resource allocation framework for
schools and districts. This model was used to help analyze and compare how the six
selected schools align to the suggested resource allocations as they pertain to student
50

achievement. Providing additional information regarding student achievement for each
school site was Odden & Archibald’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance that was incorporated into the interviews of each principal. The ten
strategies were:
! Understanding the performance problem and challenge
! Set ambitious goals
! Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision
! Formative assessments and data-based decision making
! Ongoing, intensive professional development
! Using time efficiently and effectively
! Extending learning time for struggling students
! Collaborative, professional culture
! Widespread and distributed instructional leadership
! Professional and best practices
Research Questions
The following four research questions addressed the purpose of this study:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?
2. How are resources at the school and district levels used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?
51

3. 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?
4. 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?
Purposeful Sample and Population
This study used a purposeful sample of six elementary schools with varying API
scores. These six schools were selected according to their percentage of students
participating in the free and reduced lunch program as well as the percentage of Hispanic
students attending the school as reported by the California Department of Education. This
study focused on the range of successes that each school had been experiencing with the
limited resources they had been given. The current financial crisis that is facing
California played an important role in resource allocation within the two school districts,
which therefore, had a significant impact on each school site. All six schools served
students in grades kindergarten through sixth in the public sector of education and
received school-wide Title 1 funds for their students.
Identifying Schools
Schools were identified using the California Department of Education’s
Standardized Testing and Reporting website. Among the six schools to be studied, a
demographic criterion was used in the selection process; must have a minimum of 60%
participation in the free and reduced lunch program as well as serve a minimum of 60%
52

Hispanic students population (see Table 3.1). Students participating in the free and
reduced lunch program were also counted within the Socio-Economically Disadvantaged
(SED) subgroup for AYPs.
Table 3.1: School Selection Criteria
School
District
2006
API
2007
API
2008
API
2009
API
%
Free/Reduced
%
Hispanic
River
#1
738 746 767 780 78% 82%
Creek
#1
726 734 745 773 85% 60%
Ocean
#1
753 733 770 792 76% 60%
Island
#2
694 741 730 747 79% 91%
Valley
#2
712 750 773 813 68% 82%
Hills
#2
712 757 766 776 88% 79%
Source: California Department of Education (2010).
The six schools were at varying levels of meeting the AYP benchmarks with two
of the schools in Program Improvement year three (PI3) for failing to meet those targets
four years in a row (see Table 3.2). The six schools experienced different levels of
growth towards their API targets each year. Two different school districts were selected
due to their similarities in student population however this study focused on their
similarities and differences in areas such as; resource allocation, professional
development, research-based strategy implementation, and their effects on student
achievement.

53

Table 3.2: Schools meeting/not meeting AYP Benchmarks
School 2007/2008 AYP 2008/2009 AYP 2009/2010 AYP
Subgroup ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math
River Elementary*
No Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Hispanic
Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
SED
No Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Creek Elementary
No Yes YMA
a
YMA
a
Yes Yes
Hispanic
No Yes Yes Yes No Yes
SED
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (SH)
b
Yes
Ocean Elementary
No Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Hispanic
No Yes Yes Yes No Yes
SED
No Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Island Elementary
Yes Yes No Yes No No
Hispanic
Yes Yes No Yes No No
SED
Yes Yes No Yes No No
Valley Elementary
Yes No No Yes Yes (SH)
b
Yes
Hispanic
Yes No Yes Yes Yes (SH)
b
Yes
SED
Yes Yes No Yes Yes (SH)
b
Yes
Hills Elementary*
Yes Yes No Yes No No
Hispanic
Yes Yes No Yes No No
SED
Yes No Yes No Yes (SH)
b
Yes
Source: California Department of Education (2010).
Note: One asterisk is used for schools in Program Improvement.
a
YMA is the abbreviation for “Yes Met on Appeal”.
b
SH is the abbreviation for “Safe Harbor”.

Instrumentation and Data Collection
This study was one of twelve similar studies done through the thematic
dissertation process at the University of Southern California. The twelve researchers who
were participating in this thematic study were a part of an eight-hour data collection
training session provided by Dr. Lawrence O. Picus during the month of March 2010.
The training included the introduction of data collection protocols and codebooks that
were developed by Lawrence O. Picus and Associates were distributed to assist the
researchers with inputting data into an online database. The training also informed
54

researchers about collection instruments, pre-interview data collection and actual
interviews, as well as how to interpret and analyze the collected data.
Each researcher was responsible for contacting the necessary school district
personnel and school site principals of the schools that were chosen according to the
determined criterion. Initial contact was made with district personnel to gain approval to
contact school sites within their district. Contact with site principals was made to obtain
consent to participate in the study, notify them of the upcoming process and to schedule
an appointment to conduct an interview. The principals were also notified of documents
needed prior to the in-person interview: 1) Single School Plan for Student Achievement,
2) Master Schedule, 3) Staff Roster, and 4) School Budget. Each of these documents will
assist in providing a well-rounded picture of the school that is being studied. For
example, the Single School Plan for Student Achievement provided an insight into the
school’s instructional improvement plan for the upcoming school year while the staff
roster allowed the researcher to see how resources are allocated for personnel and
compare it to the Odden & Picus (2008) Evidence-Based Model.
School site visits consisted of one-on-one interviews with the principal and any
other school site personnel that the principal felt was appropriate. The interview protocol
given at the March 2010 training was used to gain insight into how resources are being
allocated along with finding evidence of Odden & Archilbald’s (2009) Ten Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance. During the interview, data was collected and analyzed at
a later time. Utilizing the framework of the Evidence-Based Model, a comparison was
made between actual resources at each school site and the recommended resources to
55

improve student achievement. The four research questions were addressed during the
principal interviews. All data gathered was input into the online database created by
Lawrence O. Picus and Associates. A case study was generated for each school site that
included a description of the district and school site, test scores for the school, a
comparison of resource allocation at the district and site levels to the Evidence-Based
Model, instructional improvement information, and recommendations. The case studies
were also uploaded into the online database.
Data Analysis
Data was analyzed immediately following each principal interview. Information
gathered from the school site visits were applied to an individual case study that
thoroughly described the school and its corresponding district. An additional interview
with a principal was requested if it was determined that any information was missing or
needed further clarification.
Instructional strategies that were being implemented at each school to meet the
needs of their at-risk students were compared to Odden & Archibald’s (2009) Ten
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance to determine if the applied strategies were
indeed contributing to improved student achievement. Given the state of the financial
situation that districts and schools are facing, a comparison was made not only of current
school site use of resources, but also of district resource allocation. At a time when
money is scarce and resources are becoming more and more limited, the Evidence-Based
Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) may pose some difficulties for California school districts
in the area of resource allocation. So the question arose as to how districts will meet the
56

needs of their struggling learners with significantly less resources and how this affects the
school site.
Summary
This chapter described the methodology that will be utilized to conduct this study
and assist in answering the four research questions. Information provided described the
population and sample, how schools were identified, instrumentation and data collection
tools, and a data analysis protocol. The following chapter will address the findings from
the site visits and how those findings relate to the research questions.

57

CHAPTER 4 - FINDINGS
This study was conducted to examine resource allocation in schools and its effect
on student achievement as well as instructional strategies and their level of
implementation. This chapter presents findings obtained through case studies of six
sample schools in two separate school districts. Additional detailed information on each
school is provided in the case studies for each school in Appendix H-M. Four research
questions were used as a framework to review the findings and reveal: 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 and use of resources at the schools changed in response to the
recent budget adjustments, including overall funding reductions and changes in the use of
categorical funds, and 4) how the actual resource-use patterns at the school sites were
aligned with, or different from, the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based
Model (EBM).
All the analyzed schools were Title 1, non-charter public schools within two
Southern California urban school districts with similar student populations. Using the
California Department of Education website, three schools in each district were identified
using the Similar Schools Report. The Similar Schools Report includes 100 schools with
the most similar student demographics and characteristics. The six schools were at
varying levels of meeting the AYP benchmarks with two of the schools in Program
Improvement year three (PI3) for failing to meet those targets four years in a row. The six
58

schools were also experiencing different levels of growth towards their API targets. The
following section shows a comparison of the schools’ profile.
Summary of Sample Schools’ Characteristics and Performance
The six sample elementary schools that were studied used the following criterion;
must have a minimum of 60% participation in the free and reduced lunch program as well
as serve a minimum of 50% Hispanic students. Three schools (River, Ocean, and Creek)
are a part of Waterfall USD with a district enrollment of approximately 47,000 students.
Valley, Hills, and Island are a part of the Angels SD with a district student enrollment of
approximately 19,000. School site enrollment at each of the schools varied from the
smallest school, Creek, with 478 students to the largest school, Valley with a total
enrollment of 910 students. Table 4.1 shows the characteristics of each sample school.
Table 4.1: Characteristics of Sample Schools
School District Grades Enrollment % Hispanic % English Learner % SED
River Waterfall K-6 736 82% 77% 78%
Ocean Waterfall K-6 602 60% 69% 85%
Creek Waterfall K-6 478 60% 61% 76%
Valley Angels K-6 910 82% 54% 79%
Hills Angels K-6 682 79% 44% 68%
Island Angels K-6 696 91% 68% 88%

The student demographics at each of the six schools are somewhat similar. Each
school had a significant number of Hispanic students with River, Island, and Valley
having the largest percentages at 82% and 91% respectively. Ocean and Creek
Elementary had a higher percentage of Asian students than the other four schools. In all
six schools, regardless of the district, the minority students comprise the majority of the
student population. Figure 4.1 shows the ethnic breakdown of the six sample schools.
59

Figure 4.1: Ethnic Breakdown of the Sample Schools

Each of the sample schools had a significant number of Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged (SED) students which is based on the number of free and reduced lunch
participants. The percentage of SED students at a school site determines the Title 1
funding for the school. The EBM is built around 50% SED students where none of the six
sample schools fall below sixty-two percent SED students and go as high as 88%. The
percentage of EL students at the six sample schools range from 44% to 69% in
comparison to the 10% EL students in the EBM. Figure 4.2 shows that River Elementary
and Island Elementary have the highest levels of both SED and EL students while Hills
Elementary has the lowest percentage of EL students and Ocean Elementary has the
lowest percentage of SED students. In comparison to the EBM prototype school, each of
the six sample schools have considerable more challenges facing them due to their
substantially higher numbers of students in the EL and SED groups.

!
"!
#!!
$%&'( )*'+, -(''. /+00'1 2%003 430+,5
)67'(89:06%;0'<$'3;=,3'
>3%+,
?7%6'
2%3;+,%*
60

Figure 4.2: Percentage of SED & EL Students at the Sample Schools

Achievement Data
API and similar schools rankings. All the sample schools demonstrated growth
in the API and AYP scores over a five year time span. The six schools demonstrated API
growth ranging from both Creek and Ocean Elementary gaining 53 points to the growth
at Valley Elementary of 116 points. According to the CST results from the 2009/2010
school year, Valley Elementary had the highest API of 813 points. Figure 4.3 shows the
API increase in the six sample schools. One important consideration to note when
examining the API growth of the two district is that the three schools (Island, Hills, and
Valley) within the Angels School District began their growth five years ago at a lower
point than the three schools in Waterfall USD (River, Ocean, and Creek). Keeping that in
mind, the Angels School District had a larger API growth over the past five years as
compared to Waterfall USD.

!
"!
#!!
$%&'( )*'+, -(''. /+00'1 2%003 430+,5 @A9
B*7==0
CD
EF
GH
GI
EC
CC
"!
EC EI
E"
"D
DD
EC
#!
B@J
@K
61

Figure 4.3: API Increase in Sample Schools from 2006 -2010

While all six of the sample schools showed growth over the five-year time span,
two of the schools experienced a decrease during a school year. Ocean saw a decrease in
their API scores from 2007 to 2008 of 20 points and Island’s API dropped from 2008 to
2009 by nine points. It should also be noted that while Creek showed progress over the
five years, this progress was very slow and affected not only their state-wide ranking but
their similar schools ranking as well. Similarly, Ocean although making API growth
overall, their rankings were also affected due to the fact that the schools they were being
compared to made more substantial growth. Figure 4.4 shows the annual API scores for
each sample school for the five-year time span.

707
739
720
697
665
654
780
792
773
813
776
747
630 680 730 780 830 880
River
Ocean
Creek
Valley
Hills
Island
2010
2006
62

Figure 4.:4 Annual API Scores for Each Sample School for 2006-2010

According to the California Department of Education’s similar school rankings,
the six sample schools fall between the third and eighth deciles as compared with 100
similar schools in the state. River Elementary, Valley Elementary, Island Elementary, and
Hills Elementary also showed positive growth from their 2005 similar schools ranking.
Island and River had similar growth patterns. Island Elementary grew from the third
decile to the seventh decile and River Elementary grew from the fourth decile to the
eighth decile. Ocean and Creek both demonstrated a drop in their similar schools ranking.
Ocean dropped from the eighth decile to the fourth and Creek dropped from the fourth to
the third decile.
The statewide rankings show where the six sample schools fell compared to all of
the schools in the state of California. Schools are listed by their API from highest to
lowest and then separate schools into ten decile groups. The two districts represented in
this sample have student demographics more challenging than many other public districts
!
#!!
F!!
H!!
D!!
"!!
E!!
G!!
C!!
I!!
$%&'( )*'+, -(''. /+00'1 2%003 430+,5
F!!E
F!!G
F!!C
F!!I
F!#!
63

in the state. Valley Elementary in the Angels schoold district is in highest in the sample
at the fifth decile when compared to all the schools in the state. Within the same district,
Island is one of the lowest schools at the third decile. Similarly, Creek Elementary in
Waterfall USD also landed in the third decile. Table 4.2 shows the growth of the six
sample schools from 2005 to 2009 in state-wide and similar schools rankings.
Table 4.2: Similar School & Statewide Ranking of the Sample Schools
River Ocean Creek Valley Hills Island
2005 2009 2005 2009 2005 2009 2005 2009 2005 2009 2005 2009
State-wide
Ranking
2 4 5 4 5 3 3 5 2 4 1 3
Similar
Schools
Ranking
4 8 8 5 4 3 5 8 2 4 3 7

Adequate yearly progress. NCLB requires schools to meet Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) targets which are based primarily on the California Standardized Tests
(CSTs). These data were analyzed to evaluate student achievement at each of the six
sample schools. The AYP targets for the 2009/2010 school year in the area of English
language arts were set at 56.8% of students scoring proficient or advanced and none of
the six sample schools made this target. Results from 2006 to 2010 revealed that all six
schools showed an increase in their schoolwide scores of students scoring proficient or
advanced. The increase ranged from 8% growth at Hills Elementary to a 16% growth at
River Elementary. Within the two school districts, Angels School District saw a range of
growth of 8% to 15% while Waterfall USD saw similar range of growth of 10% to 16%.
The two schools, River and Hills, that are currently in Year 4 PI saw a different growth of
their students schoolwide scoring proficient or advanced in English language arts. Hills
had an 8% increase while River had a 16% increase. For the 2010/2011 school year, the
64

AYP target for English language arts is set at 67.6% of students scoring proficient or
advanced. The six sample schools will have to meet the target or show sufficient growth
through Safe Harbor. In order to meet this target, the six schools will have to show a
range of growth of 11% at Valley Elementary to 30% at Island Elementary. Figure 4.5
shows the English language arts AYP of students schoolwide scoring proficient or
advanced on the CST.
Figure 4.5: ELA – Schoolwide Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

Results from 2006 to 2010 revealed that all six schools showed an increase in
their Hispanic students scoring proficient or advanced. The increase ranged from 12%
growth at Ocean Elementary to a 25% growth at Valley. Within the two school districts,
Angels School District saw a range of growth of 13% to 25% while Waterfall USD saw
smaller range of growth of 12% to 18%. The two schools, River and Hills, who are
currently in Year 4 PI saw similar growth of their Hispanic students in English language
arts. River had a 14% increase and Hills had a 16% increase. For the 2010/2011 school
!
#!
F!
H!
D!
"!
E!
F!!E F!!G F!!C F!!I F!#!
$%&'(
)*'+,
-(''.
/+00'1
2%003
430+,5
65

year, the AYP target for English language arts is set at 67.6% of students scoring
proficient or advanced. The six sample schools will have to meet the target or show
sufficient growth through Safe Harbor. In order to meet this target, the six schools will
have to show a range of growth of 15% at Valley Elementary to 31% at Ocean
Elementary. Figure 4.6 shows the English language arts AYP of Hispanic students
scoring proficient or advanced.
Figure 4.6: ELA – Percent of Hispanic Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

Results from 2006 to 2010 revealed that all six schools showed an increase in
their SED students scoring proficient or advanced. The increase ranged from 9% growth
at Ocean Elementary to a 20% growth at Valley. Within the two school districts, Angels
School District saw a range of growth of 12% to 20% while Waterfall USD saw smaller
range of growth of 9% to 13%. The two schools, River and Hills, who are currently in
Year 4 PI saw similar growth of their SED students in English language arts. River had a
13% increase and Hills had a 15% increase. For the 2010/2011 school year, the AYP
!
#!
F!
H!
D!
"!
E!
F!!E F!!G F!!C F!!I F!#!
$%&'(
)*'+,
-(''.
/+00'1
2%003
430+,5
66

target for English language arts is set at 67.6% of students scoring proficient or advanced.
The six sample schools will have to meet the target or show sufficient growth through
Safe Harbor. In order to meet this target, the six schools will have to show a range of
growth of 17% at Valley Elementary to 31% at Island Elementary. Figure 4.7 shows the
English language arts AYP of SED students scoring proficient or advanced.
Figure 4.7: ELA – Percent of SED Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

Results from 2006 to 2010 revealed that all six schools showed an increase in
their EL students scoring proficient or advanced. The increase ranged from 10% growth
at Ocean Elementary, despite a decrease in 2008, to a 26% growth at Valley. Within the
two school districts, Angels School District saw a range of growth of 11% to 26% while
Waterfall USD saw smaller range of growth of 10% to 13%. The two schools, River and
Hills, who are currently in Year 4 PI saw a slightly different growth of their EL students
in English language arts. River had a 19% increase and Hills had a 25% increase. For the
2010/2011 school year, the AYP target for English language arts is set at 67.6% of
!
#!
F!
H!
D!
"!
E!
F!!E F!!G F!!C F!!I F!#!
$%&'(
)*'+,
-(''.
/+00'1
2%003
430+,5
67

students scoring proficient or advanced. The six sample schools will have to meet the
target or show sufficient growth through Safe Harbor. In order to meet this target, the six
schools will have to show a range of growth of 15% at Valley Elementary to 33% at
Island Elementary. Figure 4.8 shows the English language arts AYP of EL students
scoring proficient or advanced.
Figure 4.8: ELA – Percent of EL Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

The AYP targets for math for the 2009/2010 school year were set at 58% of
students scoring proficient or advanced. The following three schools did not meet the
math AYP targets for their students schoolwide: 1)Valley Elementary at 56% in Angels
SD, 2) Hills Elementary at 47% in Angles SD, and 3) Island Elementary at 54% in
Angels SD. Results from 2006 to 2010 revealed that all six schools showed an increase in
their students schoolwied scoring proficient or advanced. The increase ranged from 8%
growth at Creek Elementary to a 25% growth at Valley Elementary. Within the two
school districts, Angels School District saw a range of growth of 20% to 25% while
!
#!
F!
H!
D!
"!
E!
F!!E F!!G F!!C F!!I F!#!
$%&'(
)*'+,
-(''.
/+00'1
2%003
430+,5
68

Waterfall USD saw range of growth of 8% to 16% with all three schools meeting the
AYP targets in math. The two schools, River and Hills, who are currently in Year 4 PI
saw a similar growth of their students schoolwide in math. River had an 15% increase
and Hills had a 18% increase. For the 2010/2011 school year, the AYP target for English
math is set at 68.5% of students scoring proficient or advanced. The six sample schools
will have to meet the target or show sufficient growth through Safe Harbor. In order to
meet this target, the six schools will have to show a range of growth of 2% at River and
Ocean Elementary to 22% at Hills Elementary. Figure 4.9 shows the math AYP of
students schoolwide scoring proficient or advanced.
Figure 4.9: Math – Schoolwide Percent Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

The following four schools did not meet the math AYP targets for their Hispanic
students: 1) Ocean Elementary at 57% in Waterfall USD, 2) Creek Elementary at 51% in
Waterfall USD, 3) Hills Elementary at 51% in Angels SD, and 4) Island Elementary at
52% in Angels SD. Results from 2006 to 2010 revealed that all six schools showed an
!
#!
F!
H!
D!
"!
E!
G!
C!
F!!E F!!G F!!C F!!I F!#!
$%&'(
)*'+,
-(''.
/+00'1
2%003
430+,5
69

increase in their Hispanic students scoring proficient or advanced. The increase ranged
from 5% growth at Creek Elementary to a 27% growth at Valley Elementary. Within the
two school districts, Angels School District saw a range of growth of 13% to 27% while
Waterfall USD saw range of growth of 5% to 22%. The two schools, River and Hills,
who are currently in Year 4 PI saw a similar growth of their Hispanic students in math.
For the 2010/2011 school year, the AYP target for math is set at 68.5% of students
scoring proficient or advanced. The six sample schools will have to meet the target or
show sufficient growth through Safe Harbor River had an 16% increase and Hills had a
13% increase. In order to meet this target, the six schools will have to show a range of
growth of 4% at River Elementary to 18% at Hills Elementary. Figure 4.10 shows the
math AYP of Hispanic students scoring proficient or advanced.
Figure 4.10: Math – Percent of Hispanic Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

The following two schools did not meet the math AYP targets of 58% proficient
and advanced for their SED students: 1) Hills Elementary at 51% in Angels SD and 2)
!
#!
F!
H!
D!
"!
E!
G!
F!!E F!!G F!!C F!!I F!#!
$%&'(
)*'+,
-(''.
/+00'1
2%003
430+,5
70

Island Elementary at 52% in Angels SD. Results from 2006 to 2010 revealed that all six
schools showed an increase in their SED students scoring proficient or advanced. The
increase ranged from 11% growth at Hills Elementary to a 25% growth at Valley
Elementary. Within the two school districts, Angels School District saw a range of
growth of 11% to 25% while Waterfall USD saw a smaller range of growth of 16% to
18%. The two schools, River and Hills, who are currently in Year 4 PI saw a slightly
different growth of their SED students in math. River had an 18% increase and Hills had
a 11% increase. For the 2010/2011 school year, the AYP target for math is set at 68.5%
of students scoring proficient or advanced. The six sample schools will have to meet the
target or show sufficient growth through Safe Harbor. In order to meet this target, the six
schools will have to show a range of growth of 3% at River Elementary to 18% at Hills
Elementary. Figure 4.11 shows the math AYP of SED students scoring proficient or
advanced.

71

Figure 4.11: Math – Percent of SED Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

The following two schools did not meet the math AYP targets of 58% proficient
and advanced for their EL students: 1) Hills Elementary at 53% in Angels SD and 2)
Island Elementary at 52% in Angels SD.Results from 2006 to 2010 revealed that all six
schools showed an increase in their EL students scoring proficient or advanced. The
increase ranged from 6% growth at Creek Elementary to a 29% growth at Valley
Elementary. Within the two school districts, Angels School District saw a range of
growth of 17% to 29% while Waterfall USD saw a range of growth of 6% to 18%. The
two schools, River and Hills, who are currently in Year 4 PI saw a similar growth of their
EL students in math. River had an 18% increase and Hills had a 20% increase. For the
2010/2011 school year, the AYP target for math is set at 67.6% of students scoring
proficient or advanced. The six sample schools will have to meet the target or show
sufficient growth through Safe Harbor. In order to meet this target, the six schools will
!
#!
F!
H!
D!
"!
E!
G!
F!!E F!!G F!!C F!!I F!#!
$%&'(
)*'+,
-(''.
/+00'1
2%003
430+,5
72

have to show a range of growth of 2% at Ocean Elementary to 17% at Island Elementary.
Figure 4.12 shows the math AYP of EL students scoring proficient or advanced.
Figure 4.12: Math – Percentage of EL Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Strategies
All six sample schools had a common vision to improve student academic
achievement. The schools are using a variety of strategies to achieve this goal. Utilizing
Odden and Archibald’s (2009) Ten Steps for Doubling Student Achievement, the schools
were analyzed for their level of implementation of each step. All schools employed the
strategies to some degree but the level of implementation at each site varied. The
following is a comparison of the six schools’ implementation of the strategies
recommended by Odden and Archibald (2009).
Understanding the performance problem and challenge. The recommendation by
Odden and Archibald (2009) is that the staff needs to engage in a variety of activities
(curriculum mapping, analyzing student data, etc…) to fully understand the problem and
!
#!
F!
H!
D!
"!
E!
G!
C!
F!!E F!!G F!!C F!!I F!#!
$%&'(
)*'+,
-(''.
/+00'1
2%003
430+,5
73

to determine how far away a school is from their desired outcomes. In a few cases of the
sample schools, this was a struggle for the staff. At all sites, the principal was the primary
one who understood the severity of the problems facing the school and in many cases,
attempted to share this urgency with their staffs. For example, the two schools facing
Year 4 PI status had very different outcomes regarding the understanding of the potential
problems. At River Elementary, the principal led the staff through a variety of activities
and means to aide them in their understanding of the urgency of their situation and was
able to relate to them the school’s vision and those teachers that did not hold that same
vision were able to transfer to other school sites with the support from the district office
and the teachers’ union. At Hills Elementary, although the principal attempted to share
the severity of their situation, he was unable to get much buy-in from the staff due to trust
issues and an unwillingness to believe that the staff was part of the problem.
In summary, within the two separate districts, the schools were not consistent with
understanding the performance problem and challenges they faced. In Waterfall USD,
River Elementary had the strongest understanding of the problems they were facing and
due to their PI status, had the support of the district to transfer teachers who were
unwilling to comply with the requirements of a PI school to other school sites within the
district. Even with these supports and sense of urgency, River only saw a 13 point API
increase from 2008 to 2009. At Ocean and Creek Elementary, the understanding was
weak due to those staff members who refused to believe that the problem had anything to
do with them yet Ocean had a 22 point API increase and Creek had a 28 point API
increase from 2008 to 2009. In Angels SD, there was a similar pattern of understanding at
74

the three schools. At Valley, the staff was eager and willing to make the necessary
changes to their current practices and understood the challenges facing them and
experienced a 30 point increase in their API from 2008 to 2009. At Hills, the staff had a
much different reaction and currently still struggles to understand the severity of their
situation and had the least growth of the six schools with 10 points in the past year. At
Island, while the staff was willing to look at different ways to improve student
achievement, it took much discussion and encouragement from the principal and led to a
17 point increase in their API from 2008 to 2009. These findings support Odden and
Archibald’s (2009) research on the importance of engaging in a variety of activities to
understand the problem and to determine how far they are from their desired performance
goals.
Set ambitious goals. Administrators and teachers should set high and ambitious goals
regardless of student demographics or current performance levels according to Odden
and Archibald (2009). All stakeholders should have a core belief that students can learn
and be held accountable to high levels of achievement. All sample schools regularly
analyze student data to assist them in setting ambitious goals for students, however within
each school, the level of data analysis for goal setting varies. The six schools use the
AYP benchmark targets set forth by NCLB to help them determine appropriate goals for
students.
In Waterfall USD, the district has established district-wide goals for every student
in grades 2-11. For example, students in second grade are expected to score proficient or
advanced on the CST. Students in grades three through sixth are expected to make at least
75

one proficiency band growth on the CST in both English Language Arts and Math each
year. These district goals are implemented at each of the three school sites and used for
student goal-setting conferences in the fall and teachers monitor student progress
throughout the year.
In Angels SD, the goal setting process is quite different. Each school site
determines student goals since there are no specific district goals for student
achievement. At Valley and Island Elementary, the staff has set ambitious achievement
goals for the students that include goal-setting conferences as well as progress
monitoring. At Hills Elementary, the principal attempted to set achievement goals for the
student that should have included goal-setting conferences, but the implementation was
not school-wide. Only a few of the teachers followed the protocol or expectations.
An area of concern that was discovered at three of the sample schools was that all
children should not be held to the same high academic expectations regardless of their
demographics or performance levels. At Ocean and Creek Elementary in Waterfall USD,
some of the staff members still held the belief that it was the students who were impeding
the schools’ ability to move forward and meet NCLB requirements. At Hills Elementary
in Angels SD, the staff also felt that they were not the problem, but it was the changing
demographics of the school that was keeping them in PI. Each principal stated that the
teachers who had been at their school site for more than 10 years mostly held these
beliefs and that the newer teachers were the ones who were trying to move forward with
high expectations.
76

In summary, the staffs at River, Valley, and Island firmly believe that all students
should be held accountable to the same expectations regardless of demographics or
performance levels. These beliefs have allowed the principals to help move their staffs
forward in improving student achievement at those school sites. The principals at Ocean,
Creek, and Hills continue to struggle to bring the staff along in holding the belief that all
students can achieve and that not only do their practices need to change, but also their
core beliefs.
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision. This
strategy should provide schools the opportunity to exert control over the curriculum and
instructional program to produce high levels of student performance. This step can
include the assignment of teachers, academic expectations, as well as the organization of
curriculum and instruction. Schools only address those areas over which they can control.
In each of the six schools, the core curriculum was a district-based decision and each
school site implemented the core programs given to them. Each program is state-
approved curriculum that attempts to address the California state standards.
In Waterfall USD, due to the recent budget constraints, they received a waiver to
continue their current math program however, the district curriculum TOSAs have spent
a substantial amount of time redesigning how the program is being utilized. The new
implementation of the delivery of the math program as well as the material being covered
is referred to as “Project G”. Teachers learned how to plan and present the math lessons
that had been selected by the TOSAs to meet standards, according to the DI model that
had been set forth. The components of the lesson plan include; 1) Problem of the Day, 2)
77

Orientation, 3) Teacher Presentation, 4) Structured Practice, 5) Guided Practice, 6) Group
Collaboration, 7) Presentation, and 8) Closure. However, the three schools within the
Angels SD recently adopted a new math program at the conclusion of the 2008/2009
school year with the expectation of full implementation for the 2009/2010 school year.
The California Department of Education sets forth an expectation for every public
elementary school receiving categorical funding to allocate a specific number of
instructional minutes for each academic area. All the schools were compliant in their
schedules to allow for the appropriate number of minutes. Both school districts have
created pacing guides to assist teachers in planning their lessons with the appropriate
pacing and time allotments. Each district also has testing benchmarks in place to help
ensure that the pacing is adhered to. In Waterfall USD, the math pacing includes a
suggested allotment of days for each lesson, identification of key standards, the
appropriate instructional strategy to accompany the concept, and the companion lesson in
the textbook to teach that standard. This allowed each elementary teacher within the
district to ensure that their students were ready for benchmark exams as well as the CST.
It also allowed the principal at each site to ensure that the appropriate instruction was
happening and to have conversations with teachers if it wasn’t happening. In Angels SD,
the curricular pacing was given to the teachers and the adherence to the pacing depended
on the leadership at the site. At Hills, the principal was less concerned with pacing and
more concerned with the teaching of the standards, while the principal at Valley held her
teachers accountable to both of those areas and has seen a 116 point API growth over the
past 5 years.
78

Formative assessments and data-based decision making. Odden and Archibald
(2009) recommend the implementation of more formative assessments to provide
concrete information on what students know and don’t know. Teachers should use the
information gleaned from the assessments to guide their instruction to assist students in
reaching the goals and objectives for the curricular unit. Both school districts in this study
provided online student data system warehouses for every school. In Waterfall USD, the
data system is Data Director, and in Angels SD, the data system is the SMART system.
Both districts also have benchmark assessments that are a part of the school
culture. All teachers are required to give district benchmark assessments throughout the
year. In Waterfall USD, the language arts benchmarks are administered four times per
year and the math benchmarks are given at the conclusion of each trimester. In addition
to the district benchmarks, teachers are also expected to give formative assessments in the
form of language arts Theme Skills Tests and math Unit tests. In Angels SD, all teachers
are expected to administer district benchmarks in math and language arts four times per
year. The delivery of formative assessments is up to each individual teacher.
The utilization of the data that was available to each teacher varied at each of the
six school sites. At most of the schools, the teachers continue to expand their use of data
to drive their instruction. All six schools utilized the available data to identify struggling
students for interventions, however it was primarily the principals at Ocean, Creek, and
Hills Elementary who gleaned this information and passed it along to their teachers.
Each principal at the six sample schools stated that initially, teachers were
reluctant to access the student data systems because they felt that it was an invasion of
79

privacy for others to see how their students were doing. Part of moving schools forward
was getting teachers to move beyond this belief and understand that the data would only
help to improve student achievement through monitoring their progress and eventually
bring teachers around to seeing the impact on their instruction as well. For five of the six
schools, this has been an area of focus for many years and the principals have seen
growth among their staff. Unfortunately, at Hills Elementary, the majority of the staff is
still refusing to utilize the data through the SMART system and feel that the information
is being used against them and most recently only saw a 10 point API gain last year.
Ongoing, intensive professional development. This step of the recommended 10
strategies (Odden & Archibald, 2009) involves the implementation of widespread,
systemic, and ongoing professional development. A majority of districts and schools have
found this to be a great need in the reform process. There are three resources required for
good professional development: 1) pupil-free teacher days to receive training, 2) funds
for trainers, and 3) instructional facilitators or instructional coaches. Within this step is
the inclusion of during the day collaboration among teachers regarding the instructional
program.
The implementation of this strategy varied within the two school districts. One of
the primary differences was the district-supported professional development that was
required in Waterfall USD in comparison to the site-supported professional development
in Angels SD. Both districts offer training opportunities throughout the school year given
by the district TOSAs. In Waterfall USD, it is referred to as the “Staff Development
Calendar” and in Angels SD, it is referred to as the “Smart Pages”. Teachers can sign up
80

in both situations for courses but, due to the financial situation both districts are facing,
the teachers no longer receive compensation outside of their stipend hours.
Waterfall USD also had district-mandated professional development opportunities
for teachers. For example, two district-wide focii in Waterfall USD for the 2009/2010
school year were the implementation of the math delivery model, “Project G” and the
Systematic English Language Development (SELD) for English learners. Training was
offered during the district’s “Super Week” before school began. Super Week was an
opportunity teachers had to attend various professional development trainings the week
before they were required to report back to the school site. If teachers chose to attend the
Super Week trainings, they were able to use the hours towards their 15 hours of stipend
pay each teacher was allowed. At the conclusion of the previous year, principals were
instructed to let teachers know that if they were unable to attend the Super Week offering
of Project G or SELD, they would be released during the school year to attend the
trainings.
At the three schools in Waterfall USD (River, Ocean & Creek) the professional
development was closely aligned. All three schools provided on-going support for Project
G and the SELD strategies throughout the school year. The district assigned TOSA at
each school, with the support of the principal, provided the opportunity for teachers to
take part in lesson studies where they had the opportunity to observe lessons being taught
in their colleague’s classroom and met for a de-brief and lesson planning session with the
TOSA. The level of implementation of the lesson studies varied at each school site. Each
school had a different number of teachers taking advantage of the opportunity. In
81

Waterfall USD, the expectation is also that every school will conduct Action Walks at
their school sites with their Leadership Team to evaluate the implementation of programs
and determine next steps. All three schools conducted the Action Walks and
independently decided to focus on the implementation of Project G at their sites.
While there were some similarities in professional development at the three
schools in Angels SD, there were also some notable differences. While the two schools,
Valley and Hills, had the same focus for their professional development, the principal at
Valley stated that she and the staff had decided on their focus and the principal at Hill
had determined the focus without input from the staff. Valley Elementary and Hills
Elementary both determined at their individual sites to focus on Direct Instruction for
professional development for the 2009/2010 school year. Valley and Hills also chose to
focus on the “TAPPLE” strategy for student engagement. The TOSAs presented the
“TAPPLE” technique: Teach, Ask Questions, Pause, Pick Non-Volunteers, Listen, and
Echo/Explain. This technique allowed teachers to interact with all students and not just
rely on those students that consistently know the answer. Both schools utilized their site
TOSAs to provide the trainings before the school year and throughout the year while also
support teachers in their classrooms through modeling and coaching opportunities.
Island Elementary was where differences were seen for professional development
within the schools in the Angels SD. Island decided to focus on Reciprocal Teaching
strategies to improve reading comprehension and the Mind Institute to help improve
student achievement in math. Similar to the other two schools within the district, Island
82

utilized the TOSAs to provide training and support to the teachers throughout the year in
both areas.
Using time efficiently and effectively. Unfortunately, the instructional time
during the day is a fixed resource, however, schools can utilize this time more efficiently
and effectively by setting aside a large amount of time for reading instruction, limiting
disruptions during reading and math instruction by “protecting” them from interruptions,
and grouping students according to instructional level by assessing them regularly to
ensure proper placement. All six schools have protected instructional blocks with
minimal interruptions during English language arts, math, and English Language
Development (ELD).
All six schools had an intense focus on the dedicated 30-minute instructional
block for ELD. California mandates that students receive 30 minutes of English
Language Development at their appropriate language level every day. In most cases, this
was not consistently occurring. For the 2009/2010 school year, all six sample schools
implemented the dedicated block of time school-wide.
The schools used a variety of methods to teach language arts. In Waterfall USD,
grade levels either grouped the students within the grade level into ability groups
(intensive, strategic, benchmark, or extended) and students were assigned to the teacher
teaching that level, or they were self-contained and provided support accordingly. Two of
the three schools were self-contained, while River grouped the students. In Angels SD, all
classrooms were self-contained and teachers differentiated accordingly. At Island
83

Elementary, additional TOSAs helped provide smaller class sizes for all grades for the
English language arts block of instruction.
Due to the financial crisis facing many districts, Angels SD was unable to
maintain the California’s Class Size Reduction (CSR) policy of 20 students per classroom
in grades K-3. At the three schools within the district, Kindergarten and third grade
classrooms increased to 30 students while first and second grades increased to 25
students per classroom. Waterfall USD was able to maintain one more year of CSR in
grades one through three. In all six schools, the number of students in grades four through
six are above 32 and as high as 36.
Extending learning time for struggling students. Odden and Archibald (2009)
state that for this strategy, school staff provides multiple opportunities for students to
accomplish goals. By providing students with extra help during the school day, outside of
the regular day, and outside of the regular school year, students are given the chance to
meet their goals. All six schools offered various forms of intervention for struggling
students. Some schools offered interventions both during the school day as well as
providing an extended day.
River Elementary in Waterfall USD, provided students with interventions based
on the three tiers of the Response to Intervention (RtI) model. Support offered to
struggling students was offered both during the school day and after school. During the
school day, a Part-Time Categorical Teacher (PTCT) pulled groups of 6-8 students from
grade K-3 for 30 minutes and focused on reading fluency. Another PTCT pulled 6-8
students from grade 4 for 30 minutes and was able to focus on phonics and reading
84

comprehension utilizing the Voyager program. The Resource Specialist (RS) teacher
pulled the students from grades 5 and 6 to provide support with fluency and
comprehension. She also pulled a group of 8 struggling third grade students for 30
minutes three times per week to support them through steps 1 &2 of the Language
program which focused on phonemic awareness and blending.
Classroom teachers provided the support that was provided to struggling students
after school. The content of one of the after-school interventions was math “lesson labs”.
Teachers provided re-teaching and pre-teaching opportunities for students through the
base program. Students were identified through the data received on math unit
assessments. Another focus for after-school interventions was fluency. Teachers in grades
2 & 3 provided students with fluency instruction through a program called 6 Minute
Solution. These interventions were provided two days per week, 45 minutes per day, for
two weeks. Data was analyzed and students were moved accordingly.
Support offered to struggling students at Ocean Elementary was offered both
during the school day and after school. During the school day, a PTCT pulled groups of
6-8 students from each grade in grades 3-6 who were considered “band jumpers” and had
the potential to jump a proficiency band on the CST. The PTCT worked with students in
both math and language arts.
After school, teachers provided intervention opportunities in math for struggling
students in grades 1-6 to focus on a component of Project G that is called “Beyond the
Basic Facts”. This component consists of teaching students the commutative property to
memorize their basic math facts. This intervention was offered three days per week for 30
85

minutes each day. Another after school intervention that was offered by teachers was for
5
th
grade students to pre-teach language arts concepts to struggling students using the
core program. The 5
th
graders attended this intervention twice per week for a four-week
span. To ensure that students had the opportunity to participate in after school
interventions, the principal arranged for a district bus to provide transportation for all
students who needed it.
At Creek Elementary, during the school day, two PTCTs pulled groups of six-
eight students for math support. One PTCT focused on struggling students in grades three
and four while the other PTCT supported struggling students in grades five and six. An
additional intervention provided during the school day was for struggling students in
grades one and two. These students were supported by the RSP teacher and were given
additional help with phonics using a program called the Early Reading Intervention
(ERI). This program is extremely scripted and repetitious. All interventions during the
school day were provided 5 days per week for 30 minutes.
After school interventions were provided by classroom teachers for students
struggling with writing, Hispanic students needing to advance their CELDT proficiency
band, CST “band jumpers” in the low Basic band, as well as students who dropped
proficiency bands on the CST from Proficient to Basic. Pre-teaching opportunities were
provided using the core language arts curriculum, vocabulary development activities
were used to assist students with their English development, and Thinking Maps and
Write from the Beginning were used for students struggling with writing. These
interventions were provided twice per week for 45 minutes each session. To ensure that
86

students had the opportunity to participate in after school interventions, the principal
arranged for a district bus to provide transportation for all students who needed it.
Support offered to struggling students at Valley Elementary was offered both
during the school day and after school. During the school day, the four TOSAs pulled
small groups of six to eight struggling students in grades one through four for additional
help in reading and math. Using the core programs in language arts and math, the TOSAs
provided pre-teach and re-teach opportunities. These small group sessions lasted for 45
minutes in four-week intervals. Once the sessions were over, the teachers, TOSAs, and
principal looked at assessment data to identify other students to receive the intervention.
At Valley, the kindergarten classes were half-day classes. A decision was made to
hire an additional TOSA whose primary focus was on kindergarten students. This TOSA
was a .6 FTE and was able to offer struggling kindergarten students the opportunity to
stay for a full school day. The teachers, TOSA, and principal met to determine which
students would qualify. The TOSA was able to accommodate 25 students. Once students
had been identified, parents had to be notified and transportation had to be arranged. The
TOSA was able to provide additional instruction for letter and sound acquisition, sight
words, and number identification and correlation. This program was fluid so that students
could move in and out according to assessment data at the end of a six-week session.
After school interventions were provided by classroom teachers for struggling
students needing to advance their CELDT proficiency band as well as students needing
assistance in language arts. Pre-teaching opportunities were provided using the core
language arts curriculum and vocabulary development activities were used to assist
87

students with their English development. These interventions were provided four times
per week for one hour each session for a total of six weeks. To ensure that students had
the opportunity to participate in after school interventions, the principal arranged for a
district bus to provide transportation for all students who needed it.
At Hills Elementary, the principal and the teachers identified students who were
working below grade level and in need of additional assistance using their classroom
data. This data was presented to the HEART (Health, Education, and Attendance Referral
Team) as the Student Study Team (SST) process was known. Parents and staff met to
discuss the academic needs of each student being referred and brainstormed the
appropriate intervention strategies that were implemented into the students’ core
program. Students in grades 1
st
-3
rd
were frequently referred to the Language Lodge or the
Learning Lodge in grades 4
th
-6
th
. These literacy programs were taught by the five TOSAs
during the regular instructional day. Each TOSA taught a group of six to eight students
for a 45-minute instructional block five days per week. At the end of a six-week session,
data was reviewed and students were exited or were able to continue receiving support.
At Hills, the kindergarten classes were half-day classes. A Kinder Academy was
offered to kindergarteners in need of additional assistance with basic skills. This
intervention program was taught by certificated teachers and is categorically funded. A
pre-kindergarten program for incoming students who have not had preschool experience
was also offered for the first two weeks of April, May and June.
Extensive support was offered to struggling students at Island Elementary through
both pull-out and push-in services where the teacher came into the classroom to provide
88

support during the school day. Students in grades one and two, for example, experienced
a “Key Club” which is a 30-45 minute pull-out program that delivered an assessment-
based instruction to increase specific skills in reading and math five days per week. In
grades four through six, some struggling students received High Point, a state-adopted
core replacement program to accelerate learning. Other students were provided smaller
class sizes or groups through the TOSAs in morning support in language arts. English
Learners received specific instruction to improve fluency and literacy through the ELD
program as well as push-in opportunities during Houghton Mifflin utilizing the EL
Handbook.
Another intervention that Island provided was to utilize TOSAs to bring class
sizes down in grades one through three. Each class was taken down to twenty-two
students per room for the English language arts instructional block, which was the first
two hours of the day. In Kindergarten, a TOSA was added to the team to make class sizes
smaller for the entire school day. These interventions lasted the duration of the school
year.
The kindergarten students at Island were able to participate in a “Core Plus”
program, which extended the school day by 106 minutes four days per week. Students
were identified for the intervention opportunity through data gathered from DIBELS, the
CLA, as well as other classroom formative assessments. Teachers used the program
“Voyager” with the kinder students that focused on intensive phonics instruction. To
ensure that students were able to attend the “Core Plus” program, transportation was
provided.
89

Collaborative, professional culture. This step has also been referred to as
“professional learning communities” and was a result of the prior steps and not
something created in isolation. The professional learning community was one in which
teachers shared high expectations for students, examined assessment data, and discussed
ideas about instruction. Instructional practices were not individualized, but shared by the
team.
Both school districts had a dedicated collaboration time through an early release
day once per week. In Waterfall USD, the teachers were given a list of “Do’s & Don’ts”
of collaboration time by the union and were expected to adhere to it. The early release
day was every Wednesday and teachers met to collaborate to review data, plan lessons,
share ideas, and discuss student progress for 50 minutes. In Angles SD, a similar situation
existed where students were released early on Wednesdays and teachers collaborated for
one hour. The district adopted the Professional Learning Community (PLC) format for
collaboration in 2007/2008. While teachers were encouraged to conduct their meetings in
the PLC format, principals could not mandate that they do. At Valley and Island, the
principals both had a relationship with their staffs that allowed them to move forward
with PLCs. At Hills, the staff fought the PLC format and continued to use the
collaboration time as a “prep” time.
When asked, five of the six principals stated that they wished the teachers had
more time for collaboration. They felt that teachers could really delve deeply into data
and instruction if they had more dedicated time to collaborate. Many teachers already
spent much of their own time collaborating with their peers, yet the five principals felt
90

that time within the school day would benefit the teachers. The principal at Hills felt that
more collaboration time would be wasted on his staff.
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership. This is the belief that the
instructional leadership at a school is provided by more than the principal, but is shared
by teachers and central office staff at the district as well. At the school site, principals
were often unable to provide all the instructional leadership, create and implement
professional development, work with teachers on analyzing data, and provide classroom
coaching. Thus, this step included many more people both at the school site and at the
district level to step up and provide leadership.
At the six sample schools, each school had a Leadership Team in place that was
selected by the principal. Each principal also initially stated a desire for shared decision-
making and therefore relied heavily upon their Leadership Team to help them guide the
school and maintain the vision. The principal at Hills stated that the Leadership Team at
his school continued to be somewhat dysfunctional and can be counter-productive due to
attitudes beliefs.
In Waterfall USD, the district also relied on each school’s Leadership Team to
disseminate a united message to teachers through Leadership Academy. The district held
Leadership Academies for the Leadership Team at each school site and each Academy
hosted nine elementary schools at a time. Leadership Academies were conducted three
times per year and the focus for the 2009/2010 school year was Project G. The ultimate
goal was for each team to take back the information learned at Leadership Academy and
share it with their school site. For example, when they moved into breakout sessions for
91

their individual grade levels, they were shown specific lessons, instructional strategies,
and had the opportunity to trouble-shoot any problem areas with the district TOSAs who
specialized in that grade level. Those teachers were then expected to go back to their
school site and relate the information to their team.
Professional and best practices. The final step was to ensure that schools were
professional organizations that actively sought out research on how to improve schools as
well as looked at best practices of other schools and districts. Schools that were
successful in improving student performance did not do so in isolation, but sought
assistance in their endeavors. All schools involved in this study used research-based
instructional strategies to improve student achievement. The principals in Waterfall USD
followed a close alignment to district expectations for strategy and program
implementation while still allowing for some site-based decisions. The principals in
Angels SD were allowed to make site-based decisions regarding instructional strategies.
Some of the strategies at the six schools include: 1) Direct Instruction, 2) Reciprocal
Teaching, 3) student engagement strategies, as well as 4) Differentiation.
Table 4.3 shows the implementation level of Odden and Archibald’s (2009) 10
Steps for Doubling Student Performance at each of the six sample school sites.

92

Table 4.3: 10 Steps for Doubling Student Performance at Six Sample Schools
Odden & Archibald’s 10
Strategies River Ocean Creek Valley Hills Island
Understanding performance
problem and challenge
Strong Weak Weak Strong Weak Average
Set ambitious goals Strong Average Strong Average Weak Strong
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision
Average Average Average Average Weak Average
Formative assessments/data-
based decisions
Strong Average Average Average Weak Strong
Ongoing PD

Strong

Strong

Strong

Strong

Weak

Strong
Using time efficiently &
effectively
Average Average Average Average Average Average
Extended learning time for
struggling students
Strong Average Average Average Average Strong
Collaborative, professional
culture
Average Weak Weak Strong Weak Average
Widespread and distributed
instructional leadership
Average Average Average Average Weak Average
Professional and best
practices
Strong Average Average Average Weak Average

The sample schools in this study varied in their strength of implementation of the
10 Strategies (Odden & Archibald, 2009). All six schools utilized their site categorical
funds to support the implementation of strategies that would assist them in improving
student achievement. All schools within the two districts employed instructional aides to
93

assist struggling students or students with IEPs. While the three schools in the Angels
School District employ numerous TOSAs at their individual sites to assist with
interventions and professional development, the three schools within the Waterfall USD
have access to a district TOSA two days per week to assist primarily with professional
development and supporting teachers. All six schools also used a fairly large part of their
categorical funding to offer extended learning opportunities for struggling students.
Chapter five will further discuss how the sample schools chose to spend their resources
and the subsequent effect it had on student achievement over the past five years. The
following section compares the Evidence Based Model with the resource allocation of the
six schools.
Resource Allocation
The resource allocation model presented through Odden and Picus’s (2008)
Evidence Based Model (EBM) was used to analyze the levels of support and specific
resource allocation at each of the six sample schools. Class size was the most noticeable
difference observed between the sample schools and the EBM prototype. All of the class
sizes at each of the six sample schools exceeded the recommended size and the numbers
will continue to rise as a direct result of the reduction of revenues that both school
districts are facing for the 2010/2011 school year. Table 4.4 compares class sizes of the
sample schools to the EBM prototype.

94

Table 4.4: Class Size of Sample Schools Compared to EBM
Grade
Level
EBM River Ocean Creek Valley Hills Island
K 15 34 34 34 30 30 30
1 15 20 20 20 25 25 25
2 15 20 20 20 25 25 25
3 15 20 20 20 30 30 30
4 25 36 36 36 33 33 33
5 25 36 36 36 33 33 33
6 N/A 36 36 36 33 33 33

According to the EBM prototype, each of the six sample schools fell short of the
suggested resources. For each school, the number of core teachers was determined by the
number of students enrolled at the school at that particular grade level and by the ratios
negotiated by the district and the teachers’ union. Within the two districts, the schools in
Waterfall USD ranged from 17.9 core teachers short at River Elementary while at Ocean
Elementary, they were short 6.6 core teachers. In Angels SD, the range is from 22.4 core
teachers short at Valley Elementary to 9.4 teachers short at Hills Elementary. For all six
schools, the EBM would provide a total of 137 additional certificated teachers working in
positions as specialist teachers, instructional facilitators, providing support to struggling
students, and working with English learners above the suggested core teachers. The
actual number of these specialist teachers at all six sample schools was 16.7 which fell far
below the prototypical EBM school.
In addition to the class size discrepancies as well as the differences in the number
of core teachers at each sample school, the amount of funding that each school received
was far below the suggested funding of the EBM. The funding used for professional
95

development, supporting gifted students, technology, instructional materials, and student
activities were analyzed and found to fall far short of the prototypical EBM school. The
amount suggested for professional development through the EBM was between $47,800
and $91,000 yet the sample schools actually spent as little as $13,475 at Creek and as
much as $29,490 at Island still falling short of the prototypical school. The largest
discrepancies in funding were in the areas of technology and student activities.
Technology was under funded between $103,600 at Creek and $166,225 at River while
student activities were underfunded between $70,000 at River to $170,666 at Valley.
Table 4.5 compares elements of the sample schools to the EBM prototype.

Table 4.5: Comparison of Resource Allocation to EBM

River
Waterfall USD
Ocean
Waterfall USD
Creek
Waterfall USD
Valley
Angels SD
Hills
Angels SD
Island
Angels SD
School Element EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual
Core Teachers 40.9 23.0 33.6 27.0 26.4 19.0 50.4 28.0 38.4 29.0 36.8 23.0
Specialist Teachers 8.25 0.5 6.7 0.5 5.2 0.5 5.6 0 5.8 0 4.6 0
Instructional Facilitators 3.7 0.4 3.1 0.4 2.4 0.4 4.6 2.6 3.5 3.0 3.5 5.0
Tutors 6.2 1.5 5.2 0.4 3.3 1.5 8.6 0 4.6 0 6.0 0
Teachers for EL 6.1 0 5.2 0 2.0 0 8.1 0 3.0 0 4.7 0
Extended Day FTE 3.1 0 2.5 0 2.0 0 3.8 0 2.9 0 2.5 0
Summer School FTE 3.1 4.0 2.5 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.8 0 2.9 0 2.5 0
Learning Disabled FTE 5.1 2.3 4.2 2.3 4.2 2.3 7.2 2.13 4.8 2.13 4.8 2.13
Substitutes $22,770 $3,874 $29,700 $2,889 $21,780 $2,565 $21,780 $20,085 $21,780 $17,856 $24,750 $12,l11
Pupil Support 6.2 1.5 5.2 1.5 3.3 1.5 8.6 2.7 4.6 2.7 4.0 2.7
Non-Instructional Aides 3.4 0 2.8 0 2.2 0 4.2 0 3.2 0 0 0.42
Librarian/Media
Specialists
1.7 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.1 1.0 2.1 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.6 2.0
Principal 1.7 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.1 1.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.5
School Secretaries/Clerks 3.4 2.0 2.8 1.5 2.5 1.5 4.2 2.5 3.2 2.0 3.2 2.0
Professional Development $73,600 $21,500 $60,200 $13,475 $47,800 $18,300 $91,000 $20,000 $68,200 $16,521 $69,600 $29,490
Technology per Student $184,000 $17,775 $150,500 $12,050 $119,500 $15,900 $227,500 $70,000 $170,500 $11,830 $174,000 $28,350
GATE Student Resources $18,400 $0 $15,050 $0 $11,950 $0 $22,750 $0 $22,750 $0 $17,400 $0
Instructional Materials $103,040 $87,570 $84.280 $47,350 $66,920 $56,050 $127,400 $106,952 $95,480 $77,665 $97,440 $88,625
Student Activities $73,600 $3,600 $120,400 $4, 790 $95,600 $3,995 $182,000 $11,334 $136,400 $3,115 $139,200 $18,965
Note: Comparison of resource allocations according to Odden and Picus (2008) EBM versus actual resource allocation of six sample schools.
96
97

Providing opportunities for struggling students was a concern for all sample
schools within this study. The suggestion by Odden and Picus (2008) was not to use
instructional aides to directly provide support through tutoring but to utilize certificated
teachers. The urgency to get all students to make academic progress required both
districts to utilize the personnel they currently have on-site that did include both
certificated employees as well as instructional aides. All six sample schools offered
extended learning opportunities for struggling students but were limited due to budget
constraints and reductions. The schools in Angels SD utilized their TOSAs and
instructional aides to work directly with students while the schools in Waterfall USD
used instructional aides, Part-time Categorical Teachers (PTCTs), and resource teachers
to work with students during the school day. Classroom teachers who volunteered and
received additional teacher hourly pay provided before and after school interventions in
both districts, however for both districts, depending on the site budgets, these
interventions are being cut. Due to the most recent budget cuts, summer school has been
eliminated in Angels SD while Waterfall USD continued to offer summer school but on a
much smaller scale than in years past.
Impact of Current Funding Crisis
The current budget crisis facing California has had a direct impact on each of the
six sample schools as well as the two districts in different ways. For example, Waterfall
USD was able to sustain personnel and programs due to their conservative spending
practices and substantial reserves. Angels SD laid off 5.5 million dollars in classified
personnel and offered a midyear retirement for teachers that resulted in alleviating the
98

district of 42 credentialed positions as well as instituting four furlough days. All six
schools are Title 1 schools and receive federal categorical funding which has assisted in
the continuation of various programs.
An option that districts were able to implement to deal with the budget crisis was
to reduce the number of school days from 180 to 175. Neither district chose this option
for the 2009/2010 school year, however, both districts did implement a reduction of
school days for the 2010/2011 school year. Waterfall USD will reduce the number of
instructional days by four and Angels SD will reduce by five instructional days and four
non-student days.
Another area that has been affected by the budget crisis is the area of professional
development. Waterfall USD historically had provided professional development
opportunities throughout the school year during the school day to ensure attendance but
in the 2009/2010 school year, those days were cut and school sites were left to their own
creativity to provide the professional development. River Elementary was able to
continue to provide support for teachers during the school day due to their Program
Improvement (PI) status and the requirement to set aside part of their Title 1 budget for
professional development. Both Creek and Ocean still found Title 1 funding to provide
professional development opportunities for their teachers but on a much smaller scale
while still supporting the district focus. The schools within Angels SD ranged in their
implementation of professional development. While Hills Elementary was a school in
Year 3 PI and had money set aside, the principal did not spend all 10% of their money on
99

professional development and subsequently became a Year 4 PI school for the 2010/2011
school year.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze school level data within two
separate districts to determine the connection between the allocation of resources and
increased student achievement. Waterfall USD was a highly centralized district with
similar expectations and aligned goals for students, teachers, and administrators. Angels
SD was a decentralized school district that allowed each school site the flexibility to
make site-based decisions about instruction, professional development, and resource
allocation. The Evidence Based Model by Odden and Picus (2008) was used as a
framework to determine whether or not schools and districts have aligned their resources
to support an increase in student achievement. Odden and Archibald’s (2009) 10
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance was used as an additional framework to
assist in determining which strategies each sample school was implementing to increase
student achievement.
The API scores from 2006 to 2009 ranged in growth within the two districts. For
the 2009/2010 school year, in Angels SD, the growth varied from a 10 point gain at Hills
to a 30 point gain at Valley and similarly in Waterfall USD, the API growth varied from a
13 point gain at River to a 28 point growth at Creek. While the schools in Waterfall USD
have seen more minimal growth over the past five years than the schools in Angels SD,
the schools in Waterfall had scores in the 700s in the 2005/2006 school year while the
schools in Angels SD had scores in the 600s at that same time. When comparing the
100

sample schools to other public schools in California, the California Department of
Education reports that one of the schools, Valley Elementary is in the 50
th
percentile of
schools, while River, Ocean, and Hills are in the 40
th
percentile. Creek and Island are in
the bottom 30
th
percentile of schools.
Although the resource allocation at each of the sample schools was substantially
below the suggestion of the EBM prototype, all schools were implementing a variety of
strategies to raise student achievement. It was the effectiveness of these implementations
and not only resource allocation that helped make schools successful. For example, all
schools utilized student data to guide instruction and monitor student progress but to
varying degrees. The three schools within the Waterfall USD had data meeting protocols
that the teachers and principals follow throughout the year. The schools in Angels SD
have introduced data analysis to their staffs and the implementation has been sporadic at
the different sites. Valley embraced the use of student data while the staff at Hills
continued to struggle with using data in a meaningful manner.
When analyzing the allocation levels for each school as compared to the
prototypical elementary school through the Evidence-Based Model, none of the sample
schools had adequate resources to assist them with increasing student achievement.
Various aspects of the prototypical school were substantially different than the actual
sample schools. The EBM prototypical school has a total enrollment in grades K-5 of 432
students; the sample schools ranged in enrollment from 478 students at Creek to 910
students at Valley, which was more than double the size of the EBM prototype. Another
suggestion that the EBM made was for a school to be comprised of no more than 50%
101

socio-economically disadvantaged students and 10% English learners. For the 2008/2009
school year, each of the six sample schools exceeded these percentages from 68% SED at
Hills to 88% SED at Island and 44% English learners at Hills to 77% English learners at
River. All schools had far below the suggested number of teachers to work with EL and
struggling students according to the EBM. While none of the schools had teachers
specifically designated for EL students, due to the requirements of NCLB that teachers be
“highly qualified”, each classroom teacher had met the criteria set forth by the state that
enabled them to teach English learners however, no additional certificated teachers had
been hired to intervene with EL students.
Waterfall USD and Angels SD both face continuing financial difficulties for the
upcoming school years. Although the fiscal crisis will hopefully eventually improve, it is
unlikely that schools will receive adequate funding to support and meet the suggestions
for resource allocation as set forth by the Evidence-Based Model. Chapter 5 will provide
further discussion on this issue, conclusions, and suggestions for future research.
102

CHAPTER 5 - CONCLUSION
Students in California are consistently seen as underperforming in comparison to
students in other states. While California has one of the most diverse student populations,
its per pupil spending for education is below the national average. This study investigated
how schools that were making growth in student achievement were utilizing their
resources to support their instructional program. Using the Evidence-Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 2008) as well as Odden and Archibald’s (2009) Ten Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance as frameworks, it was determined whether research-based
best practices were being supported through school site resources. Some schools
effectively met the needs of their at-risk student population while others continued to
struggle with a similar student population. The current literature available on utilizing
research-based strategies was extensive and much of it was based on best practices.
However, the literature on adequate funding and equitable resource allocation was
limited.
The Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) took into account a diverse
student population and provided a comprehensive resource allocation framework for
schools and districts. This model was used to help analyze and compare how the six
selected schools aligned to the suggested resource allocations as they pertained to student
achievement. Providing additional information regarding student achievement for each
school site was Odden & Archibald’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance that were incorporated into the interviews of each principal. The ten
strategies were:
103

! Understanding the performance problem and challenge
! Set ambitious goals
! Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision
! Formative assessments and data-based decision making
! Ongoing, intensive professional development
! Using time efficiently and effectively
! Extending learning time for struggling students
! Collaborative, professional culture
! Widespread and distributed instructional leadership
! Professional and best practices
Although the level of funding continued to be inadequate and remained an area of
concern, the six sample schools within this study were demonstrating consistent growth
and success despite the challenges they faced with funding. The two school districts,
Waterfall USD and Angels SD, differed in the way schools were allowed to make site-
based decisions. Waterfall USD was a highly centralized district that controlled
professional development, school funding and expenditures, as well as made the hiring
decisions through the district office. The philosophy that the district held is that
employees worked for the district and not for a specific school and could be moved if
necessary. They also believed that due to the high mobility of students within the school
district, schools should be aligned with curriculum and pacing, instructional strategies,
and expectations. Angels SD however was less centralized and schools made their own
decisions about how to spend their money, determining professional development, and
104

hired their own staff independently of the district. The philosophy in Angels SD was that
each school knew the needs of their students best and should be able to make the
necessary decisions to meet their individual needs. Involvement from the district came
when schools continued to struggle or if there was a large union issue that needed to be
resolved.
Summary of Findings
The purpose of this study was to examine how six schools within two school
districts utilized resource allocations to assist in improving student achievement. The
participating six schools were within two Southern California school districts that serve a
high population of Hispanic and SED students according to the reporting of students
participating in the free and reduced meals program. Two of the schools within the study,
River (Waterfall USD) and Hills (Angels SD), were both in Year 3 PI during the
2008/2009 school year.
The following four research questions addressed the purpose of this study:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?
2. How are resources at the school and district levels used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?
3. 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?
105

4. 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?
Although the sample schools and districts in this study were facing difficult
financial times, it became clear that the six schools were committed to finding effective
ways to improve student achievement. A framework by Odden and Archibald (2009) on
how to double student performance by utilizing ten strategies was used to evaluate the
effectiveness of improving student achievement at each school site. An analysis of
principal interviews at each of the six sample schools indicated that a number of the
strategies are being implemented at their respective schools to assist with instituting
change. The four most strongly implemented evidence-based strategies among the six
sample schools were formative assessments/data-based decision making, extended
learning time for struggling students, using time efficiently and effectively, and ongoing
professional development. Each principal utilized a large portion of their funding to
support these areas in an effort to increase student achievement. With the current
financial situation, principals have had to become creative in finding ways to support
these strategies and continue to keep them at the forefront of their staffs’ focus. While
one of the schools, Hills, still struggles in utilizing data, the other five schools were either
using data effectively or well on their way.
An area of particular strength for the schools was in their implementation of
providing extra support for struggling students. Each principal stated a strong desire to
ensure that their struggling students were receiving the support they needed. Although
106

their resources are becoming more limited, they were able to design programs, provide
transportation, and train staff members to work with identified students. Extended
learning opportunities continued to be an area of focus that each school was dedicated to
implementing for the upcoming school years.
The two weakest areas of strategy implementation were in understanding the
performance problem and challenge as well as collaborative and professional culture.
This further supported the finding that teacher attitude and beliefs can be a major
hindrance to student achievement. Each of the six principals stated that the attitudes and
beliefs of their teachers was their biggest challenge in improving student achievement.
The staffs at River Elementary and Island Elementary both eventually saw the urgency of
the performance problems their schools were facing due to their PI status and were
attempting to move forward. The PI status that Hills was facing did not have the same
impact on understanding the performance problem because the staff failed to see that the
problem had anything to do with them.
In addition to the analyzing the level of implementation of the strategies, the
Evidence-Based Model (EBM) (Odden & Picus, 2008) was used as an additional
framework to compare suggested resource allocations to actual allocations at the school
site. The EBM created a prototypical school and this school was used to compare the
resources that schools are currently receiving. All the sample schools within this study
had substantially fewer resources than were suggested by the EBM. Two of the largest
discrepancies between the sample schools and the prototypical school were class size and
core teachers. All six schools have almost double the students in their classes in
107

comparison to the prototypical school and, as a result, have close to half of the core
teachers suggested by the EBM. All of the schools in this study have used creative means
to make ensure that struggling students are receiving support during the school day either
through the use of Teachers on Special Assignment (TOSA), Part-Time Categorical
Teachers (PTCTs), or instructional aides.
An additional area that was underfunded at each school site according to the
EBM, yet was still implemented to varying degrees, was professional development.
Waterfall USD supported professional development through their district Departments of
K-6 and 7-12 Instruction and was done on a district-wide level for both K-6 and 7-12.
School sites budgets were only used to fund substitutes and the planning of the
professional development was done at the district level. In the Angels SD, professional
development was left up to each individual school site to determine what their needs
were. The schools utilized their site budgets to pay for substitutes, trainers, and
programs/books that were used. As a result, the schools in Angels SD spent substantially
more on professional development than the schools in Waterfall USD.
This study set out to reveal differences in student achievement when analyzing
two separate school districts. All six schools involved in the study have made steady
progress over the past five years. While there were minimal differences in API scores
among the schools, the most common themes that arose for each school site within the
districts were teacher attitude and beliefs. These areas seemed to have a greater impact on
student achievement than any other factor/strategy. All six of the principals stated that
teachers’ negative attitudes were the most difficult to overcome and some continue to
108

struggle with them. At three of the school sites, Ocean, Creek, and Hills, the staffs had
made some progress but still failed to see that their attitudes had a direct effect on their
students making academic progress. This is an area that would be difficult to change with
additional resources, but could change with the support of the district and teachers’
union.
Limitations of the Study
The schools within this study were selected according to their percentage of
students participating in the free and reduced lunch program that comprise the Socio-
Economically Disadvantaged (SED) subgroup as well as the percentage of Hispanic
students attending the school as reported by the California Department of Education. The
findings were only generalizable to schools with similar demographics. An additional
limitation was that the sample of principals being interviewed did not have similar
perceptions to other principals not interviewed. The final limitation was the funding
options for the 2009 and 2010 school years. Many schools received stimulus funding
(ARRA) and this skewed the way schools and districts make some financial decisions.
The lack of consistency in the methods that districts identified to allocate the spending
may have hindered the accuracy of the current financial situation of schools and districts.
Recommendations for Future Research
The focus of this study was six schools within two separate school districts. One
district was highly centralized while the other was much less centralized.
Recommendations for future research are:
109

! Expanded study with a larger sample that includes more schools within more
districts, both centralized and decentralized both in Orange County and in other
counties. This study could also assist in determining the level of implementation
of the 10 Strategies throughout a larger sample. All schools involved in this study
were making steady progress towards all students becoming proficient in
language arts and math. Several of the 10 strategies were being implemented by
all six sample schools and further investigation could assist additional schools and
districts in improving students achievement with limited funding and resources.
! Further investigation into the effectiveness of the administrators at school sites
and what type of impact they have on student achievement. Schools within the
study that were making impressive growth under the current principal had strong
leadership guiding them and assisting them in making critical decisions regarding
resources and student achievement.
! Further research into the impact of teacher attitudes and beliefs on student
achievement and the ability to help move a school forward could shed further
light onto the effectiveness of certain teachers over others and why some schools
are making slower progress towards meeting the goals set forth by NCLB.
Conclusion
California educators are facing a financial crisis unlike any they have seen for
quite some time. Schools and districts are being asked to do the same job, if not more,
with substantially fewer resources than in the past. Class sizes are being increased,
instructional days are being cut, and employees are being let go. While districts struggle
110

to make ends meet, accountability in education for US schools continues to be at the
forefront of legislation, funding, and the media. California’s students continue to fall
behind the rest of the nation according to the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) yet the fact is that California has one of the most rigorous sets of
performance standards and is well below the national average on per pupil spending
(EdSource, 2009c). While students have made substantial progress under the NCLB
legislation, they are still not meeting the necessary goals. In light of the current financial
crisis the state is facing and more specifically, districts and schools are facing, utilizing
resources efficiently and effectively is more crucial than ever.
The researcher would recommend using Odden and Archibald’s (2009) 10
Strategies for Doubling Student Improvement as a framework by any administrator
looking to improve student achievement at their school or within their district. In
reviewing the implementation levels at each school site, the schools involved in this study
were implementing each strategy to some extent. In comparing the two school districts,
the level of implementation of each strategy was sporadic. The researcher initially
believed that there would be a stronger correlation between the level of implementation
within Waterfall USD due to its centralization. The only area found to be at a strong level
of implementation in the district was in Ongoing Professional Development since the
district coordinates the majority of professional development. Angels SD had similar
findings in the area of Ongoing PD with two of the schools having strong implementation
despite the decentralization of the district. The remainder of the strategies had an average
to weak implementation at all sample schools.
111

In looking at the strategies, it is believed that in order to help a school become
effective at improving student achievement, all 10 strategies must be effectively
implemented. This will not be an easy task and one that will require some time, patience,
and support from the district. However, the researcher found that following strategies
should be implemented quickly to aide in change: 1) understanding the performance
problem and challenge; 2) widespread and distributed leadership; 3) setting ambitious
goals; and 4) on-going professional development.
This study validated the importance of a district and school site understanding the
performance problem and challenges facing them and creating a sense of urgency among
the leaders and staff members. The culture of the school needs to be about investing in
ways to further support the students as well as the staff. The principals at River and
Valley were able to instill this sense of urgency into their staffs and assist them in
understanding the challenges facing their specific schools. Both principals were able to
create a team of people willing to do what was necessary to move forward. Strong
leadership on the part of the principal is imperative to creating this type of culture.
Knowing when and how to move forward with a particular staff is essential in creating a
community of learners.
This study also validated the conclusion that supports the effectiveness of creating
widespread and distributed leadership. The principals that were successful in creating a
community of shared leadership were able to move forward and help create and carry the
vision for the school. The principals at River, Valley, and Island formed Leadership
112

Teams that were able to see their situation objectively and find ways to meet the
continuing needs of the students and staff.
Setting ambitious goals is another strategy that was found to be essential to
improving student achievement. Five of the six schools were able to not only set
ambitious goals for students but also for themselves. The schools in Waterfall USD had
the support of the district with creating district-wide goals for every student and provided
various opportunities for students to be aware of the goals and of their progress towards
meeting them. The schools in Angels SD were left to their own devices to find ways to
set goals. Both Valley and Island put ambitious goals in place for students and followed
through with progress monitoring throughout the school year. Hills set goals yet the
teachers were not consistent in monitoring them and in some cases, found them to be
unnecessary.
Finally, the researcher would recommend the strong implementation of on-going
professional development as an area of focus to assist in improving student achievement.
The schools in Waterfall USD had district-wide professional development established for
them but unfortunately, due to the financial crisis facing schools, they have been limited
in the amount of specific site professional development opportunities that are able to be
offered to the teachers. The schools in Angels SD were able to utilize their professional
development funds specifically for their school sites. All schools utilized their TOSAs to
support teachers both inside and outside the classroom. The TOSAs in Waterfall USD
were only able to be at a school site two days per week at the most while the TOSAs in
Angels SD were on-site full-time teachers. The researcher found the use of TOSAs in
113

Angels SD to be beneficial to support the programs and struggling students as well as the
teachers’ instruction. The recommendation would be to ensure that TOSAs are used to
coach teachers and support them with the strategies they learned during professional
development and commit to the implementation of these acquired strategies.
The researcher found that the six sample schools in this study fell fart short of
Odden and Picus’ (2008) suggestions of the Evidence-Based Model for allocating
resources. Many of their suggestions were found to assist in improving student
achievement, such as; interventions for struggling students, time for collaboration among
teachers to discuss instruction and monitor student progress, and providing additional
staff to coach teachers and provide support. In light of the current financial crisis, it is
highly unlikely that any district or school in California will be able to fully fund the
model. Funding is being cut further and districts and schools have to find ways to
creatively fund programs and personnel to meet the needs of their students with the
scarce resources they currently have. Schools should work with their communities and
site leadership to support the allocation of the resources they have and work toward the
ultimate goal of the EBM.
114

REFERENCES
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.
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing
professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
Brinson, V., & Mellor, L. (2005). How are high performing schools spending their
money? A case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Education Finance Association, Louisville, KY.
California Department of Education. (2009b). Parent and guardian guide to California's
2008-2009 accountability progress reporting system. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/index.asp.
Cater, S. C. (2001). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing schools. Washington
DC: The Hertiage Foundation.
Chambers, J., Levin, J., & Delancey, D. (2007, March). Efficiency and adequacy in
California school finance: A professional judgment approach. Retrieved April 29,
2010 from http://irepp.stanford.ued/projects/cafinance-studies.htm
Chenoweth, K. (2007). It’s being done. Academic success in unexpected schools.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Corcoran, T.B., (1995). Helping teachers teach well: Transforming professional
development (RB-16). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education, University of Pennsylvania.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: A competent teacher for every child.
Phi Delta Kappan, 78(3), 193-201.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLuaghlin, M. W. (1999). Investing in teaching as a learning
profession: Policy problems and prospects. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes
(Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp.
377-408). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
115

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook
for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Duke, D. (2006). What we know and don’t know about improving low-performing
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 729-735.
Duncombe, W., & Yinger, J. (2007, March). Understanding the incentives in California’s
education finance system. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Educational
Policy and Practice (IREPP).
EdBrief. (2010a). Budget crisis leads to dramatic rise in school districts on fiscal early
warning list.
EdBrief (2010b). State receipts drop again in April, erasing four months of modest
improvement, May, 2010 revision.
EdSource. (2010a). Glossary of Terms. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource.. (2008b). How California compares: Demographics, resources, and student
achievement. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource.. (2010c). The basics of California's school finance system. Mountain View,
CA: Author.
EdSource. (2010d). Dollars to Districts. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource (2009e). Fiscal crisis meets political gridlock. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2009f). Local revenues for schools: Limits and options in California.
Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2009g). The new federal education policies: California's challenge. Mountain
View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2010h). Resource Cards on California Education. Mountain View, CA:
Author.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: the moral
imperative for professional development in education. Washington DC: Albert
Shanker Institute.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

116

Furman, S. H., & Elmore, R. F. (2004). Redesigning Accountability Systems for
Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence (2007, November). Students first:
Revnewing hope for California’s future. Retrieved March 13, 2010 from
http://www.everychildprepared.org/
Grubb, N. (2007). Dynamic inequality and intervention: Lessons from a small country.
Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 105-114.
Hanushek, E. A. (2006). Courting Failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges’
good intentions and harm our children. Stanford: 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.
Hanushek, E.A. & Raymond, M.E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved
student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297-
327.
Hartman, W. T., Bolton, D., & Monk, D. H. (2001). A symthesis of two approaches to
school-level financial data: The accounting and resource cost model approaches.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Imazeki, J. (2007, March). Assessing the costs of K-12 education in California public
schools. Retrieved May 1, 2010 from http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance-
studies.htm
Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practices (2007). Getting down to facts: A
research project examining California’s school governance and finance systems.
Retrieved April 2, 2010, from Stanford University Web Site:
http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
Kirst, M., Goertz, M., & Odden, A. (2007). Evolution of Calfiornia state school finance
with implications from other states. In Consortium for Policy Research in
Education (CPRE).
Loeb, S. (2007). Difficulties of estimating the cost of achievening education standards
(Working Paper 23). Stanford: School Finance Redesign Project.
117

Loeb, S., Bryk, A., & Hanushek, E. (2007). Getting down to facts: A research project
examining California’s school governance and finance systems. Stanford, CA:
Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice, Stanford University.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. 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 Education Statistics (2010a). Digest of Education Statistics, 2009.
Retrieved, March 15, 2010, from http//nces.ed.gov/pubs2010.
National Center for Edcuation Statistics. (2010b). 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/
National Center for Edcuation Statistics. (2010c). NAEP overview. U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/
National Commission on Educational Excellence. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Retrieved March 10, 2010 from
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/.
National Education Association, (2009). Rankings and estimates: rankings of the states
2009 and estimates of school statistics 2010. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from
http://www.nea.org/home/32073.htm.
No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Northouse, Peter G. (2003). Fourth Edition. Leadership – Theory and Practice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Odden, A. R. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120-125.

118

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., Archibald, S. J., Fermanich, M., & Gross, B. (2003). Defining school-level
expenditures that reflect educational strategies. Journal of Education Finance,
28(3), 323-356.
Odden, A. R., & Picus, L. O. (2008). School finance : A policy perspective (4th ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Odden, A. R., Picus, L. O., Archibald, S., Goetz, M., Mangan, M. T., & Aportela, A.
(2007). Moving from good to great in Wisconsin: Funding schools adequately and
doubling student performance. Madison, WI: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Odden, A. R., Picus, L. O., Goetz, M., Fermanich, M., Seder, R., Glenn, W., et al. (2005).
An evidence-based approach to recallibrating Wyoming's block grant school
funding formula. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.
Picus, L. O., Odden, A. R., Aportela, A., Mangan, M. T., & Goetz, M. (2008).
Implementing school finance adequacy: School level resource use in Wyoming
following adequacy-oriented finance reform. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O.
Picus and Associates.
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). (2010). Signs of economic recovery emerging. The
Fiscal Report, 30(5). Retrieved from http://www.sscal.com
Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584 (1971). (Serrano I)
Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal. 3d 728 (1976). (Serrano II)
Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal. 3d 25 (1977). (Serrano III)
Smith, T. M., & Desimone, L. M. (2003). Do changes in patterns of participation in
teachers’ professional development reflect the goals of standards-based reform?
Educational Horizons, 81(3), 119-129.
Sonstelie, J. (2007, March). Aligning school finance with academic standards: A
weighted-student formula based on a survey of practitioners. Retrieved April 21,
2010 from http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance-studies.htm.
119

Taylor, L. L., Baker, B. D., & Vedlitz, A. (2005). Measuring educational adequacy in
public schools. College Station, Texas: George Bush School of Governement and
Public Service, Texas A&M University
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. (2010). Improving basic programs operated by local
educaiton agencies (Title I, Part A). Author. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html
120

APPENDIX A –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.

121

APPENDIX B – DOCUMENT REQUEST LIST
List of Documents requested from Schools
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.

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.

122

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.
! 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.

123

APPENDIX C – SCHOOL VISIT INTERVIEWS
School Visit/Interview Dates
School 1 River Elementary School June 30, 2010
School 2 Ocean Elementary School September 13, 2010
School 3 Creek Elementary School September 28, 2010
School 4 Valley Elementary School September 1, 2010
School 5 Hills Elementary School August 27, 2010
School 6 Island Elementary School September 3, 2010

124

APPENDIX D – LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND ARTIFICATS

List of Documents and Artifacts Provided by Participating 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

125

APPENDIX E – DATA COLLECTION CODEBOOK
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
I. Fax: Main office fax number for the school
J. Website: School’s official website

126

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.
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)
127

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)
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
128

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

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
129

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), Courteny 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.

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.

130

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.

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.
131

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.
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.
132

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 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.)

133

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.
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,
134

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
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.

135

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 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.

136

APPENDIX F – OPEN-ENDED DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
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?
! 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?
137

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)
! 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?

138

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?

139

APPENDIX G – DATA COLLECITON PROTOCOL

School Profile
School Name School’s State ID Number
Address
City State Zip
Phone Fax
Website
NOTES:

School Contact (1)
Title
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

School Contact (2)
Title
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

District Profile
District Name
District State ID

District Contact (1)
Title
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

140

District Contact (2)
Title
Honorific First Name Last Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

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

141

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:

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:

142

Library Staff
FTEs
Librarian
Library Media Specialist
Library Aide
NOTES:

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:

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:

143

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:

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:

144

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:

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

145

APPENDIX H - RIVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
River Elementary is a Title 1, kindergarten through sixth grade school in a large
urban school district in Orange County, Waterfall Unified School District. This school is
on a traditional schedule and houses 736 students from three surrounding cities. This
large, urban school district consists of 46 elementary schools, 10 intermediate schools, 7
high schools, and 2 continuation high schools. There are approximately 47,000 students
attending schools throughout the district. River Elementary opened its doors in 1956 and
has 23 permanent classrooms and eight portable classrooms.
River Elementary’s student population is comprised of students from diverse
ethnic backgrounds, socio-economic status, and language abilities. The primary
ethnicities are Hispanic (82%), Asian (11%), and White (6%). Figuer H.1 shows the
ethnic breakdown of students at River Elementary.
Figure H.1: Ethnic Breakdown of River

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies that have been utilized in the efforts to raise student achievement.
2%3;+,%*
?7%6'
>3%+,
>L(%*+,M>N'(%*+,
)67'(
146

Assessments and Data
Starting 2006/07, River Elementary School has demonstrated steady growth in
student performance. From the 2005/06 to the 2009/10 school years, River Elementary
has shown a growth of 73 points on its API. Figure H.2 shows River Elementary School’s
API over the last five years.
Figure H.2: River Elementary School’s API

The Average Yearly Progress (AYP) reports show progress for River Elementary.
All subgroups have shown growth over the past five years. The growth has been steady
yet slow. School-wide, River Elementary has grown 14% in proficient and advanced
students in language arts. While the Hispanic group has demonstrated a 14% growth, the
English Learner (EL) group dipped and then grew in the percentage of proficient and
advanced students and has only shown a 7% growth over the past five years. Their Socio-
Economically Disadvantaged (SED) has experienced a 13% increase.
While River Elementary met their AYP goals for the 2008/2009 school year, they
remain in Program Improvement as a Year 4 school due to not meeting those goals for
E!!
E"!
G!!
G"!
C!!
C"!
I!!
F!!"8!E F!!E8!G F!!G8!C F!!C8!I F!!I8#!
G!G
GHC
GDE
GEG
GC!
147

the 2009/2010 school year. It is important to note that River Elementary has an extremely
small number of White students and therefore it is difficult to analyze any achievement
gap that might exist. Figure H.3 shows River Elementary School’s language arts AYP of
proficient and advanced students on the CST for various subgroups since 2005/2006.
Figure H.3: ELA – Percent of Proficient and Advanced Students at River Elementary

Figure H.4 shows the math AYP of proficient and advanced students at River
Elementary on the CST. There is a similar pattern of growth as seen in the language arts
scores. School-wide and within their Hispanic subgroup, River Elementary has grown
16% in proficient and advanced students for both subgroups. Their EL population has had
a slightly lower level of growth at 14% as well as the Socio-Economically Disadvantaged
group over the past five years. River Elementary continues to exceed the state targets for
AYP in math with the most recent increase attributed to the newly implemented lesson
delivery model that enables students to experience more success due to its predictable
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
School!Wide Hispanic EL SED
148

and interactive lesson design. Teachers are able to plan lessons based on current data on
their students.
Figure H.4: Math – Percent of Proficient and Advanced Students at River Elementary

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
River Elementary opened in 1956 and education has changed substantially over
the past 56 years. With the implementation of NCLB in 2001, schools and districts
became accountable for student achievement as measured through state standardized
assessments. In the 2005/06 school year, River Elementary failed to meet the AYP
growth targets of proficient and advanced students set forth by the state and entered their
first year of Program Improvement (PI). Currently, the school has entered Year 4 of PI
and continues to face the imposed challenges.
The current principal was appointed to River Elementary in 2008. She has been in
education for 23 years and has helped successfully raise the API scores at River
Elementary over the past two years. She has promoted collaboration among grade levels
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
School!Wide Hispanic EL SED
149

and teachers, differentiating the instruction for all students, and holding high expectations
that every child can learn. Due to the status of PI, 10% of the school’s Title 1 budget has
to be set aside for professional development. This amount totaled $28,578 for the
2009/2010 school year. The principal has made efforts to provide opportunities to the
staff that would assist them in reining their teaching practices, utilize data on an on-going
basis, and bring about a greater knowledge of the core programs. Under the leadership of
this principal, the staff has taken numerous steps towards improving their instructional
practice and play a significant role in moving students towards proficiency. A few of the
steps that have been taken include: utilizing the district TOSA as an instructional coach
for the teachers, the implementation of research-based instructional strategies within the
classroom, using data to monitor student progress and identify students for interventions,
and providing a variety of intervention programs in both reading and math. Some staff
members that were unwilling to move forward with the school’s vision have since left the
school and are currently working at other schools within the district.
The data above indicates that there was improvement at River Elementary over
the past five years with a special emphasis on the changes made by the current principal.
The following is a narrative description of what transformations occurred at River
utilizing Odden & Archibald’s (2009) Strategies for Improving Student Achievement as a
framework as well as some of the challenges that were encountered.
Understanding the Performance Problem & Challenge
Upon entering the school in February 2008, River’s principal held individual
meetings with all of the teachers to determine staff perceptions of the school. She
concluded that most teachers were concerned about the school’s PI status and lack of
150

significant growth and ability to meet AYP goals. The principal also learned that the staff
was fragmented and not feeling a sense of community. At the conclusion of the school
year, she held a staff meeting to guide the discussion of setting school-wide goals and
developing a common purpose. This staff meeting was also key in raising the awareness
of teachers that the common belief is that all students can learn and if that is not their
shared belief, this may not be the school for them. At the conclusion of the year, three
teachers did take advantage of the opportunity to transfer to other schools within the
district.
Set Ambitious Goals
Waterfall Unified School District has established learning goals for all students in
grades two through eleven. Students in second grade are expected to score proficient or
advanced on the CST. Students in grades three through sixth are expected to make at least
one proficiency’s band growth on the CST in both English Language Arts and Math. This
growth is expected to take place until they are able to maintain proficiency or advanced
status. Along with goals for the CST, all English Learner students are expected to make
one band’s growth each year on the California English Language Development Test
(CELDT) until they become English language proficient. Each year, reports are created to
identify which students have met the goals and which ones haven’t. Much attention is
given to not only helping students maintain proficiency, but to also focus on moving the
remaining students into higher proficiency bands.
The principal set the goal to meet with students in grades three through six who
are potential “band jumpers” on the next CST. These goal-setting conferences consisted
151

of a one-on-one meeting with the principal and student. Throughout the school year the
principal continued to meet with the targeted students to review their progress on district
benchmarks that have proven to have a high correlation to the CSTs. She and the students
reflected on successes and struggles and allowed her to identify students needing
interventions.
Change the Curriculum Program & Create a New Instructional Vision
As a result of being a Year 3 PI school in 2009/2010, the directive was that a new
action plan for improvement needed to be put into place. This new plan consisted of the
following four components: 1) on-going professional development opportunities for
teachers to acquire more knowledge regarding the core curriculum as well as research-
based instructional strategies, 2) increased intervention opportunities for struggling
students, 3) targeted parent education, and 4) utilization of data to drive instruction and
monitor student progress.
Formative Assessment & Data-based Decision Making
A variety of data are used to drive instruction and support students at River
Elementary. This process, however, has taken years to become part of the school culture.
When the current principal arrived at the school, the teachers were rarely using the
district’s student data warehouse, Data Director, to access their student’s assessment
results. All teachers are required to give district benchmark assessments throughout the
year. The language arts benchmarks are administered four times per year and the math
benchmarks are given at the conclusion of each trimester. In addition to the district
152

benchmarks, teachers are also required to give formative assessments in the form of
language arts Theme Skills Tests and math Unit tests.
At the beginning of each school year, the principal meets with each grade level to
reflect on their student data from the previous year. Overall CST scores, cluster scores,
and benchmark information are reviewed to assist in refining practice. They then looked
at the information on their incoming students to see where their areas of strength are and
where they will need to focus more attention. Throughout the school year, the grade
levels continue to meet with the principal to reflect on student progress and assist in
modifying instruction. The principal hired substitute teachers to release one grade level at
a time for one hour.
Another assessment that is used at the beginning of each school year that allowed
the teachers to gain information on each student is the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (DIBELS). This assessment was given to every student in grades K-3 to
measure the acquisition of early literacy skills. If a student was identified as “at-risk”, an
additional assessment was given, the Comprehensive Literacy Assessment (CLA). This
further identified where students were breaking down with their literacy skills and the
teacher targeted students for intervention as well as continued to monitor their progress
through additional DIBELS assessments throughout the year. Along with the CLA, each
student in grades K-6 was administered an assessment that measures their instructional
reading level. Teachers used this data to assist them in differentiating the language arts
program. All data gleaned from these assessments were entered into Data Director for
teachers and administrators to utilize.
153

On-going, Intensive Professional Development
Another component of being a school in Program Improvement is that ten percent
of the Title 1 budget must be set aside for professional development. For the 2009/2010
school year, River Elementary teachers attended a full day professional development
training on Systematic English Language Development (SELD) and Academic Language
Development (ALD) to assist them in meeting the needs of their EL students. This
training took place before school began and teachers were paid their hourly rate to be in
attendance.
Throughout the school year, the district assigned Teacher on Special Assignment
(TOSA) worked with the principal to establish opportunities for the teachers to volunteer
to participate in lesson studies. These lesson studies were comprised of providing
substitutes to release the teachers so that they were able to observe the TOSA teaching a
lesson in a colleague’s room that they had planned together. They then met following the
lesson to debrief about what had been seen, what was successful, and what could be
improved upon. One of the teachers then volunteered to teach the lesson again in their
own classroom while the others observed. This allowed the team of teachers to reflect
and refine their practice. The goal of these lesson studies was to build capacity at each
grade level within the core curriculum. Only four grade levels took advantage of the
opportunity.
Another opportunity that the River Elementary staff had to reflect on practice was
the use of an Action Walk. These Action Walks are done district-wide at every school
site. Each school’s Leadership Team met to determine the focus of the Action Walk and
154

created a tool to identify certain key components they felt should be evident. The
Leadership Team was released for the day and visited every classroom and then met to
debrief and determine next steps for the school. The Leadership Team at River decided to
focus on the new Project G, which is a Direct Instruction delivery model for math.
Using Time Efficiently & Effectively
Another area of frustration for the principal at River was that the teachers were
not effectively utilizing their 30 minutes of ELD time. Although they had received the
training, there was not faithful implementation occurring. She was seeing that many
teachers were doing their own thing. When asked about what was being seen as she
visited classrooms, she found that the teachers felt they knew better what their students
needed and that the planning for the SELD/ALD was too much work. To help the
teachers in their implementation of the strategies and programs, she brought in the TOSA
to provide additional training and the principal required the teachers to turn in their ELD
schedules to her so that when she visited the classrooms she should be seeing ELD.
Part of the school’s action plan was to differentiate the curriculum for all learners.
Within this, the district focus for all elementary schools was the implementation of
Universal Access (UA) during language arts time. This is a 30-minute block of time
devoted to pulling small groups of students to extend, re-teach, or fill gaps for students.
This time depended on using data to determine which students needed to be pulled for
small group instruction. The implementation of this was less than successful at first.
Initially, all teachers were trained in how to implement UA, but there was still quite a bit
of hesitation. The principal focused on a few grade levels who were receptive to UA and
155

provided them with TOSA support and learning opportunities. UA will be a focus for the
entire school in the 2010/2011 school year with the expectation of full implementation.
Extended Learning Time for Struggling Students
Support offered to struggling students at River Elementary was offered both
during the school day and after school. During the school day, a Part-Time Categorical
Teacher (PTCT) pulled groups of 6-8 students from grade K-3 for 30 minutes and
focused on reading fluency. Another PTCT pulled 6-8 students from grade 4 for 30
minutes and was able to focus on phonics and reading comprehension utilizing the
Voyager program. The Resource Specialist (RS) teacher pulled the students from grades
5 and 6 to provide support with fluency and comprehension. She also pulled a group of 8
struggling third grade students for 30 minutes three times per week to support them
through steps 1 &2 of the Language program which focused on phonemic awareness and
blending.
Classroom teachers provided the support that was provided to struggling students
after school. The content of one of the after-school interventions was math “lesson labs”.
Teachers provided re-teaching and pre-teaching opportunities for students through the
base program. Students were identified through the data received on math unit
assessments. Another focus for after-school interventions was fluency. Teachers in grades
2 & 3 provided students with fluency instruction through a program called 6 Minute
Solution. These interventions were provided two days per week, 45 minutes per day, for
two weeks. Data was analyzed and students were moved accordingly.

156

Collaborative, Professional Culture
In February 2008 when the principal first arrived at River, the staff was
disconnected. There was a feeling of distrust among grade levels and the sense of
professionalism was in dire need of repair. The district had been using early release time
on Wednesdays since 2006 to allow teachers to collaborate with each other within their
grade levels. Fortunately, the union had provided teachers with a list of things they
were/were not allowed to do during that time. This forced teachers to actually plan
together and discuss instruction because prep time was not allowed. To assist in ensuring
that the collaboration time was being effectively utilized, the principal required grade
levels to turn in minutes from their meetings so that she would know what further support
was needed and if she needed to intervene or not. The staff at River saw the value in
collaboration and were discussing things such as data analysis, differentiation, Thinking
Maps, backwards planning, and sharing ideas.
Widespread & Distributed Instructional Leadership
Upon coming to River, the principal determined that there needed to be a shared
feeling of decision-making among the staff. She began to include the staff on determining
where the school needed to go and what steps needed to be taken to get there. The
principal ultimately carried the vision of the big picture, but allowed the staff to
participate in getting there. It has been a difficult road since there were varied opinions of
how things should be done, but over the past few years, the staff has become more united
on what is best for their students. One step that she took was hand picking the members
of her Leadership Team. She identified one staff member at each grade level to represent
157

the school. These teachers were the leaders who all shared the same vision yet could
come up with differing views to help see all sides of the situation.
In addition to school site professional development, the district held Leadership
Academies for the Leadership Team at each school site and each Academy hosted nine
elementary schools at a time. Leadership Academies are conducted three times per year
and the focus for the 2009/2010 school year was Project G. The ultimate goal was for
each team to take back the information learned at Leadership Academy and share it with
their school site. For example, when they move into breakout sessions for their individual
grade levels, they are shown specific lessons, instructional strategies, and have the
opportunity to trouble-shoot any problem areas with the district TOSAs who specialize in
that grade level. Those teachers were then expected to go back to their school site and
relate the information to their team.
Professional & Best Practices
River Elementary spent a lot of time and money on training teachers on best
instructional practices. Two areas they focused on primarily were Response to
Intervention (RtI) and Direct Instruction (DI). The teachers were trained on the RtI
pyramid which contained four components: 1) tier one intervention which focused on the
core instruction would work for 80% of students, 2) determining what good instruction
looked like, 3) through tier two of intervention, utilizing UA time to further meet the
needs of struggling students (approximately 15%), and 4) tier three intervention which
could focus on the remaining 5% of students through the student study team process and
potentially special education support.
158

Along with their focus and implementation of RtI, River Elementary continued to
agree that best practices through Direct Instruction, continued training in the core
curriculum, and the utilization of the RtI process would assist them in further meeting the
needs of all students. With the guidance of the principal, the staff continued to refine their
collaboration processes and procedures making sure to effectively utilize data to guide
their instruction. The use of the district TOSA had a significant effect on teachers’
understanding of instructional strategies as well as the core curriculum. Table H.1 is a
summary of how River Elementary School implemented the 10 steps that were
recommended by Odden and Archibald (2009) for doubling student performance.

159

Table H.1: River and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Average Weak N/A
Understanding
performance
problem and
challenge
X Staff understands the performance problem and
feels the sense of urgency to change
Set ambitious goals
X Waterfall USD has established universal district
goals for every student in grades 2-11
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision
X As a result of their Year 3 PI status, River
Elementary established a new action plan to
increase student achievement. While the core
curriculum did not change, the instructional
strategies that were implemented (DI, RtI, Project
G) were different. Additional programs were
utilized to support intervention opportunities.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions
X The school uses the district’s student data system
(Data Director) to monitor student progress,
identify students for intervention, and guide their
instructional practices.
Ongoing PD

X As a Year 3 PI school, 10% of River’s Title 1
budget is set aside for professional development.
District TOSAs are used to provide trainings
throughout the school year.
Using time
efficiently &
effectively
X The instructional schedule at River has been
maximized to avoid classroom interruptions and
to ensure the implementation of ELD and UA
time.
Extended learning
time for struggling
students
X Using the three tiers of intervention through RtI,
River has utilized all staff (teachers and support
staff) to provide extended learning opportunities
for struggling students both during the school day
and after school.
Collaborative,
professional culture
X Teachers meet for grade level collaboration for
50 minutes every Wednesday. These
collaboration times are used to share ideas, refine
instructional strategies, review student data, and
discuss curriculum pacing.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership
X The principal works collaboratively with the
school Leadership Team to monitor and create
the school’s action plan. They are continuing to
work on building leadership capacity at each
grade level through teacher leaders.
Professional and best
practices
X Teachers continue to refine their skills with the
established instructional strategies to meet all
students’ needs.

160

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
For the most part, the resource allocation at River Elementary falls far short of the
recommendations of the Evidence-Based Model (EBM). The majority of the differences
fall in the areas of class size, core teachers, instructional coaches, and other pupil support
staff. Table H.2 shows a comparison of the resource allocations in the EBM through a
prototypical school and the actual resource allocation at River Elementary School.
161

Table H.2: Comparison of River Elementary Resource Allocation to EBM
School Element Evidence-Based Model
River Elementary –
Current Resource
Status
River Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-6; 736 Students
Class Size K-3: 15; 4-5: 25 K: 34; 1-3: 20; 4-6: 36
Instructional Days
200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
180
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Half-day kindergarten
Administrative Support
Principal/Asst.
Principal
1.0 FTE
1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE Principal
0.7 FTE Asst.
Principal
School Site Secretary
1.0 Secretary and 1.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary and 1.0
Clerical (2 @ .5)
1.7 Secretary
1.7 Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 23.0 FTE 40.9 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers
0.5 FTE (instrumental
music 0.25, vocal
music 0.25)
8.25 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE
0.4 FTE (District
TOSA; 2 days per
week)
3.7 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100 poverty
students
574 Students of
poverty
2 @ 56.25% - PTCTs
(Part-time Categorical
Teachers)
5.7 FTE
Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0 FTE for
every 100 EL students
567 EL Students 5.6 FTE
Non-instructional
support for EL
students
0.0
0.5 FTE (Testing
clerk)

Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.0 3.1 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 4.0 3.1 FTE

162

Table H.2, Continued
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3.0 professional
teacher positions
2.3 FTE (psychologist
0.4, speech path 0.4,
RSP 1.0, RSP aide 0.5)
5.1 FTE
Severely disabled
students
100% state reimbursement
minus federal funds
None at this school site
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes
5% of personnel resources
and special education
personnel
$3,874 $22,770
Pupil support staff
1.0 FTE for every 100
poverty students
574 Students of
poverty
1.5 FTE (2 Liaisons @
0.5, 1 Health Aide @
0.5)
5.7 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 2.0 FTE (4 @ 0.5)
Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 FTE
0.0 3.4 FTE
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE
1.0 FTE (2@0.5 FTE;
1 CRA and 1
Media/Library Clerk)
1.7 FTE
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student
$0 $18,400
Technology $250 per pupil $17,775 $184,000
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $87,750 $103,040
Student Activities $200 per pupil $3,600 $147,200
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc. not
included above
10% of school budget
as allocated by PI
status
$21,500
$73,600

163

Summary and Lessons Learned
River Elementary School has made some significant progress over the past five
years in improving student achievement. However, NCLB requires higher and higher
levels of proficiency each year, and River, although steadily improving, is still in
Program Improvement. The current principal holds high levels of expectations for the
staff, students, and parents. The school’s PI status has allowed her to lead the teachers in
a deeper analysis of student data to further diagnose student strengths and weaknesses.
Most grade levels are currently using formative and summative assessment information
to assist with guiding their instruction. This information is also being used to target
students for interventions both during the day and after school. The teachers at River
continue to work on participating in meaningful weekly collaboration as well as all
holding the belief that all children can learn. Professional development is also a strong
focus at the school. The principal and the district TOSA provide ongoing support in
research-based strategies and the core curriculum through trainings, demonstration
lessons, and co-plan/co-teach opportunities. The principal has also restructured the
instructional day to minimize disruptions and ensure that instructional minutes are being
met in all academic areas.
Future Considerations
River Elementary continues to be considered a school “at risk” as evidenced by
their Year 4 PI status. While the staff and principal have made considerable efforts to
target struggling students and provide assistance they are also helping students who are
proficient to maintain that status. Discussions with the principal indicated that there is
164

still a lot of work to be done with not only the students, but with the staff as well. She
identified the need for additional resources such as: 1) lower class sizes in kindergarten,
2) on-site instructional coach, and 3) a lengthened instructional day. Unfortunately, all of
these resources require additional funding that the district cannot provide due to their $34
million deficit for the 2010/2011 school year. The principal stated that she would
continue to provide support with the limited resources they currently have in addition to
meeting the requirements that accompany being a Year 4 PI school.

165

APPENDIX I - OCEAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Ocean Elementary is a Title 1, kindergarten through sixth grade school in a large
urban school district in Orange County, Waterfall Unified School District. This school is
on a traditional schedule and houses 602 students from two surrounding cities. This large,
urban school district consists of 46 elementary schools, 10 intermediate schools, 7 high
schools, and 2 continuation high schools. There are approximately 47,000 students
attending schools throughout the district. Ocean Elementary opened its doors in 1958 and
has 22 permanent classrooms and 16 portable classrooms.
Ocean Elementary’s student population is comprised of students from diverse
ethnic backgrounds, socio-economic status, and language abilities. The primary
ethnicities represented are Hispanic (56%), Asian (33%), and White (7%). Figure I.1
shows the ethnic breakdown of students at Ocean Elementary.
Figure I.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Ocean Elementary

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies that have been utilized in the efforts to raise student achievement.

2%3;+,%*
?7%6'
>3%+,
>L(%*+,M>N'(%*+,
)67'(
166

Assessments and Data
Starting 2006/07, Ocean Elementary School has fluctuated in growth patterns in
student performance. From the 2005/06 to the 2009/10 school years, Ocean Elementary
has shown a growth of 53 points on its API. Figure I.2 shows Ocean Elementary School’s
API over the last five years.
Figure I.2: Ocean Elementary School’s API

The Average Yearly Progress (AYP) reports show the progress for Ocean
Elementary. All subgroups have shown growth over the past five years. The growth has
been sporadic however ending with a gain. School-wide, Ocean Elementary has grown
14% in proficient and advanced students in language arts. While the Hispanic group has
demonstrated a 12% growth, the English Learner (EL) group has only shown a 10%
growth over the past five years. Their Socio-Economically Disadvantaged (SED) has
experienced a 9% increase.
E!!
E"!
G!!
G"!
C!!
C"!
I!!
F!!"8!E F!!E8!G F!!G8!C F!!C8!I F!!I8#!
GHI
G"H
GHH
GG!
GIF
167

An issue that continues to receive a lot of attention in most school districts across
the nation is the achievement gap that exists between various subgroups. At Ocean
Elementary, the Hispanic students continue to perform well below the Asian students. For
the 2006 school year, the achievement gap between these two subgroups in English
language arts was 29%; five years later, the achievement gap has only slightly narrowed
by 3% to a gap of 26%. Both subgroups continue to improve at approximately the same
rate, which does little to minimize the achievement gap.
Ocean Elementary did not meet their AYP goals for the 2009/2010 school year in
English language arts and run the risk of becoming a Year 1 PI school if they do meet
their AYP targets for a second year in a row. Figure I.3 shows Ocean Elementary
School’s language arts AYP of proficient and advanced students on the CST for various
subgroups since 2005/2006.
Figure I.3: ELA – Percent of Proficient and Advanced Students at Ocean Elementary

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
School!Wide Hispanic EL SED
168

Figure I.4 shows the math AYP of proficient and advanced students on the CST
for Ocean Elementary. Ocean’s math scores have shown some sporadic yet steady
progress. School-wide they have experienced 17% growth and within their Hispanic
subgroup, Ocean Elementary has grown 21% in proficient and advanced students. Their
EL population has had a slightly lower level of growth at 14% as well as the Socio-
Economically Disadvantaged group over the past five years. Ocean Elementary continues
to exceed the state targets for AYP in math with the most recent increase attributed to the
newly implemented lesson delivery model that enables students to experience more
success due to its predictable and interactive lesson design. Teachers are able to plan
lessons based on current data on their students.
A similar achievement gap exists for math between various subgroups. The
Hispanic subgroup of students at Ocean is performing well below the Asian subgroup of
students. In 2006, the achievement gap between these two groups was 41%; five years
later, the gap has narrowed slightly to 27% with the Hispanic students showing a growth
of 22% during those five years. The Asian students continue to out-perform the Hispanic
students in math.

169

Figure I.4: Math – Percent of Proficient and Advanced Students at Ocean Elementary

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Ocean Elementary opened in 1958 and education has changed substantially over
the past 52 years. With the implementation of NCLB in 2001, schools and districts
became accountable for student achievement as measured through state standardized
assessments. Ocean Elementary also houses three special day moderate/severe classes
and has a total of 52 students in all three classes. It is important to note that due to the
severity of their disabilities, these students do not participate in the traditional CST
testing.
The current principal was appointed to Ocean Elementary in 2008 after working
as a K-6 TOSA in the district office for the previous two years. She has been in education
for over 20 years and has helped successfully raise the API scores at Ocean Elementary
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
School!Wide Hispanic EL SED
170

over the past two years. She has promoted collaboration among grade levels and teachers,
differentiating the instruction for all students, and holding high expectations that every
child can learn. This has not been an easy task due to resistance from the staff. The
previous principal was not as focused on curriculum and left the staff to their own
devices that resulted in the test scores staying fairly stagnant. Utilizing her knowledge of
core curriculum and research-based instructional strategies, the current principal has
made efforts to provide opportunities to the staff that would assist them in refining their
teaching practices, utilize data on an on-going basis, and bring about a greater knowledge
of the core programs. Under the leadership of this principal, the staff has taken steps
towards improving their instructional practice and played a role in moving students
towards proficiency.
The data above indicates that there was improvement at Ocean Elementary over
the past five years with a special emphasis on the changes made by the current principal.
The following is a narrative description of what transformations occurred at Ocean
utilizing Odden & Archibald’s (2009) Strategies for Improving Student Achievement as a
framework as well as some of the challenges that were encountered.
Understanding the Performance Problem & Challenge
Upon entering the school in August 2008, Ocean’s principal sent out a
questionnaire to all of the teachers to determine staff perceptions of the school. She
concluded that most teachers were not concerned about the school’s test scores and saw
no need for any drastic changes. The principal also learned that the staff was fragmented
and not feeling a sense of community. During her first year, she made few changes and
171

took the year to evaluate all that was being done. At the conclusion of the school year,
she held a staff meeting to reflect on the year and determine what the next steps would
be. This staff meeting was also a key component in raising the awareness of teachers that
the expectation is that all students can learn regardless of their ethnicity or socio-
economic status.
Set Ambitious Goals
Waterfall Unified School District has established learning goals for all students in
grades two through eleven. Students in second grade are expected to score proficient or
advanced on the CST. Students in grades three through sixth are expected to make at least
one proficiency band’s growth on the CST in both English Language Arts and Math. This
growth is expected to take place until they are able to maintain proficiency or advanced
status. Along with goals for the CST, all English Learner students are expected to make
one band’s growth each year on the California English Language Development Test
(CELDT) until they become English language proficient. Each year, reports are created to
identify which students have met the goals and which ones haven’t. Much attention is
given to not only helping students maintain proficiency, but to also focus on moving the
remaining students into higher proficiency bands.
The principal set the goal to meet with students in grades four through six who are
potential “band jumpers” on the next CST. These goal-setting conferences consisted of a
one-on-one meeting with the principal and student. Throughout the school year the
principal continued to meet with the targeted students to review their progress on district
benchmarks that have proven to have a high correlation to the CSTs. She and the students
172

reflected on successes and struggles and allowed her to identify students needing
interventions.
Change the Curriculum Program & Create a New Instructional Vision
Knowing that the teachers at Ocean were behind the district in their
implementation of the core curriculum and research-based instructional strategies the
principal decided that a new plan of action must take place. This new plan consisted of
the following three components: 1) on-going professional development opportunities for
teachers to acquire more knowledge regarding the core curriculum as well as research-
based instructional strategies, 2) increased intervention opportunities for struggling
students, and 3) utilization of data to drive instruction and monitor student progress. This
plan was first shared with the Leadership Team and then disseminated out to the
remaining teachers through staff meetings and grade level collaboration.
Formative Assessment & Data-based Decision Making
A variety of data are used to drive instruction and support students at Ocean
Elementary. This process, however, is still not necessarily part of the school culture, but
the principal indicated that the majority of teachers were now at least looking at data
under her guidance to monitor student progress and gather grades for report cards. The
utilization of data to refine teacher practice is still a work in progress. When the current
principal arrived at the school, the teachers were rarely using the district’s student data
warehouse, Data Director, to access their student’s assessment results. All teachers were
required to give district benchmark assessments throughout the year. The language arts
benchmarks were administered four times per year and the math benchmarks were given
173

at the conclusion of each trimester. In addition to the district benchmarks, teachers were
also required to give formative assessments in the form of language arts Theme Skills
Tests and math Unit tests.
At the beginning of each school year, the principal met with each grade level to
reflect on their student data from the previous year. Overall CST scores, cluster scores,
and benchmark information are reviewed to assist in refining practice. They then looked
at the information on their incoming students to see where their areas of strength are and
where they will need to focus more attention. Throughout the school year, the grade
levels continued to meet with the principal to reflect on student progress and assist in
modifying instruction. The principal hired substitute teachers to release one grade level at
a time for one hour at the conclusion of each trimester to discuss and reflect on student
data.
Another assessment that was used at the beginning of each school year that
allowed the teachers to gain information on each student was the Dynamic Indicators of
Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). This assessment was given to every student in
grades K-3 to measure the acquisition of early literacy skills. If a student was identified
as “at-risk”, an additional assessment was given, the Comprehensive Literacy Assessment
(CLA). This further identified where students were breaking down with their literacy
skills and the teacher targeted students for intervention as well as continued to monitor
their progress through additional DIBELS assessments throughout the year. Along with
the CLA, each student in grades K-6 were administered an assessment that measures their
instructional reading level. Teachers used this data to assist them in differentiating the
174

language arts program. All data gleaned from these assessments were entered into Data
Director for teachers and administrators to utilize.
On-going, Intensive Professional Development
For the 2009/2010 school year, Ocean Elementary teachers attended a full day
professional development training on the implementation of Direct Instruction through
the Project G lesson delivery in math. Teachers learned how to plan and present the math
lessons according to the DI model that had been set forth. The components of the lesson
plan include; 1) Problem of the Day, 2) Orientation, 3) Teacher Presentation, 4)
Structured Practice, 5) Guided Practice, 6) Group Collaboration, 7) Presentation, and 8)
Closure. The school’s district K-6 TOSA led the training and facilitated on-going co-
plan/co-teach opportunities throughout the school year. The initial training took place
before school began and teachers were paid their hourly rate to be in attendance.
Throughout the school year, the district assigned Teacher on Special Assignment
(TOSA) worked with the principal to establish opportunities for the teachers to volunteer
to participate in lesson studies for math. These lesson studies were comprised of
providing substitutes to release the teachers so that they were able to observe the TOSA
teaching a lesson in a colleague’s room that they had planned together. They then met
following the lesson to debrief about what had been seen, what was successful, and what
could be improved upon. One of the teachers then volunteered to teach the lesson again in
their own classroom while the others observed. This allowed the team of teachers to
reflect and refine their practice. The goal of these lesson studies was to build capacity at
175

each grade level within the core curriculum. Since they were voluntary, only two grade
levels took advantage of the opportunity provided to them.
Another opportunity that the Ocean Elementary staff had to reflect on practice
was the use of an Action Walk. These Action Walks were done district-wide at every
school site. Each school’s Leadership Team met to determine the focus of the Action
Walk and created a tool to identify certain key components they felt should be evident.
The Leadership Team was released for the day and visited every classroom and then met
to debrief and determine next steps for the school. The Leadership Team at Ocean
decided to focus on the new Project G Direct Instruction delivery model for math.
Using Time Efficiently & Effectively
Another area of frustration for the principal at Ocean was that the teachers were
not effectively utilizing their 30 minutes of ELD time. Although they had received the
training, there was not faithful implementation occurring. She was seeing that many
teachers were doing their own thing if they were doing anything at all. When asked about
what was being seen as she visited classrooms, she found that the teachers felt they knew
better what their students needed and that the planning for the SELD/ALD was too much
work. To help the teachers in their implementation of the strategies and programs, she
brought in the TOSA to provide additional training and the principal required the teachers
to turn in their ELD schedules to her so that when she visited the classrooms she should
be seeing ELD. As of the 2009/2010 school year, ELD implementation was still very
weak according to the principal.
176

Part of the school’s action plan was to differentiate the curriculum for all learners.
Within this, the district focus for all elementary schools was the implementation of
Universal Access (UA) during language arts time. This is a 30-minute block of time
devoted to pulling small groups of students to extend, pre-teach, re-teach, or fill gaps for
students. This time depended on using data to determine which students needed to be
pulled for small group instruction. The implementation of this was less than successful at
first. Initially, all teachers were trained in how to implement UA, but there was still quite
a bit of hesitation. As the principal visited classrooms both informally and formally, she
noticed that teachers still passively refused to implement UA time stating that it was
unnecessary and that ultimately there was no time in the day to fit in. UA will be a focus
for the entire school in the 2010/2011 school year with the expectation of full
implementation.
Extended Learning Time for Struggling Students
Support offered to struggling students at Ocean Elementary was offered both
during the school day and after school. During the school day, a Part-Time Categorical
Teacher (PTCT) pulled groups of 6-8 students from each grade in grades 3-6 who were
considered “band jumpers” and had the potential to jump a proficiency band on the CST.
The PTCT worked with students in both math and language arts.
After school, teachers provided intervention opportunities in math for struggling
students in grades 1-6 to focus on a component of Project G that is called “Beyond the
Basic Facts”. This component consists of teaching students the commutative property to
memorize their basic math facts. This intervention was offered three days per week for 30
177

minutes each day. Another after school intervention that was offered by teachers was for
5
th
grade students to pre-teach language arts concepts to struggling students using the
core program. The 5
th
graders attended this intervention twice per week for a four-week
span. To ensure that students had the opportunity to participate in after school
interventions, the principal arranged for a district bus to provide transportation for all
students who needed it.
Collaborative, Professional Culture
In August, 2008 when the principal first arrived at Ocean, the staff was
disconnected. There was a feeling of distrust among grade levels and the sense of
professionalism was in dire need of repair. The district had been using early release time
on Wednesdays since 2006 to allow teachers to collaborate with each other within their
grade levels. Fortunately, the union had provided teachers with a list of things they
were/were not allowed to do during that time. This forced teachers to actually plan
together and discuss instruction because prep time was not allowed. To assist in ensuring
that the collaboration time was being effectively utilized, the principal required grade
levels to turn in minutes from their meetings so that she would know what further support
was needed and if she needed to intervene or not. The staff at Ocean still struggles to see
the benefit of collaboration and is working to make their discussions meaningful through
focusing on things such as data analysis, differentiation, Thinking Maps, backwards
planning, and sharing ideas.

178

Widespread & Distributed Instructional Leadership
Upon coming to Ocean, the principal determined that there needed to be a shared
feeling of decision-making among the staff. She began to include the staff on determining
where the school needed to go and what steps needed to be taken to get there. Once she
saw that there was little consensus on moving the school forward, the principal ultimately
carried the vision of the big picture for the school. It has been a difficult road since there
were varied opinions of how things should be done, but over the past few years, a few of
the staff have become more united on what is best for their students. One step that she
took was hand picking the members of her Leadership Team. She identified one staff
member at each grade level to represent the school. These teachers were the leaders who
all shared the same vision yet could come up with differing views to help see all sides of
the situation.
In addition to school site professional development, the district held Leadership
Academies for the Leadership Team at each school site and each Academy hosted nine
elementary schools at a time. Leadership Academies were conducted three times per year
and the focus for the 2009/2010 school year was Project G. The ultimate goal was for
each team to take back the information learned at Leadership Academy and share it with
their school site. For example, when they move into breakout sessions for their individual
grade levels, they are shown specific lessons, instructional strategies, and have the
opportunity to trouble-shoot any problem areas with the district TOSAs who specialize in
179

that grade level. Those teachers were then expected to go back to their school site and
relate the information to their team.
Professional & Best Practices
Ocean Elementary spent a lot of time and money on training teachers on best
instructional practices. It was decided that best practices through Direct Instruction,
continued training in the core curriculum, and the implementation of interventions would
assist them in further meeting the needs of all students. With the guidance of the
principal, the staff continued to refine their collaboration processes and procedures
making sure to begin looking at data to assist in identifying students for interventions.
Ultimately, the principal hopes that all teachers will not only utilize data monitor student
progress but to also reflect and refine their instructional practices as well. The use of the
district TOSA had a significant effect on some teachers’ understanding of instructional
strategies as well as the core curriculum.
Table I.1 is a summary of how Ocean Elementary School implemented the 10
steps that were recommended by Odden and Archibald (2009) for doubling student
performance.

180

Table I.1: Ocean and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden & Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Average Weak N/A
Understanding
performance problem
and challenge
X Staff understands that there is a performance
problem, but is still struggling to accept that they
are a part of the equation.
Set ambitious goals
X Waterfall USD has established universal district
goals for every student in grades 2-11
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision
X Upon the arrival of the new principal as well as
declining test scores, a new instructional vision
was implemented. While the core curriculum did
not change, the instructional strategies that were
implemented (DI, RtI, Project G) were different.
Additional programs were utilized to support
intervention opportunities.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions
X The school uses the district’s student data system
(Data Director) to monitor student progress,
identify students for intervention. The staff is
split on their use of data to guide instruction.
Ongoing PD

X In an effort to support the instructional vision,
professional development is offered during the
school day to ensure attendance. District TOSAs
are used to provide trainings throughout the
school year.
Using time efficiently
& effectively
X The instructional schedule at Ocean has been
readjusted to avoid classroom interruptions and to
allow for the implementation of ELD and UA
time.
Extended learning
time for struggling
students
X While the PTCT was able to offer interventions
during the day, few teachers were willing to
participate in any after school interventions. In
reflecting on the data of students participating in
the interventions, those who were a part of the
during the day programs showed more growth
than those with the teachers after school.
Collaborative,
professional culture
X Teachers meet for grade level collaboration for 50
minutes every Wednesday. These collaboration
times are structured to allow for planning and
evaluation of data. Some teachers are able to
utilize this time well, while others are not. There
is still friction among various teachers at certain
grade levels.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership
X The principal works collaboratively with the
school Leadership Team to monitor and create the
school’s action plan. They are continuing to work
on building leadership capacity at each grade
level through teacher leaders.
Professional and best
practices
X Teachers continue to refine their skills with the
established instructional strategies to meet all
students’ needs. Some teachers continue to
struggle with changing their current practices.

181

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
For the most part, the resource allocation at Ocean Elementary falls far short of
the recommendations of the Evidence-Based Model (EBM). The majority of the
differences fall in the areas of class size, core teachers, instructional coaches, and other
pupil support staff. Table I.2 shows a comparison of the resource allocations in the EBM
through a prototypical school and the actual resource allocation at Ocean Elementary
School.

182

Table I.2: Comparison of Ocean Elementary Resource Allocation to EBM
School Element Evidence-Based Model
Ocean Elementary –
Current Resource
Status
Ocean Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-6; 602 Students
Class Size K-3: 15; 4-5: 25 K: 34; 1-3: 20; 4-6: 36
Instructional Days
200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
180
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Half-day kindergarten
Administrative Support
Principal/Asst.
Principal
1.0 FTE
1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE Principal
0.4 FTE Asst.
Principal
School Site Secretary
1.0 Secretary and 1.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary and 0.5
Clerical
1.4 Secretary
1.4 Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 27.0 FTE 33.6 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers
0.5 FTE (instrumental
music 0.25, vocal
music 0.25)
6.7 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE
0.4 FTE (District
TOSA; 2 days per
week)
3.1 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100 poverty
students
511 Students of
poverty
1 @ 56.25% - PTCT
(Part-time Categorical
Teacher)
5.1 FTE
Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0 FTE for
every 100 EL students
415 EL Students
O.0 EL FTEs
4.1 FTE
Non-instructional
support for EL
students
0.0
0.5 FTE (Testing
clerk)
0.0
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.0 2.5 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 4.0 2.5 FTE

183

Table I.2, Continued
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3.0 professional
teacher positions
2.3 FTE (psychologist
0.4, speech path 0.4,
RSP 1.0, RSP aide 0.5)
4.2 FTE
Severely disabled
students
100% state reimbursement
minus federal funds
3.0 FTE
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes
5% of personnel resources
and special education
personnel
$2,889 $29,700
Pupil support staff
1.0 FTE for every 100
poverty students
511 Students of
poverty
1.5 FTE (2 Liaisons @
0.5, 1 Health Aide @
0.5)
5.1 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 5.5 FTE (11 @ 0.5) 0.0
Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 FTE
0.0 2.8 FTE
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE
1.0 FTE (2@0.5 FTE;
1 CRA and 1
Media/Library Clerk)
1.4 FTE
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student
$0 $15,050
Technology $250 per pupil $12,050 $150,500
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $47,350 $84,280
Student Activities $200 per pupil $4,790 $120,400
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc. not
included above
$13,475 $60,200

184

Summary and Lessons Learned
Ocean Elementary School has made some progress over the past five years in
improving student achievement including the 2009/2010 school year where they came
eight points short of making the target of 800 API. However, NCLB requires higher and
higher levels of proficiency each year, and Ocean, although steadily improving, the staff
beliefs are still difficult to change. The current principal holds high levels of expectations
for the staff, students, and parents. All grade levels are currently using formative and
summative assessments to monitor student progress, but little is being done with this data
outside of the principal’s leadership. This information is also being used to target students
for interventions both during the day and after school by some teachers but primarily by
the principal. The teachers at Ocean continue to work on participating in meaningful
weekly collaboration as well as all holding the belief that all children can learn.
Professional development is also a strong focus at the school. The principal and the
district TOSA provide ongoing support in research-based strategies and the core
curriculum through trainings, demonstration lessons, and co-plan/co-teach opportunities.
The principal has also restructured the instructional day to minimize disruptions and
ensure that instructional minutes are being met in all academic areas.
Future Considerations
Ocean Elementary continues to work toward meeting the targets set forth by
NCLB. They failed to meet their AYP targets this year in language arts and another year
without meeting these goals will result in a Year 1 PI status next year. While the principal
185

has made considerable efforts to target struggling students and provide assistance she is
also helping students who are proficient to maintain that status. Discussions with the
principal indicated that there is still a lot of work to be done with not only the students,
but with the staff as well. She identified the need for additional resources such as: 1)
smaller class sizes, 2) a full-time person who is dedicated solely to parent education and
training, 3) an on-site full-time TOSA who would provide training and coaching, and 4)
being able to remove teachers who are unwilling to carry out the school’s vision. Some of
these resources are easier to come by than others, but unfortunately, all of these resources
require additional funding that the district cannot provide due to their $34 million deficit
for the 2010/2011 school year. The principal stated that she would continue to provide
support with the limited resources they currently have as well as trying to move the
school forward by changing some staff beliefs.

186

APPENDIX J - CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Creek Elementary is a Title 1, kindergarten through sixth grade school in a large
urban school district in Orange County, Waterfall Unified School District. This school is
on a traditional schedule and houses 478 students from one city. This large, urban school
district consists of 46 elementary schools, 10 intermediate schools, 7 high schools, and 2
continuation high schools. There are approximately 47,000 students attending schools
throughout the district. Creek Elementary opened its doors in 1955 and has 19 permanent
classrooms and 7 portable classrooms.
Creek Elementary’s student population is comprised of students from diverse
ethnic backgrounds, socio-economic status, and language abilities. The primary
ethnicities represented are Hispanic (60%), Asian (23%), and White (13%). Figure J.1
shows the ethnic breakdown of students at Creek Elementary.
Figure J.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Creek Elementary

2%3;+,%*
?7%6'
>3%+,
>L(%*+,M>N'(%*+,
)67'(
187

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies that have been utilized in the efforts to raise student achievement.
Assessments and Data
Starting 2006/07, Creek Elementary School has made slow but steady growth in
student performance with its largest jump in 2009/2010. From the 2005/06 to the 2009/10
school years, Creek Elementary has shown a growth of 53 points on its API. Figure J.2
shows Creek Elementary School’s API over the last five years.
Figure J.2: Creek Elementary School’s API

The Average Yearly Progress (AYP) reports show the progress for Creek
Elementary. All subgroups have shown growth over the past five years. The growth has
been sporadic however ending with a gain. School-wide, Creek Elementary has grown
10% in proficient and advanced students in language arts. While the Hispanic group has
demonstrated a 12% growth, the English Learner (EL) group has only shown a 8%
growth over the past five years. Their Socio-Economically Disadvantaged (SED) has
experienced a 10% increase.
E!!
E"!
G!!
G"!
C!!
C"!
I!!
F!!"8!E F!!E8!G F!!G8!C F!!C8!I F!!I8#!
GF!
GFE
GHD
GD"
GGH
188

An issue that continues to receive a lot of attention in most school districts across
the nation is the achievement gap that exists between one various subgroups. At Creek
Elementary, the Hispanic students are performing well below the Asian students. For the
2006 school year, the achievement gap between these two subgroups in English language
arts was 33%; five years later, the achievement gap has actually grown to a gap of 38%.
Both subgroups continue to improve however the Hispanic students are progressing in
English language arts more slowly than the Asian students at Creek Elementary.
Creek Elementary did not meet their AYP goals for the 2009/2010 school year in
English language arts and run the risk of becoming a Year 1 PI school if they do meet
their AYP targets for a second year in a row. Figure J.3 shows Creek Elementary
School’s language arts AYP of proficient and advanced students on the CST for various
subgroups since 2005/2006.
Figure J.3: ELA – Percent of Proficient and Advanced Students at Creek Elementary

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
School!Wide Hispanic EL SED
189

Figure J.4 shows the math AYP of proficient and advanced students on the CST
for Creek Elementary. Creek’s math scores have shown some slow progress with its
greatest growth in the 2009/2010 school year. School-wide they have experienced 8%
growth and within their Hispanic subgroup, Creek Elementary has grown only 5% in
proficient and advanced students. Their EL population has had a slightly lower level of
growth at 3%. The Socio-Economically Disadvantaged group has shown the most growth
with a 17% increase. Creek Elementary continues to meet state targets for AYP in math
with the most recent increase attributed to the newly implemented lesson delivery model,
“Project G”, that enables students to experience more success due to its predictable and
interactive lesson design. Teachers are able to plan lessons based on current data on their
students.
A similar achievement gap exists for math between various subgroups. The
Hispanic subgroup of students at Creek is performing well below the Asian subgroup of
students. In 2006, the achievement gap between these two groups was 30%; five years
later, the gap has not narrowed and has grown slightly to 31% with the Hispanic students
only showing a growth of 5% during those five years. The Asian students continue to out-
perform the Hispanic students in math.
Math AYP targets have been met at Creek through the state’s growth model of
“safe harbor”. This provision allows schools to be meet the targets as long as they have
moved at least 10% of their tested students into higher proficiency bands. The state
utilizes a formula to determine if a school has met safe harbor requirements and therefore
will not go into PI status.
190

Figure J.4: Math – Percent of Proficient and Advanced Students at Creek Elementary

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Creek Elementary opened in 1955 and education has changed substantially over
the past 55 years. With the implementation of NCLB in 2001, schools and districts
became accountable for student achievement as measured through state standardized
assessments. Creek Elementary also houses three special day mild/moderate classes and
has a total of 61 students in all three classes. It is important to note that these students
participate in the traditional CST and/or the California Modified Assessment (CMA). The
CMA is available to students with disabilities in grades 3-9 who scored in the Far Below
Basic or Below Basic proficiency band on their previous year’s CST. The CMA tests the
same grade level standards but presents the material in a larger font, shorter reading
passages, and fewer questions per page to assist students in accessing the material.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
School!Wide Hispanic EL SED
191

The current principal was appointed to Creek Elementary in 2006, has been in
education for over 23 years and has helped successfully raise the API scores at Creek
Elementary. He has promoted collaboration among grade levels and teachers,
differentiating the instruction for all students, and holding high expectations that every
child can learn in spite of their disability. This has not been an easy task due to resistance
from the staff. The current principal has made efforts to provide opportunities to the staff
that would assist them in refining their teaching practices, utilize data on an on-going
basis, and bring about a greater knowledge of the core programs. Under the leadership of
this principal, the staff has taken steps towards improving their instructional practice and
play a role in moving students towards proficiency however, the beliefs of some of the
staff are still that the blame should be put on the parents or the students’ disability.
The data above indicate that there was improvement at Creek Elementary over the
past five years with a special emphasis on the changes made by the current principal. The
following is a narrative description of what transformations occurred at Creek utilizing
Odden & Archibald’s (2009) Strategies for Improving Student Achievement as a
framework as well as some of the challenges that were encountered.
Understanding the Performance Problem & Challenge
Upon entering the school in August 2006, Creek’s principal held individual
meetings with all of the teachers to determine staff perceptions of the school. He
concluded that most teachers were not concerned about the school’s test scores and saw
no need for any drastic changes. The main concerns of the staff were complaints about
the professionalism of their colleagues and the changing demographics of the school. He
192

spent most of his first year getting a feel for the school and staff all the while making
very small changes. At the conclusion of the school year, he held a staff meeting to
reflect on the year and what the next steps would be. This staff meeting was also a key
component in raising the awareness of teachers that the expectation is that all students
can learn regardless of their ethnicity or socio-economic status.
Set Ambitious Goals
Waterfall Unified School District has established learning goals for all students in
grades two through eleven. Students in second grade are expected to score proficient or
advanced on the CST. Students in grades three through sixth are expected to make at least
one proficiency’s band growth on the CST in both English Language Arts and Math. This
growth is expected to take place until they are able to maintain proficiency or advanced
status. Along with goals for the CST, all English Learner students are expected to make
one band’s growth each year on the California English Language Development Test
(CELDT) until they become English language proficient. Each year, reports are created to
identify which students have met the goals and which ones haven’t. Much attention is
given to not only helping students maintain proficiency, but to also focus on moving the
remaining students into higher proficiency bands.
The principal set the goal to meet with students in grades four through six who are
potential “band jumpers” on the next CST. These goal-setting conferences consisted of a
one-on-one meeting with the principal and student. Throughout the school year the
principal continued to meet with the targeted students to review their progress on district
benchmarks that have proven to have a high correlation to the CSTs. He and the students
193

reflected on successes and struggles and allowed her to identify students needing
interventions.
Change the Curriculum Program & Create a New Instructional Vision
Knowing that the teachers at Creek were behind the district in their
implementation of the core curriculum and research-based instructional strategies the
principal decided that a new plan of action must take place. This new plan consisted of
the following four components: 1) on-going professional development opportunities for
teachers to acquire more knowledge regarding the core curriculum as well as research-
based instructional strategies, 2) increased intervention opportunities for struggling
students, 3) utilization of data to drive instruction and monitor student progress, and 4)
fostering collaboration between grade level team members. This plan was first shared
with the Leadership Team and then disseminated out to the remaining teachers through
staff meetings and grade level collaboration.
Formative Assessment & Data-based Decision Making
A variety of data were used to drive instruction and support students at Creek
Elementary. This process, however, was still not necessarily part of the school culture,
but the principal indicated that the majority of teachers were now at least looking at data
under his guidance to monitor student progress. The utilization of data to refine teacher
practice was still a work in progress with a few key teachers taking the lead. When the
current principal arrived at the school, the teachers were rarely using the district’s student
data warehouse, Data Director, to access their student’s assessment results. All teachers
were required to give district benchmark assessments throughout the year. The language
194

arts benchmarks were administered four times per year and the math benchmarks were
given at the conclusion of each trimester. In addition to the district benchmarks, teachers
were also required to give formative assessments in the form of language arts Theme
Skills Tests and math Unit tests. These assessment results were available on Data
Director and a majority of teachers were now accessing them regularly.
At the beginning of each school year, the principal met with each grade level to
reflect on their student data from the previous year. Overall CST scores, cluster scores,
and benchmark information were reviewed to assist in refining practice. They then
looked at the information on their incoming students to see where their areas of strength
are and where they will need to focus more attention. Throughout the school year, the
grade levels continued to meet with the principal to reflect on student progress and assist
in modifying instruction. The principal hired substitute teachers to release one grade level
at a time for one hour at the conclusion of each trimester to hold data discussions that
reflected upon the trimester’s student data.
Another assessment that was used at the beginning of each school year that
allowed the teachers to gain information on each student was the Dynamic Indicators of
Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). This assessment was given to every student in
grades K-3 to measure the acquisition of early literacy skills. If a student was identified
as “at-risk”, an additional assessment was given, the Comprehensive Literacy Assessment
(CLA). This further identified where students were breaking down with their literacy
skills and the teacher targeted students for intervention as well as continued to monitor
their progress through additional DIBELS assessments throughout the year. Along with
195

the CLA, each student in grades K-6 were administered an assessment that measures their
instructional reading level. Teachers used this data to assist them in differentiating the
language arts program. All data gleaned from these assessments were entered into Data
Director for teachers and administrators to utilize. The information was used by teachers
and the principal to determine students for interventions, for the teachers to identify
students for additional small group instruction, and to determine necessary adjustments to
instruction.
On-going, Intensive Professional Development
For the 2009/2010 school year, Creek Elementary teachers attended a full day
professional development training on the implementation of Direct Instruction through
the Project G lesson delivery in math. Teachers learned how to plan and present the math
lessons according to the DI model that had been set forth. The components of the lesson
plan include; 1) Problem of the Day, 2) Orientation, 3) Teacher Presentation, 4)
Structured Practice, 5) Guided Practice, 6) Group Collaboration, 7) Presentation, and 8)
Closure. The school’s district K-6 TOSA led the training and facilitated on-going co-
plan/co-teach opportunities throughout the school year. The initial training took place
before school began and teachers were paid their hourly rate to be in attendance.
Throughout the school year, the district assigned Teacher on Special Assignment
(TOSA) worked with the principal to establish opportunities for the teachers to volunteer
to participate in lesson studies for math. These lesson studies were comprised of
providing substitutes to release the teachers so that they were able to observe the TOSA
teaching a lesson in a colleague’s room that they had planned together. They then met
196

following the lesson to debrief about what had been seen, what was successful, and what
could be improved upon. One of the teachers then volunteered to teach the lesson again in
their own classroom while the others observed. This allowed the team of teachers to
reflect and refine their practice. The goal of these lesson studies was to build capacity at
each grade level within the core curriculum. Since they were voluntary, only two grade
levels took advantage of the opportunity provided to them.
Another opportunity that the Creek Elementary staff had to reflect on practice was
the use of an Action Walk. These Action Walks were done district-wide at every school
site. Each school’s Leadership Team met to determine the focus of the Action Walk and
created a tool to identify certain key components they felt should be evident. The
Leadership Team was released for the day and visited every classroom and then met to
debrief and determine next steps for the school. The Leadership Team at Creek decided
to focus on the new Project G Direct Instruction delivery model for math.
Using Time Efficiently & Effectively
Another area of frustration for the principal at Creek was the vertical and school-
wide alignment of instruction. While visiting classrooms, the principal witnessed a
variety of activities and strategies taking place. For example, if visiting three third grade
classrooms within a 30-minute period of the language arts block, the principal saw three
different lessons taking place. Instead of the same concept being taught, different
concepts were being presented. After this realization, he met with the team and discussed
what he had seen. The teachers’ response was that they don’t plan together. A couple of
days later, one of the third grade teachers approached the principal to let him know that
197

there is great animosity between the team members because they do not like working
together. This issue has been a large one at Creek and the principal continues to work on
creating a professional community within the school. He has changed teaching
assignments to create more cohesive teams and foster collaboration. This has helped the
school become more supportive of each other and begin focusing on student
achievement.
Part of the school’s action plan was to differentiate the curriculum for all learners.
Within this, the district focus for all elementary schools was the implementation of
Universal Access (UA) during language arts time. This is a 30-minute block of time
devoted to pulling small groups of students to extend, re-teach, or fill gaps for students.
This time depended on using data to determine which students needed to be pulled for
small group instruction. The implementation of this was less than successful at first.
Initially, all teachers were trained in how to implement UA, but there was still quite a bit
of hesitation. As the principal visited classrooms both informally and formally, he noticed
that only about half of the teachers were implementing UA time. The other half stated
that there was no time in the day to fit in. The principal decided that the TOSA would be
brought in to continue to support teachers in UA. UA will continue to be a focus for the
entire school in the 2010/2011 school year with the expectation of full implementation.
Extended Learning Time for Struggling Students
Support offered to struggling students at Creek Elementary was offered both
during the school day and after school. During the school day, two Part-Time Categorical
Teachers (PTCTs) pulled groups of six-eight students for math support. One PTCT
198

focused on struggling students in grades three and four while the other PTCT supported
struggling students in grades five and six. An additional intervention provided during the
school day was for struggling students in grades one and two. These students were
supported by the RSP teacher and were given additional help with phonics using a
program called the Early Reading Intervention (ERI). This program is extremely scripted
and repetitious. All interventions during the school day were provided 5 days per week
for 30 minutes.
After school interventions were provided by classroom teachers for students
struggling with writing, Hispanic students needing to advance their CELDT proficiency
band, CST “band jumpers” in the low Basic band, as well as students who dropped
proficiency bands on the CST from Proficient to Basic. Pre-teaching opportunities were
provided using the core language arts curriculum, vocabulary development activities
were used to assist students with their English development, and Thinking Maps and
Write from the Beginning were used for students struggling with writing. These
interventions were provided twice per week for 45 minutes each session. To ensure that
students had the opportunity to participate in after school interventions, the principal
arranged for a district bus to provide transportation for all students who needed it.
Collaborative, Professional Culture
In 2006, when the principal first arrived at Creek, the staff was hesitant to accept
change. There was a feeling of distrust among grade levels and the sense of
professionalism was in dire need of repair. The district began using early release time on
Wednesdays in 2006 to allow teachers to collaborate with each other within their grade
199

levels. Fortunately, the union had provided teachers with a list of things they were/were
not allowed to do during that time. This forced teachers to actually plan together and
discuss instruction because prep time was not allowed. To assist in ensuring that the
collaboration time was being effectively utilized, the principal required grade levels to
turn in minutes from their meetings so that he would know what further support was
needed and if he needed to intervene or not. Some staff members at Creek still struggle to
see the benefit of collaboration and are working to make their discussions meaningful
through focusing on things such as data analysis, differentiation, Thinking Maps,
backwards planning, and sharing ideas. Another tool the principal provided for the
teachers to promote collaboration and planning was an instructional schedule that was to
be turned in to the principal monthly for each teacher. This allowed him to visit
classrooms during specific times and content to see what was taking place and to help
him monitor grade level alignment.
Widespread & Distributed Instructional Leadership
Upon coming to Creek, the principal determined that there needed to be a shared
feeling of decision-making among the staff. He began to include the staff on determining
where the school needed to go and what steps needed to be taken to get there. Once he
saw that there was little consensus on moving the school forward, the principal ultimately
carried the vision of the big picture for the school for the first two years he was at Creek.
It has been a difficult road since there were varied opinions of how things should be
done, but over the past few years, about half of the staff have become more united on
what is best for their students. One step that he took was hand picking the members of her
200

Leadership Team. He identified one staff member at each grade level to represent the
school. These teachers were the leaders who all shared the same vision yet could come up
with differing views to help see all sides of the situation and were able to share their
knowledge with their peers.
In addition to school site professional development, the district held Leadership
Academies for the Leadership Team at each school site and each Academy hosted nine
elementary schools at a time. Leadership Academies were conducted three times per year
and the focus for the 2009/2010 school year was Project G. The ultimate goal was for
each team to take back the information learned at Leadership Academy and share it with
their school site. For example, when they move into breakout sessions for their individual
grade levels, they are shown specific lessons, instructional strategies, and have the
opportunity to trouble-shoot any problem areas with the district TOSAs who specialize in
that grade level. Those teachers were then expected to go back to their school site and
relate the information to their team.
Professional & Best Practices
Creek Elementary spent a lot of time and money on training teachers on best
instructional practices. It was decided that best practices through Direct Instruction,
continued training in the core curriculum, and the implementation of interventions would
assist them in further meeting the needs of all students. With the guidance of the
principal, the staff continued to refine their collaboration processes and procedures
making sure to begin looking at data to assist in identifying students for interventions.
Ultimately, the principal hopes that all teachers will not only utilize data to monitor
201

student progress but to also reflect and refine their instructional practices as well. He also
hoped that the staff would utilize Data Director independently of him. The use of the
district TOSA had a significant effect on some teachers’ understanding of instructional
strategies as well as the core curriculum.
Table J.1 is a summary of how Creek Elementary School implemented the 10
steps that were recommended by Odden and Archibald (2009) for doubling student
performance.

202

Table J.1: Creek and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden & Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Average Weak N/A
Understanding
performance problem
and challenge
X Staff understands that there is a performance
problem, but is still struggling to accept that
they are a part of the equation.
Set ambitious goals
X Waterfall USD has established universal district
goals for every student in grades 2-11.
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision
X Upon the arrival of the new principal as well as
declining test scores, a new instructional vision
was implemented. While the core curriculum
did not change, the instructional strategies that
were implemented (DI, RtI, Project G) were
different. Additional programs were utilized to
support intervention opportunities.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions
X The school uses the district’s student data
system (Data Director) to monitor student
progress, identify students for intervention. The
staff is split on their use of data to guide
instruction.
Ongoing PD

X In an effort to support the instructional vision,
professional development is offered during the
school day to ensure attendance. District
TOSAs are used to provide trainings throughout
the school year.
Using time efficiently
& effectively
X The instructional schedule at Creek has been
readjusted to avoid classroom interruptions and
to allow for the implementation of ELD and UA
time.
Extended learning
time for struggling
students
X The PTCTs were able to offer interventions
during the day, as well as teachers willing to
participate in after school interventions. In
reflecting on the data of students participating in
the interventions, those who were a part of the
during the day programs showed more growth
than those with the teachers after school.
Collaborative,
professional culture
X Teachers meet for grade level collaboration for
50 minutes every Wednesday. These
collaboration times are structured to allow for
planning and evaluation of data. Some teachers
are able to utilize this time well, while others
are not. There is still friction among various
teachers at certain grade levels.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership
X The principal works collaboratively with the
school Leadership Team to monitor and create
the school’s action plan. They are continuing to
work on building leadership capacity at each
grade level through teacher leaders.
Professional and best
practices
X Teachers continue to refine their skills with the
established instructional strategies to meet all
students’ needs. Some teachers continue to
struggle with changing their current practices.

203

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
For the most part, the resource allocation at Creek Elementary falls far short of
the recommendations of the Evidence-Based Model (EBM). The majority of the
differences fall in the areas of class size, core teachers, instructional coaches, and other
pupil support staff. Table J.2 shows a comparison of the resource allocations in the EBM
through a prototypical school and the actual resource allocation at Creek Elementary
School.

204

Table J.2: Comparison of Creek Elementary Resource Allocation to EBM
School Element Evidence-Based Model
Creek Elementary –
Current Resource
Status
Creek Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-6; 478 Students
Class Size K-3: 15; 4-5: 25 K: 34; 1-3: 20; 4-6: 36
Instructional Days
200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
180
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Half-day kindergarten
Administrative Support
Principal/Asst.
Principal
1.0 FTE
1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE Principal
0.1 FTE Asst.
Principal
School Site Secretary
1.0 Secretary and 1.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary and 0.5
Clerical
1.1 Secretary
1.4 Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 19.0 FTE 26.4 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers
0.5 FTE (instrumental
music 0.25, vocal
music 0.25)
5.2 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE
0.4 FTE (District
TOSA; 2 days per
week)
2.4 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100 poverty
students
363 Students of
poverty
2 @ 56.25% - PTCT
(Part-time Categorical
Teacher)
3.6 FTE
Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0 FTE for
every 100 EL students
292 EL Students
0.0 EL FTEs
2.9 FTE
Non-instructional
support for EL
students
0.0
0.5 FTE (Testing
clerk)
0.0
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.0 2.0 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 4.0 2.0 FTE

205

Table J.2, Continued
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3.0 professional
teacher positions
2.3 FTE (psychologist
0.4, speech path 0.4,
RSP 1.0, RSP aide 0.5)
4.2 FTE
Severely disabled
students
100% state reimbursement
minus federal funds
3.0 FTE
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes
5% of personnel resources
and special education
personnel
$2,565 $21,780
Pupil support staff
1.0 FTE for every 100
poverty students
363 Students of
poverty
1.5 FTE (2 Liaisons @
0.5, 1 Health Aide @
0.5)
3.6 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 4.5 FTE (9 @ 0.5) 0.0
Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 FTE
0.0 2.2 FTE
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE
1.0 FTE (2@0.5 FTE;
1 CRA and 1
Media/Library Clerk)
1.1 FTE
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student
$0 $11,950
Technology $250 per pupil $15,900 $119,500
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $56,050 $66,920
Student Activities $200 per pupil $3,995 $95,600
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc. not
included above
$18,300 $47,800

206

Summary and Lessons Learned
Creek Elementary School has made some progress over the past five years in
improving student achievement including the 2009/2010 school year where they had a 28
point gain on their state API. However, while NCLB requires higher and higher levels of
proficiency each year, and Creek, although steadily improving, still struggles with staff
beliefs that are difficult to change. The current principal holds high levels of expectations
for the staff, students, and parents. All grade levels are currently using formative and
summative assessments to monitor student progress, but little is being done with this data
outside of the principal’s direct guidance and leadership. This information is also being
used to target students for interventions both during the day and after school by some
teachers but primarily by the principal. The teachers at Creek continue to work on
participating in meaningful weekly collaboration as well as all holding the belief that all
children can learn. Professional development is also a strong focus at the school. The
principal and the district TOSA provide ongoing support in research-based strategies and
the core curriculum through trainings and demonstration lessons. The principal has also
restructured the instructional day to minimize disruptions and ensure that instructional
minutes are being met in all academic areas.
Future Considerations
Creek Elementary continues to work towards meeting the targets set forth by
NCLB. They failed to meet their AYP targets this year in language arts and another year
without meeting these goals will result in a Year 1 PI status next year. While the principal
has made considerable efforts to target struggling students and provide assistance he
207

continues to also meet the needs of his staff and creating a cohesive team. Discussions
with the principal indicated that there is still a lot of work to be done with not only the
students, but with the staff as well. He identified the need for additional resources such
as: 1) smaller class sizes, 2) more time for the staff to collaborate together and create a
team environment, 3) an on-site full-time TOSA who would provide training and
coaching, and 4) being able to remove teachers who are unwilling to carry out the
school’s vision. Some of these resources are easier to come by than others, but
unfortunately, most of these resources require additional funding that the district cannot
provide due to their $34 million deficit for the 2010/2011 school year. The principal
stated that he would continue to provide support with the limited resources they currently
have as well as trying to move the school forward by changing some staff beliefs.

208

APPENDIX K - VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Background on the School and District
Valley Elementary is a Title 1, kindergarten through sixth grade school in an
urban elementary school district in Orange County, Angels School District. This school is
on a traditional schedule and houses 910 students from one city. This urban school
district consists of 24 elementary schools. There are approximately 19,200 students
attending schools throughout the district. Valley Elementary opened its doors in 1954 and
has 28 permanent classrooms. Valley is a community-based where parents are involved
in their children’s education.
Valley Elementary’s student population is comprised of students from diverse
ethnic backgrounds, socio-economic status, and language abilities. The primary
ethnicities represented are Hispanic (82%), White (6%), and Filipino (3%). 79% of the
student population are classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) and 54%
percent of students are identified as English Learners (EL). Figure K.1 shows the ethnic
breakdown of students at Valley Elementary.
Figure K.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Valley Elementary

Hispanic
White
Asian
African"American
Other
209

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies that have been utilized in the efforts to raise student achievement.
Assessments and Data
Starting 2005/06, Valley Elementary School has made impressive growth in
student performance with its largest jump in 2009/2010 of forty API points. From the
2005/06 to the 2009/10 school years, Valley Elementary has shown a growth of one
hundred sixteen points on its API. Figure K.2 shows Valley Elementary School’s API
over the last five years.
Figure K.2: Valley Elementary School’s API

The Average Yearly Progress (AYP) reports show the progress for Valley
Elementary. All subgroups have shown growth over the past five years. The growth has
been steady and has ended with a gain. School-wide, Valley Elementary has grown 25%
in proficient and advanced students in language arts. The Hispanic and EL groups have
also demonstrated a 25% growth over the past five years. Valley’s Socio-Economically
Disadvantaged (SED) has experienced a 20% increase.
E!!
E"!
G!!
G"!
C!!
C"!
I!!
F!!"8!E F!!E8!G F!!G8!C F!!C8!I F!!I8#!
EIG
G#F
G"!
GGH
C#H
210

Language arts AYP targets were met at Valley for the 2009/2010 through the
state’s growth model of “safe harbor”. This provision allows schools to be meet the
targets as long as they have moved at least 10% of their tested students into higher
proficiency bands. The state utilizes a formula to determine if a school has met safe
harbor requirements and therefore will not go into PI status. Figure K.3 shows Valley
Elementary School’s language arts AYP of proficient and advanced students on the CST
for various subgroups since 2005/2006.
Figure K.3: ELA – Percent Proficient and Advanced Students at Valley Elementary

Figure K.4 shows the math AYP of proficient and advanced students on the CST
for Valley Elementary. Valley’s math scores have shown progress with its greatest
growth in the 2008/20026 school year. School-wide they have experienced 8% growth
and within their Hispanic subgroup, Valley Elementary has grown 27% in proficient and
advanced students. Their EL population has had a similar level of growth at 29%. The
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
School!Wide Hispanic EL SED
211

Socio-Economically Disadvantaged group has shown a 25% increase. Valley Elementary
continues to meet state targets for AYP in math.
Figure K.4: Math – Percent Proficient and Advanced Students at Valley Elementary

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Valley Elementary opened in 1954 and education has changed substantially over
the past 56 years. With the implementation of NCLB in 2001, schools and districts
became accountable for student achievement as measured through state standardized
assessments. The current principal was appointed to Valley Elementary in 2005, was a
vice-principal for nine years prior to her appointment to Valley and she has helped
successfully raise the API scores at Valley Elementary. She has spent the past five years
building relationships with the staff and community while maintaining high expectations
for students. The current principal has made efforts to provide opportunities to the staff
that would assist them in refining their teaching practices, utilize data on an on-going
basis, and bring about a greater knowledge of the core programs. Under the leadership of
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
School!Wide Hispanic EL SED
212

this principal, the staff has taken steps towards improving their instructional practice and
play a role in moving students towards proficiency. Upon her arrival, the staff at Valley
was anxious for change and willing to participate in professional development
opportunities to refine their practice.
The data above indicate that there was improvement at Valley Elementary over
the past five years with a special emphasis on the changes made by the current principal.
The following is a narrative description of what transformations occurred at Valley
utilizing Odden & Archibald’s (2009) Strategies for Improving Student Achievement as a
framework as well as some of the challenges that were encountered.
Understanding the Performance Problem & Challenge
Upon entering the school in August 2005, Valley’s principal held individual
meetings with all of the teachers to determine staff perceptions of the school and
individual needs. She concluded that there was a desire among the staff to make some
drastic changes to show student achievement. She spent most of her first year getting a
feel for the school and staff all the while making changes according to the vision of the
staff. The principal also attended most collaboration meetings to gain a more thorough
understanding of what each grade level needed. After her first year at Valley, the school
showed a fifteen point increase in their API and had finally broken the 700 barrier.
Set Ambitious Goals
When the principal arrived at Valley, she met with each grade level and discussed
their grade level concerns and needs. One topic that came up over and over was the lack
of any academic goals for the students. Seeing that this was a school-wide need, the
213

principal and staff decided that there needed to be a protocol in place for helping students
set goals for their academic achievement. At the beginning of each school year, the
teachers at Valley meet with the students individually for a data conference. The teacher
reviewed each student’s writing scores, CST data, and reading level. At this time, the
student and teacher together created goals for the upcoming school year in reading, math,
and language development. Throughout the school year, the teacher reviewed student
data through the SMART system as well as classroom formative assessments to
continuously monitor student progress towards their goals. A conference is held with
each student who is struggling toward meeting his or her individual goals as soon as the
need arose. Awards are given out during the school year for students making progress
towards their goals. A more formal conference was held with each student towards the
end of the school year to reflect on his or her progress. The principal stated that this
process is still a work in progress that is reflected on and refined each school year.
The current principal at Valley stated that she and the staff had set professional
development goals for themselves. At a staff meeting before the 2009/2010 school year,
they brainstormed the areas of need for the school. Their first area of focus was to receive
training and implement strategies for student engagement. The staff felt that students
were being passive participants in their education and could benefit from being more
involved in their acquisition of knowledge. They desired to learn more about different
strategies to check for student understanding and new ways to elicit student responses.
Another area that was determined as needing further professional development
and refinement was the instructional strategy of Direct Instruction (DI). This strategy
214

implements frequent interaction between the teacher and the students through constant
corrective feedback. The staff admitted that there was currently a lot of directed
instruction happening in which the teacher stood at the front of the class and delivered the
material while the students sat in their seats and listened. It was decided that this was also
an area that would blend well with student engagement strategies.
The staff also chose to focus on helping their EL students with language
acquisition. According to the data, EL students were making slow progress and they felt
they could be better served through a new ELD program. The district adopted the
program, Language for Learning. The program had a vocabulary component, a writing
component as well as a listening and speaking component. The staff all received training
from the publisher at a summer training day before school began.
Change the Curriculum Program & Create a New Instructional Vision
The core curricular program offered at Valley Elementary has had minimal
change over the past few years with the exception of a recent math adoption. They
continue to use the Houghton-Mifflin reading and science program, the newly adopted
Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley math curriculum, and the McMillan/McGraw-Hill
social science program. The district has 5.75 FTE curriculum specialists at the district
office who primarily work with aligning the state standards with the curriculum to ensure
that all key grade level standards are being taught. These curriculum specialists provide a
curriculum map for each core subject to assist teachers in pacing their lessons so that
standards can be taught before the administration of the CST.

215

Formative Assessment & Data-based Decision Making
At Valley, all teachers were expected to administer district benchmarks in math
and language arts four times per year. The results of those benchmarks were posted in the
district’s web-based data system, SMART. The teachers as well as the principal to
monitor student progress, refine instructional practice, and identify students for
intervention utilized this data.
Throughout the school year, grade levels continued to meet with the principal to reflect
on student progress and assist in modifying instruction. The principal hired substitute
teachers to release one grade level at a time for one hour at the conclusion of each
trimester to hold data discussions that reflected upon the trimester’s student data.
Another assessment that was used at the beginning of each school year that
allowed the teachers to gain information on each student was the Dynamic Indicators of
Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). This assessment was given to every student in
grades K-3 to measure the acquisition of early literacy skills. If a student was identified
as “at-risk”, an additional assessment was given, the Comprehensive Literacy Assessment
(CLA). This further identified where students were breaking down with their literacy
skills and the teacher targeted students for intervention as well as continued to monitor
their progress through additional DIBELS assessments throughout the year. Along with
the CLA, each student in grades K-6 were administered an assessment that measures their
instructional reading level. Teachers used this data to assist them in differentiating the
language arts program. All data gleaned from these assessments were entered into the
SMART system for teachers and administrators to utilize.
216

On-going, Intensive Professional Development
For the 2009/2010 school year, Valley Elementary teachers attended three full day
professional development trainings on the implementation of Direct Instruction using the
book, Explicit DI. Each teacher was given a copy of the book at the end of the previous
school year to read over the summer and be ready to discuss at the summer trainings. The
school’s Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA) gave the trainings. Valley had four .5
FTE TOSAs on site to provide professional development, coaching opportunities for
teachers, as well as provide intervention for students during the school day. The TOSAs
were able to model lessons, co-plan/co-teach lessons with the classroom teacher, and
provide feedback regarding a lesson taught by the teacher. The TOSAs at Valley were
going into classrooms to model direct instruction lessons. Once the staff had received
training on the ELD program, the TOSAs provided in class modeling for each teacher
during their 30-minute block of ELD time.
Another training that was provided to the Valley staff focused on student
engagement strategies. The TOSAs presented the “TAPPLE” technique: Teach, Ask
Questions, Pause, Pick Non-Volunteers, Listen, and Echo/Explain. This technique
allowed teachers to interact with all students and not just rely on those students that
consistently know the answer. The TOSAs also provided model lessons that incorporated
the technique that enabled the teachers to see how it was used. The principal explained to
the staff that her expectation was that she would be able to see the TAPPLE technique
being implemented as she visited classrooms.
217

At the district level, Angels School District offers professional development
opportunities through what is referred to as the “Smart Pages Staff Development”.
Teachers can register online to attend a variety of after-school trainings provided by the
district’s curriculum TOSAs under the Curriculum and Instruction department. Up until
the 2009/2010 school year, teachers were able to receive a stipend for attending the
training. However, due to the budget crisis, teachers are no longer able to receive
payment for attendance and unfortunately, this has affected the amount of teachers who
attend the trainings.
Using Time Efficiently & Effectively
The demands placed on teachers can be intense and the teachers at Valley
Elementary were not faithfully implementing the 30 minutes of ELD on a daily basis.
Prior to the adoption of the Language for Learning ELD program, teachers were using
whatever they felt was appropriate to assist their EL students in acquiring English. In
most cases, the only thing that was being used was the EL component of the Houghton
Mifflin program. Once the staff received training on the new program, the principal
implemented a school-wide ELD time. The expectation was that for the first 30 minutes
of the day, all teachers and students would be involved in ELD. Students were grouped
according their California English Language Development Test (CELDT) proficiency
bands and reported to their ELD teacher first thing in the morning upon arriving at
school.
The principal also implemented a “no interruption” policy with the office staff
during ELD and ELA instructional blocks. The direction was that classrooms were not to
218

be interrupted with phone calls unless in cases of an emergency. Schedules for library,
computer lab, and music were also adjusted to ensure a minimal amount of interruptions.
Extended Learning Time for Struggling Students
Support offered to struggling students at Valley Elementary was offered both
during the school day and after school. During the school day, the four TOSAs pulled
small groups of six to eight struggling students in grades one through four for additional
help in reading and math. Using the core programs in language arts and math, the TOSAs
provided pre-teach and re-teach opportunities. These small group sessions lasted for 45
minutes in four-week intervals. Once the sessions were over, the teachers, TOSAs, and
principal looked at assessment data to identify other students to receive the intervention.
At Valley, the kindergarten classes are half-day classes. A decision was made to
hire an additional TOSA whose primary focus was on kindergarten students. This TOSA
was a .6 FTE and was able to offer struggling kindergarten students the opportunity to
stay for a full school day. The teachers, TOSA, and principal met to determine which
students would qualify. The TOSA was able to accommodate 25 students. Once students
had been identified, parents had to be notified and transportation had to be arranged. The
TOSA was able to provide additional instruction for letter and sound acquisition, sight
words, and number identification and correlation. This program was fluid so that students
could move in and out according to assessment data at the end of a six-week session.
After school interventions were provided by classroom teachers for struggling
students needing to advance their CELDT proficiency band as well as students needing
assistance in language arts. Pre-teaching opportunities were provided using the core
219

language arts curriculum and vocabulary development activities were used to assist
students with their English development. These interventions were provided four times
per week for one hour each session for a total of six weeks. To ensure that students had
the opportunity to participate in after school interventions, the principal arranged for a
district bus to provide transportation for all students who needed it.
Collaborative, Professional Culture
In 2005, when the principal first arrived at Valley, the staff was ready to accept
change. For the past five years, the staff has worked with the principal to continue to
grow as a collaborative community. The principal introduced Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs) in the 2007/2008 school year. The PLCs provided a much-needed
focus to the teachers’ collaboration time. In the past, grade levels met and were often off-
task doing “prep” work. The principal concluded that there was a lack of accountability
for the grade level meetings, so she created a worksheet for teachers to bring with them to
their PLC meeting to discuss data, monitor student progress, and modify their instruction.
On Wednesdays, students were released one hour early from school to allow for
collaboration time. Teachers met weekly for an hour in PLCs and each teacher had a brief
time to share their data and what interventions are being done to meet their students’
needs. They also share what’s worked well and what challenges they have faced. The
other members of their group have the opportunity to answer the question, “Do you have
any suggestions or advice?” The teachers at Valley were surprisingly open about talking
to each other in this manner. They have responded very well to the input from their peers
and continue to say that they learn so much from each other. As new teachers come to
220

Valley, the PLCs are such a part of the professional community, that there has been a
seamless transition.
Widespread & Distributed Instructional Leadership
The principal at Valley firmly held the belief that change happens when there is
buy-in from all stakeholders at a school. She has worked very hard to involve the teachers
and parents in the decision-making process. She established a leadership team that
assisted her in creating a vision for the school, make professional development decisions,
and develop the school’s action plan. The Leadership Team consists of one teacher per
grade level as well as the on-site TOSAs and the Vice-Principal who is shared with
another school 2.5 days per week.
Professional & Best Practices
Valley Elementary spent a lot of time and money on training teachers on best
instructional practices. It was decided that best practices through Direct Instruction,
continued training in the core curriculum, faithful implementation of the 30 minute ELD
instructional block, and the implementation of interventions would assist them in further
meeting the needs of all students. With the guidance of the principal, the staff continued
to refine their collaboration processes and procedures through PLCs as well as the
utilization of the school-site TOSAs who support instruction through modeling lessons in
the core curriculum as well as lessons that implement instructional strategies.
Table K.1 is a summary of how Valley Elementary School implemented the 10
steps that were recommended by Odden and Archibald (2009) for doubling student
performance.
221

Table K.1: Valley and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden & Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Average Weak N/A
Understanding
performance problem
and challenge
X Staff understands that there is a performance
problem and is willing to do what it takes to
assist students in achieving the goal of
becoming grade level proficient.
Set ambitious goals
X Angels SD does not have clearly established
and explicit goals for students. Each school site
is left to determine their own goals. Valley has
ambitious goals for the adults at the school site
as well as for the students.
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision
X Upon the arrival of the new principal, most
core programs did not change. Through the
state adoption cycle, a new math program was
adopted. Additional programs were
implemented to support intervention
opportunities and the ELD program.
Formative
assessments/data-based
decisions
X The school uses the district’s student data
system (SMART) to monitor student progress,
identify students for intervention, and refine
the teacher’s instructional practices. The staff
has become more unified in the use of data to
guide instruction.
Ongoing PD

X In an effort to support the instructional vision
professional development was decided upon by
the staff and Leadership Team. District TOSAs
are used to provide trainings throughout the
school year as well as before school begins for
the year.
Using time efficiently
& effectively
X The instructional schedule at Valley has been
readjusted to avoid classroom interruptions and
to allow for the implementation of ELD time.
Extended learning time
for struggling students
X The site TOSAs were able to offer
interventions during the day, as well as
teachers willing to participate in after school
interventions. Utilizing data, students are able
to fluidly move in and out of intervention
programs depending on their progress.
Collaborative,
professional culture
X Teachers meet for grade level collaboration one
day per week in PLCs. These collaboration
times are structured to allow for planning and
evaluation of data as well as interventions for
various students. Teachers utilize the
knowledge of their peers for assistance and
ideas.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional leadership
X The principal works collaboratively with the
school Leadership Team to monitor and create
the school’s action plan.
Professional and best
practices
X Teachers continue to refine their skills with the
established instructional strategies to meet all
students’ needs.
222

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
For the most part, the resource allocation at Valley Elementary falls far short of
the recommendations of the Evidence-Based Model (EBM). The majority of the
differences fall in the areas of class size, core teachers, instructional coaches, and other
pupil support staff. Table K.2 shows a comparison of the resource allocations in the EBM
through a prototypical school and the actual resource allocation at Valley Elementary
School.

223

Table K.2: Comparison of Valley Elementary Resource Allocation to EBM
School Element Evidence-Based Model
Valley Elementary –
Current Resource
Status
Valley Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-6; 910 Students
Class Size K-3: 15; 4-5: 25
K, 3: 32; 1-2: 25; 4-6:
33

Instructional Days
200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
180
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Half-day kindergarten
Administrative Support
Principal/Asst.
Principal
1.0 FTE
1.0 FTE principal
0.5 FTE Asst.
Principal
1.0 FTE Principal
1.0 FTE Asst.
Principal
School Site Secretary
1.0 Secretary and 1.0
Clerical
1.0 Secretary
1.5 Clerical
2.1 Secretary
2.1 Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 28.0 FTE 50.4 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers
0 FTE specialist
teacher
5.6 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE
2.6 FTE TOSAs 4.6 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100 poverty
students
862 students of
poverty

8.6 FTE
Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0 FTE for
every 100 EL students
811 EL students
0.0 FTE
8.1 FTE
Non-instructional
support for EL
students
0.0 FTE
0.42 FTE clerical
support at district
office
0.0 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.0 FTE 3.8 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0.0 FTE 3.8 FTE

224

Table K.2, Continued
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3.0 professional
teacher positions
2.13 FTE (total)
1.0 FTE RSP teacher
0.33 FTE Psychologist
0.8 FTE Speech
Pathologist
7.2 FTE
Severely disabled
students
100% state reimbursement
minus federal funds

Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes
5% of personnel resources
and special education
personnel
$20,085 $21,780
Pupil support staff
1.0 FTE for every 100
poverty students
862 students of
poverty
1.0 FTE Community
Liaison
1.0 FTE Attendance
Liaison
0.375 FTE Health
Clerk
0.33 FTE Nurse
8.6 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 3.0 FTE (6 @ 0.5) 0.0
Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 FTE
0.0 FTE 4.2 FTE
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE
1.0 FTE Librarian
1.0 FTE Technology
Assistant
2.1 FTE
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student
$0 $22,750
Technology $250 per pupil $70,000 $227,500
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $106,952 $127,400
Student Activities $200 per pupil $11,334 $182,000
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc. not
included above
$20,000 $91,000

225

Summary and Lessons Learned
Valley Elementary School has made made excellent progress in improving
student achievement over the past five years. The current principal has really helped to
point the school in the right direction by providing strong yet collaborative leadership.
They have had a 116 point increase in their API scores since her arrival. She encouraged
the staff to have meaningful collaborative discussions through PLCs about students and
the progress they were making according to the data they had collected. The principal,
along with the Leadership Team, helped the staff focus on best practices by opening
classrooms up to their peers and TOSAs. While the majority of the staff was ready to
make significant changes, some came along at a slightly slower pace. However, those
staff members continued to make progress even if it wasn’t as substantial as some of the
others. State-approved curriculum as well as pacing guides are being utilized in every
classroom and the staff continued to build their knowledge of these through professional
development opportunities. The staff had also committed to the faithful implementation
of the 30 minute ELD block of instruction being provided to students at their appropriate
language level.
Future Considerations
Valley Elementary continues to work towards meeting the targets set forth by
NCLB. They met their AYP targets this year in language arts through Safe Harbor. They
must continue to improve by meeting the established targets or through Safe Harbor
again or they run the risk of becoming a Year 1 PI school. Many schools are also in the
same situation. While the principal has made considerable efforts to target struggling
226

students and provide assistance she still feels there is a lot of work to do. She identified
the need for additional resources such as: 1) more technology, 2) more time for the staff
to collaborate together, 3) more time with the technology assistant, 4) more community
liaisons to assist with parent involvement and outreach, and 5) more time and money for
professional development. Some of these resources are easier to come by than others, but
unfortunately, most of these resources require additional funding that the district cannot
provide due to their $23 million deficit for the 2010/2011 school year. The principal
stated that she would continue to provide support with the limited resources they
currently have as well as trying to move the school forward by working together as a
team making decisions that are in the best interests of their students.

227

APPENDIX L - HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Hills Elementary is a Title 1, kindergarten through sixth grade school in an urban
elementary school district in Orange County, Angels School District. This school is on a
traditional schedule and houses 682 students from one city. This urban school district
consists of 24 elementary schools. There are approximately 19,200 students attending
schools throughout the district. Hills Elementary opened its doors in 1965 and has 31
permanent classrooms. Hills is a community-based school where parents are involved in
their children’s education through volunteering in the classroom and on various
committees.
Hills Elementary’s student population is comprised of students from diverse
ethnic backgrounds, socio-economic status, and language abilities. The primary
ethnicities represented are Hispanic (79%), White (9%), and Asian (5%). 68% of the
student population are classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) and 44% of
students are identified as English Learners (EL). Figure L.1 shows the ethnic breakdown
of students at Hills Elementary.
Figure L.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Hills Elementary

2%3;+,%*
?7%6'
>3%+,
>L(%*+,M>N'(%*+,
)67'(
228

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies that have been utilized in the efforts to raise student achievement.
Assessments and Data
Starting 2005/06, Hills Elementary School has made impressive growth in student
performance with its largest jump in 2005/2006 of forty-seven API points. From the
2005/06 to the 2009/10 school years, Hills Elementary has shown a growth of one
hundred eleven points on its API. Figure L.2 shows Hills Elementary School’s API over
the last five years.
Figure L.2: Hills Elementary School’s API

The Average Yearly Progress (AYP) reports show the progress for Hills
Elementary. All subgroups have shown growth over the past five years. The growth has
been slow yet steady and has ended with a gain. School-wide, Hills Elementary has
grown 8% in proficient and advanced students in language arts. The Hispanic subgroup
has shown a 16% increase and the EL group has demonstrated a 25% growth over the
past five years. Hills’s Socio-Economically Disadvantaged (SED) has experienced a 15%
increase.
E!!
E"!
G!!
G"!
C!!
C"!
I!!
F!!"8!E F!!E8!G F!!G8!C F!!C8!I F!!I8#!
EE"
G#F
G"G
GEE
GGE
229

English language arts AYP targets were not met at Hills for the 2009/2010 school
year for the SED subgroup as well as school-wide. However, through the state’s growth
model of “safe harbor”, the EL and SED subgroups did meet the AYP targets. This
provision allows schools to be meet the targets as long as they have moved at least 10%
of their tested students into higher proficiency bands. The state utilizes a formula to
determine if a school has met safe harbor requirements and therefore will not go into PI
status. In the 2005/06 school year, Hills Elementary failed to meet the AYP growth
targets of proficient and advanced students set forth by the state and entered their first
year of Program Improvement (PI). Currently, the school has entered Year 4 of PI and
continues to face the imposed challenges.
Figure L.3 shows Hills Elementary School’s language arts AYP of proficient and
advanced students on the CST for various subgroups since 2005/2006.
Figure L.3: ELA – Percent Proficient and Advanced Students at Hills Elementary

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
School!Wide Hispanic EL SED
230

Figure L.4 shows the math AYP of proficient and advanced students on the CST
for Hills Elementary. Hills’s math scores have shown slow progress. School-wide they
have experienced 11% growth and within their Hispanic subgroup, Hills Elementary has
grown 13% in proficient and advanced students. Their EL population has shown growth
of 20%. The Socio-Economically Disadvantaged group has shown an 11% increase. Hills
Elementary did not meet state targets for AYP in math in their school-wide and Hispanic
subgroups. The EL & SED subgroups met the math targets through “safe harbor”.
Figure L.4: Math – Percent Proficient and Advanced Students at Hills Elementary

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Hills Elementary opened in 1965 and education has changed substantially over
the past 45 years. With the implementation of NCLB in 2001, schools and districts
became accountable for student achievement as measured through state standardized
assessments. The current principal was appointed to Hills Elementary in 2008, was a
vice-principal for five years prior to his appointment to Hills. Upon his arrival, his
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
School!Wide Hispanic EL SED
231

primary focus was to ensure that teachers were teaching the state standards. He visited
classrooms and had meetings with teachers to determine their level of implementation of
the standards. The staff was resistant to change and was not receptive to his suggestions
and leadership. He has led Hills through improvement in their API, yet they remain a PI
school in Year 4. The principal has assisted the staff in the implementation of research-
based instructional strategies but has also been met with resistance in his efforts. The
struggle continues although they are seeing slight API growth. The principal felt that
resistance will continue regardless of the gains that are made because the staff still feels
micro-managed by the administration.
The data above indicate that there was improvement at Hills Elementary over the
past five years with a special emphasis on the changes made by the current principal. The
following is a narrative description of what transformations occurred at Hills utilizing
Odden & Archibald’s (2009) Strategies for Improving Student Achievement as a
framework as well as some of the challenges that were encountered.
Understanding the Performance Problem & Challenge
Upon entering the school in August 2008, Hills’s principal was focused on
aligning the state standards to the core programs that were being taught due to their Year
2 PI status. He concluded that there was a strong teacher focus on teaching the programs
and there was little understanding or acknowledgement of the standards. He spent most of
his first year getting a feel for the school and staff all the while making changes he felt
were necessary. These changes included; requesting lesson plans to be turned in weekly,
changes to teachers’ grade level assignments, and the implementation of a dedicated 30-
232

minute ELD instructional block. The principal also attended most collaboration meetings
to gain a more thorough understanding of what each grade level needed and to monitor
teachers’ use of collaboration time during their Professional Learning Community
meetings. After his first year at Hills, the school showed a ten-point increase in their
API.
In August, 2008 when the principal first arrived at Hills, the staff was
disconnected. There was a feeling of distrust among grade levels and the sense of
professionalism was in dire need of repair. The school had implemented PLCs in
2006/2007 however, the collaboration time was not being utilized appropriately and
teachers were using the time to prepare materials and work in their classrooms. To assist
in ensuring that the collaboration time was being effectively utilized, the principal
required grade levels to turn in minutes from their meetings so that he would know what
further support was needed and if he needed to intervene or not. The principal stated that
this is still difficult for the teachers and requires a lot of facilitation from him. The staff at
Hill still struggles to see the benefit of collaboration and is working to make their
discussions meaningful through focusing on things such as data analysis, differentiation,
and sharing ideas.
Set Ambitious Goals
When the principal arrived at Hills, he met with each grade level and discussed
their grade level concerns and needs. One topic that he brought up was the lack of any
academic goals for the students. Seeing that this was a school-wide need, the principal
decided that there needed to be a protocol in place for helping students set goals for their
233

academic achievement. At the beginning of each school year, the teachers at Hills are
supposed to meet with the students individually for a data conference. The principal
requested that the teacher review each student’s writing scores, CST data, and reading
level. This was a struggle for many teachers and some are still not following through with
the goals meetings. For those teachers that moved forward with the goal setting
conferences, the student and teacher together created goals for the upcoming school year
in reading, math, and language development. Throughout the school year, the teacher
reviewed student data through the SMART system as well as classroom formative
assessments to continuously monitor student progress towards their goals. Awards are
given out during the school year for students making progress towards their goals. A
more formal conference was held with each student towards the end of the school year to
reflect on his or her progress. The principal stated that this process is still a work in
progress that continues to be met with hesitation and resistance.
The current principal at Hills stated that she and the staff had set professional
development goals for themselves. At a staff meeting before the 2009/2010 school year
the principal informed the staff that they would be focusing on Direct Instruction (DI) for
professional development. This strategy implements frequent interaction between the
teacher and the students through constant corrective feedback. He felt that there needed to
be a focus on different strategies to check for student understanding and new ways to
elicit student responses. The majority of the staff did not feel there was a need for further
improvement in their instructional practices and were extremely hesitant and resistant to
234

the idea of DI. A few of the teachers were ready to move forward, but they were in a
small minority.
The principal also chose to focus on helping their EL students with language
acquisition. According to the data, EL students were making slow progress and they felt
they could be better served through a new ELD program. The district adopted the
program, Language for Learning. The program had a vocabulary component, a writing
component as well as a listening and speaking component. The staff all received training
from the publisher at a summer training day before school began. However, the school
had been using the SRA program for ELD instruction instead and the principal decided it
was a better program than the Language for Learning and allowed SRA to continue being
used. He admitted that in hindsight, that the SRA program was really a program better
suited for students at the Early Advanced and Advanced proficiency levels on the
California English Language Development Test (CELDT) but felt that this was no longer
a battle he wanted to fight.
Change the Curriculum Program & Create a New Instructional Vision
The core curricular program offered at Hills Elementary has had minimal change
over the past few years with the exception of a recent math adoption. They continue to
use the Houghton-Mifflin reading and science program, the newly adopted Scott
Foresman-Addison Wesley math curriculum, and the McMillan/McGraw-Hill social
science program. The district has 5.75 FTE curriculum specialists at the district office
who primarily work with aligning the state standards with the curriculum to ensure that
all key grade level standards are being taught. These curriculum specialists provide a
235

curriculum map for each core subject to assist teachers in pacing their lessons so that
standards can be taught before the administration of the CST.
Formative Assessment & Data-based Decision Making
At Hills, all teachers were expected to administer district benchmarks in math and
language arts four times per year. The results of those benchmarks were posted in the
district’s web-based data system, SMART. The principal is the primary user of the
system and utilizes it to monitor student progress and identify students for intervention.
He admitted that few teachers actually access the information on the SMART system and
therefore are not using the data from the district benchmarks.
Throughout the school year, grade levels continued to meet with the principal to
reflect on student progress and assist in modifying instruction. The principal hired
substitute teachers to release one grade level at a time for one hour at the conclusion of
each trimester to hold data discussions that reflected upon the trimester’s student data.
These meetings were difficult and often ended in anger and frustration. The teachers were
still struggling to see the importance of data and felt that the creativity was being taken
out of teaching and that they were “teaching to the test”. This mentality is one that the
principal struggles to change at Hills.
An assessment that was used at the beginning of each school year that allowed the
teachers to gain some information on each student was the Dynamic Indicators of Basic
Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). This assessment was given to every student in grades K-
3 to measure the acquisition of early literacy skills. If a student was identified as “at-
risk”, an additional assessment was given, the Comprehensive Literacy Assessment
236

(CLA). This further identified where students were breaking down with their literacy
skills and the teacher targeted students for intervention as well as continued to monitor
their progress through additional DIBELS assessments throughout the year. Along with
the CLA, each student in grades K-6 was administered an assessment that measures his or
her instructional reading level. Teachers used these data to assist them in differentiating
the language arts program. All data gleaned from these assessments were entered into the
SMART system for teachers and administrators to utilize.
On-going, Intensive Professional Development
For the 2009/2010 school year, Hills Elementary teachers attended three full day
professional development trainings on the implementation of Direct Instruction using the
book, Explicit DI. Each teacher was given a copy of the book at the end of the previous
school year to read over the summer and be ready to discuss at the summer trainings. The
school’s Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA) gave the trainings. Hills had four 0.5
FTE TOSAs as well as one FTE TOSA for a total of 3.0 FTE TOSAs on site to provide
professional development, coaching opportunities for teachers, as well as provide
intervention for students during the school day. The TOSAs were able to model lessons
for the classroom teacher and provide feedback regarding a lesson taught by the teacher
in some classrooms. The TOSAs at Hills were going into classrooms to model direct
instruction lessons.
Another training that was provided to the Hills staff focused on student
engagement strategies. The TOSAs presented the “TAPPLE” technique: Teach, Ask
Questions, Pause, Pick Non-Volunteers, Listen, and Echo/Explain. This technique
237

allowed teachers to interact with all students and not just rely on those students that
consistently know the answer. The TOSAs also provided model lessons that incorporated
the technique that enabled the teachers to see how it was used. The principal explained to
the staff that his expectation was that he would be able to see the TAPPLE technique
being implemented as he visited classrooms. These observations were used both formally
and informally. Again, some teachers were resistant and continued to passively refuse to
implement the “TAPPLE” technique stating that the students in their classrooms were
engaged and that it is an insult to assume that they aren’t.
At the district level, Angels School District offers professional development
opportunities through what is referred to as the “Smart Pages Staff Development”.
Teachers can register online to attend a variety of after-school trainings provided by the
district’s curriculum TOSAs under the Curriculum and Instruction department. Up until
the 2009/2010 school year, teachers were able to receive a stipend for attending the
training. However, due to the budget crisis, teachers are no longer able to receive
payment for attendance and unfortunately, this has affected the number of teachers who
attend the trainings.
Using Time Efficiently & Effectively
The demands placed on teachers can be intense and the teachers at Hills
Elementary were not faithfully implementing the 30 minutes of ELD on a daily basis.
Prior to the adoption of the Language for Learning ELD program, teachers were using the
SRA program to assist their EL students in acquiring English. Once the staff received
training on the new program, the principal implemented a school-wide ELD time but
238

allowed the use of the SRA program in place of Language for Learning. The expectation,
however was that for the first 30 minutes of the day, all teachers and students would be
involved in ELD. Students were grouped according their CELDT proficiency bands and
reported to their ELD teacher first thing in the morning upon arriving at school.
The principal also implemented a “no interruption” policy with the office staff
during ELD and ELA instructional blocks. The direction was that classrooms were not to
be interrupted with phone calls unless in cases of an emergency. Schedules for library,
computer lab, and music were also adjusted to ensure a minimal amount of interruptions.
Extended Learning Time for Struggling Students
Support offered to struggling students at Hills Elementary was offered during the
school day. The principal and the teachers identified students who are working below
grade level and in need of additional assistance using their classroom data. This data was
presented to the HEART (Health, Education, and Attendance Referral Team) as the
Student Study Team (SST) process was known. Parents and staff met to discuss the
academic needs of each student being referred and brainstormed the appropriate
intervention strategies that were implemented into the students’ core program. Students in
grades 1
st
-3
rd
were frequently referred to the Language Lodge or the Learning Lodge in
grades 4
th
-6
th
. These literacy programs were taught by the five TOSAs during the regular
instructional day. Each TOSA taught a group of six to eight students for a 45-minute
instructional block five days per week. At the end of a six-week session, data was
reviewed and students were exited or were able to continue receiving support.
239

At Hills, the kindergarten classes are half-day classes. A Kinder Academy was
offered to kindergarteners in need of additional assistance with basic skills. This
intervention program was taught by certificated teachers and is categorically funded. A
pre-kindergarten program for incoming students who have not had preschool experience
was also offered for the first two weeks of April, May and June.
Collaborative, Professional Culture
In 2008, when the principal first arrived at Hills, the staff was not ready to accept
change. There was a sense of distrust not only among the teachers but also with the
administration. PLCs had been implemented but not monitored. The PLCs should have
provided a much-needed focus to the teachers’ collaboration time. However, grade levels
continued to meet and were often off-task doing “prep” work. The principal concluded
that there was a lack of accountability for the grade level meetings, so he created a
worksheet for teachers to bring with them to their PLC meeting to discuss data, monitor
student progress, and modify their instruction. On Wednesdays, students were released
one hour early from school to allow for collaboration time. Teachers met weekly for an
hour in PLCs . While some grade levels had moved forward and were implementing the
structure of PLCs, other grade levels refused to meet together due to their lack of trust
among their colleagues. The principal stated that this was an area he continued to have to
monitor. For those grade levels that refuse to meet together, he met with them and
facilitated their PLC collaboration.

240

Widespread & Distributed Instructional Leadership
The principal at Hills firmly held the belief that change will happen only when
certain teachers leave the school. He established a leadership team that assisted him in
developing the school’s action plan and ideally develop and carry out the school’s vision.
The Leadership Team consists of one teacher per grade level as well as the on-site
TOSAs and the Vice-Principal who is shared with another school 2.5 days per week. He
was extremely selective in which teachers were chosen to participate in the Leadership
Team. It was his philosophy that in order to create change at some grade levels, he
needed to identify the person at each grade level who was most open to change. Those
teachers would then ideally be the leader and example to their peers. This, however, is
not the case in many of the grade levels. The Leadership Team members have been
known to sabotage decisions and relay incorrect information to their grade level.
Professional & Best Practices
Hills Elementary continued to struggle with professionalism and collaboration. It
was decided that best practices through Direct Instruction, continued alignment and
training in the state standards, faithful implementation of the 30 minute ELD instructional
block, and the implementation of interventions would assist them in further meeting the
needs of all students. With the guidance of the principal, the staff continued to work on
their collaboration processes and procedures through PLCs as well as the utilization of
the school-site TOSAs who support instruction through modeling lessons in the core
curriculum as well as lessons that implement instructional strategies.
241

Table L.1 is a summary of how Hills Elementary School implemented the 10
steps that were recommended by Odden and Archibald (2009) for doubling student
performance.

242

Table L.1: Hills and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Average Weak N/A
Understanding
performance
problem and
challenge
X Staff does not understand the performance
problem resulting in their Year 4 PI status and
many of them feel the blame lies with a weak
administration.
Set ambitious
goals
X Angels SD does not have clearly established and
explicit goals for students. Each school site is left
to determine its own goals. Hills has ambitious
goals for the students but they are not
implemented in every classroom.
Change
curriculum
program/create
new instructional
vision
X Upon the arrival of the new principal, most core
programs did not change. Through the state
adoption cycle, a new math program was adopted.
Additional programs were implemented to support
intervention opportunities and the ELD program.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions
X The school uses the district’s student data system
(SMART) to monitor student progress, identify
students for intervention, and refine the teacher’s
instructional practices. The staff is still working to
use the data system to evaluate programs,
instruction, and interventions. Much of the data is
utilized by the principal and TOSAs.
Ongoing PD

X The principal decided on the professional
development focus for the school year. District
TOSAs are used to provide trainings throughout
the school year as well as before school begins for
the year.
Using time
efficiently &
effectively
X The instructional schedule at Hills has been
readjusted to avoid classroom interruptions and to
allow for the implementation of ELD time.
Extended learning
time for
struggling
students
X The site TOSAs were able to offer interventions
during the day through Language & Learning
Lodges. Utilizing data, students are able to fluidly
move in and out of intervention programs
depending on their progress.
Collaborative,
professional
culture
X Teachers meet for grade level collaboration one
day per week in PLCs. This collaboration should
be structured to allow for planning and evaluation
of data as well as interventions for various
students. However, teachers are still underutilizing
this time to evaluate data and make decisions
accordingly.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership
X The principal with little input from the staff does
much of the decision-making.
Professional and
best practices
X Teachers continue to work on their
professionalism and implementation of best
practices but they struggle with agreeing on
what’s best for students.

243

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
For the most part, the resource allocation at Hills Elementary falls far short of the
recommendations of the Evidence-Based Model (EBM). The majority of the differences
fall in the areas of class size, core teachers, instructional coaches, and other pupil support
staff. Table L.2 shows a comparison of the resource allocations in the EBM through a
prototypical school and the actual resource allocation at Hills Elementary School.

244

Table L.2: Comparison of Hills Elementary Resource Allocation to EBM
School Element Evidence-Based Model
Hills Elementary –
Current Resource
Status
Hills Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-6; 682 Students
Class Size K-3: 15; 4-5: 25
K, 3: 32; 1-2: 25; 4-6:
33

Instructional Days
200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
180
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Half-day kindergarten
Administrative Support
Principal/Asst.
Principal
1.0 FTE
1.0 FTE principal
0.5 FTE Asst.
Principal
1.0 FTE Principal
0.6 FTE Asst.
Principal
School Site Secretary 1.0 Secretary and 1.0 Clerical
1.0 Secretary
1.0 Clerical
1.6 Secretary
1.6 Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 29.0 FTE 38.4 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers
0 FTE specialist
teacher
5.8 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE
3.0 FTE TOSAs 3.5 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100 poverty
students
463 students of
poverty

4.6 FTE
Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0 FTE for
every 100 EL students
300 EL students
0.0 FTE
3.0 FTE
Non-instructional
support for EL
students
0.0 FTE
0.42 FTE clerical
support at district
office
0.0 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.0 2.9 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0.0 2.9 FTE

245

Table L.2, Continued
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3.0 professional
teacher positions
2.13 FTE (total)
1.0 FTE RSP teacher
0.33 FTE Psychologist
0.8 FTE Speech
Pathologist
4.8 FTE
Severely disabled
students
100% state reimbursement
minus federal funds

Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes
5% of personnel resources
and special education
personnel
$17,856 $21,780
Pupil support staff
1.0 FTE for every 100
poverty students
463 students of
poverty
1.0 FTE Community
Liaison
1.0 FTE Attendance
Liaison
0.375 FTE Health
Clerk
0.33 FTE Nurse
For a total of 2.705
FTE
4.6 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 2.5 FTE (5 @ 0.5) 0.0
Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 FTE
0.0 FTE 3.2 FTE
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE
1.0 FTE Librarian
1.0 FTE Technology
Assistant
1.6 FTE
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student
$0 $22,750
Technology $250 per pupil $11,830 $170,500
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $77,665 $95,480
Student Activities $200 per pupil $3,115 $136,400
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc. not
included above
$16,521 $68,200

246

Summary and Lessons Learned
Hills Elementary School has made progress in improving student achievement
over the past five years however the school still remains in Program Improvement. The
current principal has moved the school forward slowly. They have had a ten-point
increase in their API scores since his arrival. He has had difficulty moving the staff
forward due to their resistance and distrust of the administration. The principal has
carried the majority of the school’s vision independently yet is still trying to involve the
staff in more of the decision-making process. Some of the staff members have been
willing to delve more deeply into student data to assist them in guiding their instruction
with the leadership of the principal. The staff at Hills is more actively seeking to serve
struggling students through providing during the day interventions. The majority of the
staff is still struggling to see how the changes that are being suggested are necessary.
Future Considerations
Hills Elementary continues to work towards meeting the targets set forth by
NCLB. They did not meet their AYP targets this year in language arts in two areas: 1)
SED subgroup and 2) school-wide. They also failed to meet their math AYP targets
school-wide and within their Hispanic subgroup. These failures to meet their targets have
placed them into Year 4 of PI. They must continue to improve by meeting the established
targets or through Safe Harbor or they run the risk of becoming a Year 5 PI school that
brings with it a more severe set of sanctions. While the principal has made considerable
efforts to target struggling students and provide assistance to those students, he feels that
there is still substantial work to be done. When asked what additional resources would be
247

needed to assist in making greater progress with both teachers and students, he stated
only two areas of need. Those two areas were: 1) smaller class sizes and 2) changes to
teachers’ attitudes. Unfortunately, the lowering of class sizes is something that most
districts are not considering due to the financial situation they are in. For example,
Angels School District cannot provide smaller class sizes due to their $23 million deficit
for the 2010/2011 school year. The change in teacher attitudes is not necessarily one that
can be altered with additional funding. The principal stated that he would try to balance
providing support to struggling students with the limited resources they currently have
with trying to move the school forward and dealing with the requirements that are
imposed due to the Year 4 PI status. He stated that if he didn’t have all the rules placed
on him through NCLB, he could have greater success with student achievement.

248

APPENDIX M - ISLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Island Elementary is a Title 1, kindergarten through sixth grade school in an urban
elementary school district in Orange County, Angels School District. This school is on a
traditional schedule and houses 696 students from one city. This urban school district
consists of 24 elementary schools. There are approximately 19,200 students attending
schools throughout the district. Island Elementary opened its doors in 1960 and has 36
permanent classrooms. The majority of students are bused in from an attendance area
over three miles away.
Island Elementary’s student population is comprised of students primarily of
Hispanic background with English as their second language. The primary ethnicities
represented are Hispanic (91%), White (4%), and Asian (3%). 88% of the student
population are classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) and 68% of students
are identified as English Learners (EL). Figure M.1 shows the ethnic breakdown of
students at Island Elementary.
Figure M.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Island Elementary

2%3;+,%*
?7%6'
>3%+,
>L(%*+,M>N'(%*+,
)67'(
249

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies that have been utilized in the efforts to raise student achievement.
Assessments and Data
Starting 2005/06, Island Elementary School has made impressive growth in
student performance with its largest jump in 2006/2007 of forty-seven API points. From
the 2005/06 to the 2009/10 school years, Island Elementary has shown a growth of
ninety-three points on its API. Figure M.2 shows Island Elementary School’s API over
the last five years.
Figure M.2: Island Elementary School’s API

The Average Yearly Progress (AYP) reports show the progress for Island
Elementary. All subgroups have shown growth over the past five years. The growth has
been slow yet steady and has ended with a gain. School-wide, Island Elementary has
grown 14% in proficient and advanced students in language arts. The Hispanic subgroup
has shown a 13% increase and the EL group has demonstrated a 11% growth over the
past five years. Island’s Socio-Economically Disadvantaged (SED) has experienced a
12% increase.
E!!
E"!
G!!
G"!
C!!
C"!
I!!
F!!"8!E F!!E8!G F!!G8!C F!!C8!I F!!I8#!
E"D
EID
GD#
GH!
GDG
250

In the 2005/06 school year, Island Elementary failed to meet the AYP growth
targets of proficient and advanced students set forth by the state and entered Year 5 of
Program Improvement (PI). The following year, Island was able to meet the targets and
remained in Year 5. However, in the 2007/2008 school year, they again met their AYP
targets for the second year in a row and were exited out of Program Improvement.
English language arts and math AYP targets were not met at Island for the 2009/2010
school year. Currently, the school would have entered Year 1 of PI and would have faced
the imposed challenges. Unfortunately, the district has re-drawn the boundaries and
Island Elementary no longer exists. The current school has been renamed and has a
different set of students due to the boundary changes.
Figure M.3 shows Island Elementary School’s language arts AYP of proficient
and advanced students on the CST for various subgroups since 2005/2006.
Figure M.3: ELA – Percent Proficient and Advanced Students at Island Elementary

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
School!Wide Hispanic EL SED
251

Figure M.4 shows the math AYP of proficient and advanced students on the CST
for Island Elementary. Island’s math scores have shown progress. School-wide they have
experienced 20% growth and within their Hispanic subgroup, Island Elementary has
grown 19% in proficient and advanced students. Their EL population has shown growth
of 17%. The Socio-Economically Disadvantaged group has shown an 19% increase.
Island Elementary did not meet state targets for AYP in math in any of their significant
subgroups.
Figure M.4: Math – Percent Proficient and Advanced Students at Island Elementary

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Island Elementary opened in 1960 and education has changed substantially over
the past 50 years. With the implementation of NCLB in 2001, schools and districts
became accountable for student achievement as measured through state standardized
assessments. The current principal was appointed to Island Elementary in 2005, was a
vice-principal for seven years prior to his appointment to Island. Upon his arrival, his
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
School!Wide Hispanic EL SED
252

primary focus was to help the school get out of Program Improvement. He visited
classrooms and had individual meetings with teachers to try to find the story hiding
behind the numbers. The staff was feeling the urgency to improve because of their
continued declining PI status and became active members of the solution.
The data above indicate that there was improvement at Island Elementary over the
past five years with a special emphasis on the changes made by the current principal. The
following is a narrative description of what transformations occurred at Island utilizing
Odden & Archibald’s (2009) Strategies for Improving Student Achievement as a
framework as well as some of the challenges that were encountered.
Understanding the Performance Problem & Challenge
Upon entering the school in January 2005, Island’s principal was focused getting
the school exited out of its current Year 5 PI status. He followed a principal who was not
an instructional leader but more of a manager and the current principal was told by the
superintendent to fix the school and get it out of PI. Upon meeting with all teachers
individually and with grade level teams, he concluded that there was little alignment
within grade levels as well as within the school. The principal stated that normally, he
would have taken the first year to get to know the school climate before making any
substantial changes, however this was a unique situation where change had to happen
almost immediately. Some of the changes that occurred that first year included; a focus
on language arts and teaching the fundamentals of reading, a focus on writing, and
extending the 30-minute ELD instructional block to meet the needs of their students. The
principal also attended all collaboration meetings to gain a more thorough understanding
253

of what each grade level needed and to monitor teachers’ use of collaboration time. After
his first year at Island, the school showed a nine-point increase in their API as well as
reaching their AYP targets.
In January 2005 when the principal first arrived at Island, the staff was feeling
panicked about their Year 5 PI status as well as a strong distrust in the administration.
They felt a lack of instructional support and leadership for years and expressed this to
him in their many meetings. The principal saw a need for more collaboration time and
direction to allow teachers to plan and analyze data to meet student needs. The following
school year, 2006/2007, the district implemented an early release day once per week to
allow for collaboration. Teacher collaboration time was structured through Professional
Learning Communities (PLCs) and as a staff; Island strove to make the most out of their
meetings.
Set Ambitious Goals
When the principal arrived at Island, he met with each grade level and discussed
their grade level concerns and needs. One topic that teachers brought up was the lack of
any academic goals for the students. Each teacher had a different system within their own
classroom for setting student goals yet they all admitted that on the whole, the students
were unaware of these goals. Seeing that this was a school-wide need, the principal
decided that there needed to be a protocol in place for helping students set goals for their
academic achievement. At the beginning of each school year, the teachers at Island met
with the students individually for a data conference. Initially, the principal requested that
the teacher review each student’s writing scores, CST data, and reading level. This was a
254

struggle for many teachers but as the years have progressed, the teachers have embraced
the data and often bring in additional information to become familiar with each student’s
needs. At the conferences, the student and teacher together created goals for the
upcoming school year in reading, math, and language development. Throughout the
school year, the teacher reviewed student data through the SMART system as well as
classroom formative assessments to continuously monitor student progress towards their
goals. Awards were given out during the school year for students making progress
towards their goals at formal award ceremonies as well as within the classroom. A more
formal conference was held with each student towards the end of the school year to
reflect on his or her progress. The principal stated that this process is still a work in
progress but seems to be effectively involving students in their own education.
The current principal at Island stated that he and the staff had set professional
development goals for themselves. At a staff meeting at the end of the 2005/2006 school
year the principal presented the most current student data and the staff took part in
determining what professional development was needed. The staff decided that the
Reciprocal Teaching (RT) strategy was not being universally implemented. They had
received training but had not had any further support or follow-up to assist with the
implementation and had let it fall by the wayside. The few teachers who had been
implementing RT within their classrooms had seen the benefit and spoke about the
strategy and its effect on their students. The principal set the goal with the staff to retrain
in RT and provide on-going support.
255

The principal and staff also chose to focus on helping their EL students with
language acquisition. According to the data, EL students were making very little progress
were falling farther and farther behind the state requirements. The district adopted the
program, Language for Learning which was implemented at Island, but the staff felt that
the mandated 30 minutes was not sufficient for their EL students. The program had a
vocabulary component, a writing component as well as a listening and speaking
component. The staff all received training from the publisher at a summer training day
before school began in 2006/2007.
Change the Curriculum Program & Create a New Instructional Vision
The core curricular program offered at Island Elementary has had minimal change
over the past few years with the exception of a recent math adoption. They continue to
use the Houghton-Mifflin reading and science program, the newly adopted Scott
Foresman-Addison Wesley math curriculum, and the McMillan/McGraw-Hill social
science program. Island also uses the “Get Ahead” writing program as well as the “Mind
Institute” for math.
The “Get Ahead” writing program that focuses on the narrative, response to
literature, research report, description, summary, persuasive, and expository genres of
writing. A direct instruction model is used to provide the information to the students. A
professional development model of theory, demonstration, practice, feedback, and
coaching were provided to the teachers throughout the program implementation.
The “Mind Institute” in math is a visual approach through software, textbooks,
and professional development for students and teachers. The process engages the
256

students’ spatial reasoning in their abilities to explain, understand, and solve multi-step
problems. The program was aligned to state standards and provided interactive computer
game opportunities for the students to learn at their individual level. Students were able
to self-pace themselves through the coursework. At Island, the “Mind Institute” was used
as a supplemental program to the core math program. However, the principal admitted
that some teachers allowed the “Mind Institute” to supplant the core program.
The district has 5.75 FTE curriculum specialists at the district office who
primarily work with aligning the state standards with the curriculum to ensure that all key
grade level standards are being taught. These curriculum specialists provide a curriculum
map for each core subject to assist teachers in pacing their lessons so that standards can
be taught before the administration of the CST.
Formative Assessment & Data-based Decision Making
At Island, all teachers were expected to administer district benchmarks in math
and language arts four times per year. The results of those benchmarks were posted in the
district’s web-based data system, SMART. The principal was initially the primary user of
the system however over the years with much support, the teachers became active users
of the systems as well and utilized it to monitor student progress and identify students for
intervention. He stated that he had to teach the staff how to access the information and
utilize the data they were seeing. Part of this training was to become more fully aware of
the state standards and what students were being asked to learn. This training took place
during the school day in half-day sessions with the principal and TOSAs while substitutes
covered classrooms.
257

An assessment that was used at the beginning of each school year that allowed the
teachers to gain some information on each student was the Dynamic Indicators of Basic
Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). This assessment was given to every student in grades K-
3 to measure the acquisition of early literacy skills. If a student was identified as “at-
risk”, an additional assessment was given, the Comprehensive Literacy Assessment
(CLA). This further identified where students were breaking down with their literacy
skills and the teacher targeted students for intervention as well as continued to monitor
their progress through additional DIBELS assessments throughout the year. Along with
the CLA, each student in grades K-6 were administered an assessment that measures their
instructional reading level. Teachers used this data to assist them in differentiating the
language arts program. All data gleaned from these assessments were entered into the
SMART system for teachers and administrators to utilize.
On-going, Intensive Professional Development
For three years, Island Elementary teachers have attended numerous professional
development sessions in areas of Reciprocal Teaching (RT). The staff had decided that
this was a necessary area of focus to help their students improve. RT is an instructional
strategy designed to assist students in improving their reading comprehension abilities
through a series of questions (On-the-Surface and Under-the-Surface) while also teaching
students to clarify, predict, and summarize what they have read. Island had seven .5 FTE
TOSAs on site to provide professional development, coaching opportunities for teachers,
teach during the ELD block, as well as provide intervention for students during the
school day. The TOSAs were able to model lessons for the classroom teacher and provide
258

feedback regarding a lesson taught by the teacher in classrooms. The TOSAs at Island
were going into classrooms to model RT lessons that included time following the lesson
to meet with the teacher(s) to debrief what had been seen and then plan a follow-up
lesson to be taught by the teacher. Substitutes were provided to release teachers to
observe in their colleagues’ classrooms. This format of lesson studies proved to be one
that was well-received by the teachers and effective for the students.
The teachers at Island also spent a year receiving ongoing professional
development through the “Mind Institute”. The principal explained that the TOSAs
received the training first and then were able to provide support throughout the school
year. The teachers received one full day training before the school year began and two
additional full days of training during the school year. TOSAs were able to provide
support within the classrooms and during PLC time on Wednesdays.
At the district level, Angels School District offers professional development
opportunities through what is referred to as the “Smart Pages Staff Development”.
Teachers can register online to attend a variety of after-school trainings provided by the
district’s curriculum TOSAs under the Curriculum and Instruction department. Up until
the 2009/2010 school year, teachers were able to receive a stipend for attending the
training. However, due to the budget crisis, teachers are no longer able to receive
payment for attendance and unfortunately, this has affected the amount of teachers who
attend the trainings.

259

Using Time Efficiently & Effectively
The demands placed on teachers can be intense and the teachers at Island
Elementary were not utilizing their instructional time to its fullest. For example, they
were not faithfully implementing the mandated 30-minute ELD block of instruction.
Once the staff received training on the new program, Language for Learning, the
principal implemented a school-wide ELD time with continued focus on EL students
during core instruction in the Houghton Mifflin language arts program. The expectation
however was that for the 30 minutes following recess, all teachers and students would be
involved in ELD. Students were grouped according their California English Language
Development Test (CELDT) proficiency bands (Beginning, Early Intermediate,
Intermediate, Early Advanced, and Advanced) as well as the English Only students and
reported to their ELD teacher when the bell rang to end recess.
The principal also implemented a “no interruption” policy with the office staff
during ELD and ELA instructional blocks. The direction was that classrooms were not to
be interrupted with phone calls unless in cases of an emergency. Schedules for library,
computer lab, and music were also adjusted to ensure a minimal amount of interruptions.
This had been an area of specific frustration for the staff for many years and one that was
expressed to the principal upon his arrival.
Extended Learning Time for Struggling Students
Extensive support was offered to struggling students at Island Elementary through
both pull-out and push-in services where the teacher came into the classroom to provide
support during the school day. Students in grades one and two, for example, experienced
260

a “Key Club” which is a 30-45 minute pull-out program that delivered an assessment-
based instruction to increase specific skills in reading and math five days per week. In
grades four through six, some struggling students received High Point, a state-adopted
core replacement program to accelerate learning. Other students were provided smaller
class sizes or groups through the TOSAs in morning support in language arts. English
Learners received specific instruction to improve fluency and literacy through the ELD
program as well as push-in opportunities during Houghton Mifflin utilizing the EL
Handbook.
Another intervention that Island provided was to utilize TOSAs to bring class
sizes down in grades one through three. Each class was taken down to twenty-two
students per room for the English language arts instructional block, which was the first
two hours of the day. In Kindergarten, a TOSA was added to the team to make class sizes
smaller for the entire school day. These interventions lasted the duration of the school
year.
The kindergarten students at Island were able to participate in a “Core Plus”
program, which extended the school day by 106 minutes four days per week. Students
were identified for the intervention opportunity through data gathered from DIBELS, the
CLA, as well as other classroom formative assessments. Teachers used the program
“Voyager” with the kinder students that focused on intensive phonics instruction. To
ensure that students were able to attend the “Core Plus” program, transportation was
provided.

261

Collaborative, Professional Culture
When the principal first arrived at Island, the staff was ready to accept change.
For the past five years, the staff has worked with the principal to continue to grow as a
collaborative community. With the introduction of Professional Learning Communities
(PLCs) in the 2007/2008 school year, teachers were given the much desired time to
effectively collaborate. The PLCs provided a much-needed focus to the teachers’
collaboration time. In the past, grade levels met and were often off-task doing “prep”
work. The principal concluded that there was a lack of accountability for the grade level
meetings, so he created a worksheet for teachers to bring with them to their PLC meeting
to discuss data, monitor student progress, and modify their instruction. On Wednesdays,
students were released one hour early from school to allow for collaboration time.
Teachers met weekly for often more than an hour in PLCs and each teacher had time to
share their data and what interventions are being done to meet their students’ needs. They
also shared what’s worked well and what challenges they have faced. The other members
of their group had the opportunity to answer the question, “Do you have any suggestions
or advice?” The teachers at Island were a bit reluctant about talking to each other in this
manner at first, but as time progressed and the process became more comfortable, they
opened up to each other. They responded very well to the input from their peers and
continued to say that they learned so much from each other.
Widespread & Distributed Instructional Leadership
The principal at Island felt that the school was in desperate need of cohesiveness
and alignment. He established a leadership team that assisted him in developing the
262

school’s action plan and ideally develop and carry out the school’s vision. The
Leadership Team consisted of one teacher per grade level as well as the on-site TOSAs
and the Vice-Principal. He was extremely selective in which teachers were chosen to
participate in the Leadership Team. It was his philosophy that in order to create change at
some grade levels, he needed to identify the person at each grade level who was most
open to change. Those teachers would then ideally be the leader and example to their
peers. This decision proved to be an effective one and non-Leadership Team teachers had
requested a turn to serve on the decision-making team. The principal then made it a two-
year rotating committee. The Leadership Team met once per month to discuss
professional development opportunities and needs, student achievement data, and to
problem solve any issues that had arisen.
Professional & Best Practices
After five years under the leadership of the current principal, Island Elementary
had come a long way towards a more professional and collaborative school culture. It
was decided that best practices through Reciprocal Teaching, continued alignment and
training in the state standards, faithful implementation of the 30 minute ELD instructional
block, and the implementation of interventions for struggling students would assist them
in further meeting the needs of all students. With the guidance of the principal, the staff
continued to work on their collaboration processes and procedures through PLCs as well
as the utilization of the school-site TOSAs who support instruction through modeling
lessons in the core curriculum as well as lessons that implement instructional strategies.
263

Table M.1 is a summary of how Island Elementary School implemented the 10
steps that were recommended by Odden and Archibald (2009) for doubling student
performance.

264

Table M.1: Island and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Average Weak N/A
Understanding
performance
problem and
challenge
X Staff understands the urgency of the pressing
problems they face through the implementation of
NCLB. Having been a previous Year 5 PI school,
they are aware of the consequences.
Set ambitious
goals
X Angels SD does not have clearly established and
explicit goals for students. Each school site is left to
determine its own goals. Island has ambitious goals
for the students as well as for the staff. The
stakeholders at Island were key in creating the goals.
Change
curriculum
program/create
new instructional
vision
X Upon the arrival of the new principal, most core
programs did not change. Through the state adoption
cycle, a new math program was adopted. Additional
programs were implemented to support intervention
opportunities, student achievement in the core
programs, and the ELD program.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions
X The school uses the district’s student data system
(SMART) to monitor student progress, identify
students for intervention, and refine the teacher’s
instructional practices. The staff uses the data
system to evaluate programs, instruction, and
interventions.
Ongoing PD

X The principal and staff collaboratively determined
the areas of focus for professional development.
District TOSAs were used to provide trainings
throughout the school year as well as before school
begins for the year.
Using time
efficiently &
effectively
X The instructional schedule at Island has been
readjusted to avoid classroom interruptions and to
allow for the implementation of ELD time.
Extended
learning time for
struggling
students
X The site TOSAs were able to offer interventions
during the day through “Key Club”, “High Point”
and “Core Plus” opportunities. Utilizing data,
students are able to fluidly move in and out of
intervention programs depending on their progress.
Collaborative,
professional
culture
X Teachers meet for grade level collaboration one day
per week in PLCs. This collaboration should be
structured to allow for planning and evaluation of
data as well as interventions for various students.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership
X The principal along with the Leadership Team
contributed to the decision-making process at Island.
Professional and
best practices
X Teachers continue to refine their skills with the
established instructional strategies to meet all
students’ needs.
265

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
For the most part, the resource allocation at Island Elementary falls far short of
the recommendations of the Evidence-Based Model (EBM). The majority of the
differences fall in the areas of class size, core teachers, instructional coaches, and other
pupil support staff. Table M.2 shows a comparison of the resource allocations in the
EBM through a prototypical school and the actual resource allocation at Island
Elementary School.

266

Table M.2: Comparison of Island Elementary Resource Allocation to EBM
School Element Evidence-Based Model
Island Elementary –
Current Resource
Status
Island Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-6; 696 Students
Class Size K-3: 15; 4-5: 25
K, 3: 32; 1-2: 25; 4-6:
33

Instructional Days
200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
180
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Half-day kindergarten
Administrative Support
Principal/Asst.
Principal
1.0 FTE
1.0 FTE principal
0.5 FTE Asst.
Principal
1.0 FTE Principal
0.6 FTE Asst.
Principal
School Site Secretary 1.0 Secretary and 1.0 Clerical
1.0 Secretary
1.0 Clerical
1.6 Secretary
1.6 Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 23.0 FTE 36.8 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers
0 FTE specialist
teacher
4.6 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE
5.0 FTE TOSAs (4
full-time, and 2 @ .5)
3.5 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling
students
One for every 100 poverty
students
612 students of
poverty
0.0 FTE
6.0 FTE
Teachers for EL
students
An additional 1.0 FTE for
every 100 EL students
473 EL students
0.0 FTE
4.7 FTE
Non-instructional
support for EL
students
0.0 FTE
0.42 FTE clerical
support at district
office
0.0 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.0 2.5 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0.0 2.5 FTE

267

Table M.2, Continued
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild
disabled students
Additional 3.0 professional
teacher positions
2.13 FTE (total)
1.0 FTE RSP teacher
0.33 FTE Psychologist
0.8 FTE Speech
Pathologist
For a total of 4.26
FTE
4.8 FTE
Severely disabled
students
100% state reimbursement
minus federal funds
None at this school
site

Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes
5% of personnel resources
and special education
personnel
$12,111 $24,750
Pupil support staff
1.0 FTE for every 100
poverty students
407 students of
poverty
1.0 FTE Community
Liaison
1.0 FTE Attendance
Liaison
0.375 FTE Health
Clerk
0.33 FTE Nurse
4.0 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 1.5 FTE (3 @ 0.5) 0.0
Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 FTE
0.0 FTE 3.2 FTE
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 FTE
1.0 FTE Librarian
1.0 FTE Technology
Assistant
1.6 FTE
Resources for gifted
students
$25 per student
$0 $17,400
Technology $250 per pupil $28, 350 $174,000
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $88,625 $97,440
Student Activities $200 per pupil $18,965 $139,200
Professional
Development
$100 per pupil for other PD
expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc. not
included above
$29,490 $69,600

268

Summary and Lessons Learned
Island Elementary School made progress in improving student achievement over
the past five years however the school would have entered their first year of Program
Improvement if it had remained open. The principal moved the school forward during the
five years he was there. They had a ninety-three-point increase in their API scores since
his arrival. He moved the staff forward due to his ability to involve all in the decision-
making process as well as helped create a sense of community. The staff members were
willing to delve more deeply into student data to assist them in guiding their instruction
with the initial leadership of the principal and were using the data frequently. The staff at
Island was actively seeking to serve struggling students through providing during the day
interventions.
Future Considerations
Island Elementary continued to work toward meeting the targets set forth by
NCLB. They did not meet their AYP targets this year in English language arts and math
for all subgroups. These failures to meet their targets would have placed them into Year 1
of PI. They would have had to continue to improve by meeting the established targets or
through Safe Harbor or they run the risk of becoming a Year 2 PI school that would have
brought with it a more severe set of sanctions. While the principal had made considerable
efforts to target struggling students and provide assistance to those students, he felt that
there was still substantial work to be done. When asked what additional resources would
be needed to assist in making greater progress with both teachers and students, he stated
269

no specific areas of need. The principal stated that he would have tried to balance
providing support to struggling students with the limited resources they had with trying to
move the school forward and dealing with the requirements that are imposed due to the
Year 1 PI status. He stated that it wasn’t necessarily resources that make the difference
with student achievement, but what you do with those given to you. He felt that the
quality of people you have educating students as well as an attitude of wanting to make a
difference is what had an effect on student achievement.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined the resource allocations at district levels as well as the school site level utilizing Odden & Picus’ (2008) Evidence-Based Model as a framework. Although schools were chosen using participation in the free and reduced lunch program as well as the percentage of Hispanic students, the allocation of resources within each district appeared to vary substantially. Some schools and districts were effectively raising student achievement. Odden and Archibald (2009) present ten strategies to doubling student performance. This study attempted to see how many of these ten strategies are present in the schools being studied as well as if and how resources were being allocated to support those strategies.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

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

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

PDF

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

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 non-title I schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

School-level resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

Adequacy and allocation practices: a cornerstone of program improvement resolution

PDF

Resource use and instructional improvement strategies at the school-site level: case studies from ten southern California elementary schools

PDF

The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within a site-based managed elementary school: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation and instructional improvement strategies in rural single-school elementary districts

Asset Metadata

Creator Druitt, Emma Elizabeth (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/01/2011

Defense Date 02/02/2011

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

Tag educational finance,Educational Leadership,funding adequacy,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource allocation

Place Name California (states), 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 druitt@usc.edu,emmadruitt@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3677

Unique identifier UC1121427

Identifier etd-Druitt-4339 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-416905 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3677 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Druitt-4339.pdf

Dmrecord 416905

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Druitt, Emma Elizabeth

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